Certification of the payroll critical to lawfully paying an individual in the classified service

Certification of the payroll critical to lawfully paying an individual in the classified service

Eldridge v Carmel Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 02620, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Personnel Officer of Putnam County, who also serves as the Personnel Director for the Putnam County Personnel Department, Paul Eldridge, sued the Carmel Central School District’s Board of Education and a number of employees of the District pursuant to Civil Service Law §102(2) to recover certain sums that were allegedly illegally paid by the School District to an individual in the classified service that had been employed by the District without the certification required by the Civil Service Law §100.*

Eldridge contended that the School District “illegally paid or authorized payment of salary or compensation to nonparty Joseph Gramando, totaling approximately $233,245” during the period February 10, 2006 through October 15, 2008, which payments Eldridge alleged were not properly certified as required by Civil Service Law §100(1)(a).

In response to a number of technical objections to the parties named as defendants in Eldridge’s petition, the Appellate Division, noting that the Board of Education was not an officer within the meaning of CSL §100(1)(a), said that Supreme Court should have dismissed Eldridge’s complaint with respect to the Board as an entity being named a defendant but that the complaint sufficiently alleged that School Board members “Kreps, Riley, Dougherty, MacDonald, Nesheiwat, Port, and Shilling,” as individual members of the Board of Education, were "officers by whom [nonparty Joseph Gramando] w[as] appointed in violation of the provisions of law and of the rules made in pursuance of law."

Further, said the court, Eldridge’s complaint sufficiently alleged that the officers of the District that he named in his petition, Terranova, Wilson, Stark, and Haywood, were "officer[s] signing or countersigning or authorizing the signing or countersigning of any warrant for the payment of" salary or compensation distributed to nonparty Joseph Gramando contrary to the provisions of Civil Service Law §100.

Among the defenses raised by the board members and district officers were the following:

1.      Eldridge failed to notify "the appropriate disbursing and auditing officers" that Gramando was being employed in violation of the law. 

 
The Appellate Division rejected the argument, holding that such notice that a person has been "promoted, transferred, assigned, reinstated or otherwise employed" in violation of the law is not a condition precedent to an action to recover sums illegally paid under Civil Service Law §102(2). Further, said the court, the “defendants failed to submit documentary evidence conclusively establishing that the salary and compensation allegedly paid to Gramando in violation of the law was properly certified by the civil service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction, as required by Civil Service Law § 100(1)(a).”

2.      Eldridge failed to serve a timely serve a notice of claim as required by Education Law § 3813(1). 

  
Citing Union Free School Dist. No. 6 of Towns of Islip & Smithtown v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 NY2d 371, the Appellate Division rejected this defense as well, commenting that “Contrary to the defendants' contention, an action commenced pursuant to Civil Service Law §102(2) is an action ‘to vindicate a public interest’ to which the notice of claim requirement in Education Law §3813(1) does not apply.”

 

3.      The action brought was untimely as barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Education Law §3813(2-b). 

  
The court said that "All of the public policy considerations for finding that Education Law §3813's notice of claim requirement is inapplicable to [this action] are equally valid with respect to the Statute of Limitations set forth in [Section 3813(2-b)]" and since the action is to recover upon “a liability, penalty or forfeiture created or imposed by statute" a three-year statute of limitations is applicable. Accordingly, Eldridge’ action to recover sums allegedly illegally paid said the Appellate Division, ‘should be limited to the money paid to Gramando on or after June 2, 2006, citing General Construction Law §20.

In response to another argument advanced by the defendants, the court commented that Eldridge was not required, nor does he have the authority, to extend or terminate provisional appointments. It is the obligation of the appointing authority to terminate all provisional appointments "within two months following the establishment of an appropriate eligible list for filling vacancies" (Civil Service Law §65[3]).

The court explained that power of the civil service department and municipal commission lies in their ability to withhold certification "from an entire payroll or from any item or items therein." (Civil Service Law § 100[1][a]).

The Appellate Division said that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to establish that the individual defendants “continued to pay and approve salary and compensation to Gramando after the expiration of his provisional appointment and without proper certification of the payroll

* Subdivision 1(a) of Civil Service Law §100, Certification of payrolls, in pertinent part, provides that certification of the payroll is required and that “no disbursing or auditing officer of the state or of any civil division thereof shall approve or pay or take any part in approving or paying any salary or compensation for personal service to any person holding an office or position in the classified service unless the voucher or payroll therefor bears the certificate of the civil service department or  municipal commission having jurisdiction that the persons named therein  are employed in their respective positions in accordance with law and  rules made pursuant to law. The certificate of municipal commissions shall also include a statement of membership in an appropriate retirement system where such membership is mandatory.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02620.htm
. 

Inability to obtain a timely waiver to reemploy a person receiving a retirement allowance from a public retirement system of this State does not result in a breach of contract

Inability to obtain a timely waiver to reemploy a person receiving a retirement allowance from a public retirement system of this State does not result in a breach of contract
LaSalle v Board of Educ. of Bridgehampton Union Free School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 02632, Appellate Division, Second Department

Edward J. LaSalle, a retired schoolteacher, applied for a teaching position with the Bridgehampton Union Free School District. In order for LaSalle to be so reemployed without having his retirement allowance adjusted, the district applied for a “§211 waiver” pursuant to §211.2(a) of the Retirement and Social Security Law.*

In essence, if the school district’s application for a §211 waiver for LaSalle was not approved, LaSalle’s earnings could not exceed the statutory annual earnings limitation of $27,500, which was the sum then applicable to him.** [The maximum currently permitted without loss of retirement benefits set out in RSSL §212 absent a waiver is $30,000. However, there is no earning limitations in or after the calendar year in which the retired individual attains age 65.]

LaSalle signed a salary notification for the school year containing a notation that the salary was "pending NYS waiver for Retiree." In addition, a resolution of the board of education appointing LaSalle as a teacher recited that the hiring was "effective" September 5, 2006. The resolution did not contain termination date for the period of employment but it did state that confirmation of his appointment was "pending NYS Education Department waiver for employment of retiree." The school superintendent also wrote to LaSalle to the same effect.

The school district’s waiver application, which it had submitted in June 2006, was denied.

The district then resubmitted a second waiver application and LaSalle commenced teaching on September 5, 2006.

However, by November 2006 LaSalle was close to the maximum compensation he could earn without have his retirement allowance adjusted and the State Department of Education had not acted on its resubmitted waiver application.

In view of the situation, the district offered LaSalle a number of options, including “placement of his retirement benefits on hold, resignation prior to the date when his salary would reach the statutory earnings limitation, or termination of employment.”

LaSalle elected to resign, which resignation took effect prior to the district’s receiving the Education Department’s approval of the §211 application it had filed on behalf of LaSalle.

LaSalle then sued the district “to recover damages for breach of contract and wrongful termination of employment.”

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that the district had established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law when it dismissed LaSalle’ petition.

Failure to obtain the required waiver in a timely fashion may result in a financial liability to the retiree.

For example, in Freda v Board of Educ. of City of New York, 224 A.D.2d 360, the court ruled that the NYC Police Retirement System could “recoup” over $100,000 of the retirement allowance that had been paid to Freda because the required §211 approval had not been obtained prior to his being reemployed by the New York City Board of Education following his retirement from the New York City Police Department.

N.B. RSSL §217.1 requires "school salary transparency and disclosure" and mandates that school districts and all BOCES to report " all monies earned by a retired person in their employ that is in excess of the limitations set out in §212 to the appropriate retirement system and to the appropriate political subdivision. RSSL §217.2 requires the school district or the BOCES employing a retired person "who is eligible to collect or is already collecting a retirement allowance" to report, among other things, all earnings of such an individual to the appropirate retirement system and to the State Comptroller.


*The Optional Retirement Plans, available to certain employees of SUNY, CUNY, the statutory colleges at Cornell and Alfred Universities, the community colleges and the New York State Department of Education, are not public retirement systems of this State within the meaning of Article V, §7 of the State Constitution.

** RSSL §211.2(a), in pertinent part, provides that ”No retired person may be employed in a position in public service pursuant to subdivision one hereof except upon approval of  …  (2) the commissioner of education if such person is to be employed in the unclassified service of a school district other than the city of New York, a board of cooperative educational services or a county vocational education and extension board.... The

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02632.htm

Considering “mitigating factors” in setting a disciplinary penalty

Considering “mitigating factors” in setting a disciplinary penalty
Matter of Senior v Board of Education of Byram Hills Cent. School Dist., 37 AD3d 610,

The Board of Education of the Byram Hills Central School District adopted the findings of a disciplinary hearing officer that concluded that Fenton Senior was guilty of the charges of misconduct filed against him. The charge alleged that Senior was involved in an altercation with a co-worker. The penalty imposed by the Board: termination of Senior’s employment with the School District.

The Appellate Division, after affirming the finding that Senior was guilty of the charges filed against him, annulled the penalty imposed: termination. The court said that “the penalty of termination imposed was so disproportionate to the petitioner's conduct as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,” citing Matter of Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The court then remanded the case to the School Board “for the imposition of an appropriate penalty less severe than the termination of [Senior’s] employment.”

The reason given by the Appellate Division for remanding the case for the purpose of imposing a lesser penalty: The Board “failed to give adequate consideration to certain mitigating factors.”

The “mitigating factors” listed by the court: Strong’s four-year employment record was unblemished, and he performed good deeds in the community.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/physical-altercation-with-coworker.html
.

Fitness for promotion

Fitness for promotion
Alston v City of New York, 270 AD2d 3

Sometimes an employee sues the appointing authority in an effort to secure a promotion. Alston, a New York City caseworker, complaining that he had been denied a promotion because of his earlier conviction for Federal mail fraud. Alston asked a Supreme Court justice to direct his agency, New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services, to promote him to a supervisory position. Alston’s theory: Children’s Services’ failure to promote him constituted a violation of Section 296.15 of the Executive Law (New York’s Civil Rights Law).*
 
The Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s dismissal of Alston’s petition on the grounds that the caseworker’s allegations concerning the reasons why he was denied the promotion -- conviction of a crime -- were speculative.

In contrast, the court noted that record “set out evidence of [Alston’s] mediocre performance as a caseworker and of [Alston’s] prior attempt to deceive ACS by seeking a medical leave when he had actually taken a job with another City agency.”

Further, the court said that it concluded that Alston’s mail fraud conviction, which involved his submission of false car service vouchers in connection with his employment as a caseworker, raises legitimate issues about his fitness for the supervisory position.

* Another element relevant to this case: Section 752 of New York’s Correction Law. Section 752, in general, prohibits an employer from considering an applicants’ conviction of a crime in making its employment decision.

Court of Appeals hold that wage freeze by Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority applies to wages lost during the freeze and to longevity and promotional steps

Court of Appeals hold that wage freeze by Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority applies to wages lost during the freeze and to longevity and promotional steps
Matter of Meegan v Brown, 2011 NY Slip Op 02436, Court of Appeals

The State Legislature created the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (BFSA), a public benefit corporation, to assist in achieving fiscal stability in the City by the 2006-2007 fiscal year.

Among other powers, the BFSA was authorized to impose a wage freeze upon finding that such a freeze was essential to the adoption or maintenance of a City budget or financial plan – which it did in April 2004, determining "that a wage freeze, with respect to the City and all Covered Organizations, is essential to the maintenance of the Revised Financial Plan and to the adoption and maintenance of future budgets and financial plans that are in compliance with the Act."

The freeze, effective April 2004, prevented any increase in wages, including increased payments for salary adjustments according to "plan and step-ups or increments".

The freeze was lifted in July 2007, whereupon the BFSA and the City indicated that City employees would immediately be entitled to a one-step increase in salary and wages. The Unions objected, however, contending that the employees were entitled to advance the four salary steps that they would have received had the freeze not been imposed.

The Union sued and Supreme Court held that Public Authorities Law Section §3858 (2)(c)(iii) applies only to wages lost during the freeze and not to longevity and promotional steps provided in the various contracts between the City and its unions and therefore the teachers were "entitled to their previously negotiated wage increase benefits going forward immediately."

Although the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court ruling for essentially the same reasons, (see 63 AD3d 1673 [4th Dept 2009]), the Court of Appeals reversed, holding: “Public Authorities Law § 3850-a sets forth the Legislature's intent. In that provision, the Legislature declared that the "maintenance of a balanced budget by the city of Buffalo is a matter of overriding state concern." This remedial legislation was enacted to provide the city of Buffalo with "long-term fiscal stability," ensuring confidence of investors in the City's bonds and notes and to protect the economy of the region (id.). The Act further provides that "[t]he provisions of this title shall be liberally construed to assist the effectuation of the public purposes furthered hereby" (id. § 3873). Thus, the entire purpose of the statute was to place the city of Buffalo on sound financial ground over the long term. In order to accomplish such purpose, BFSA was empowered to freeze wages and salary increments until the City's growth and stability were renewed. The intent of the statute supports the City's position.”

The Court of Appeal’s decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02436.htm
.

Only a resident of the town may be appointed to serve in a public office of the town

Only a resident of the town may be appointed to serve in a public office of the town
Matter of Ricket v Mahan, 2011 NY Slip Op 02520, Appellate Division, Third Department

After the Town Board of the Town of Colonie passed two resolutions — one appointing John H. Cunningham to a two-year term as Commissioner of Public Works and another appointing Michael M. Burick to a six-year term as Personnel Officer, Theodore W. Ricket, a resident of the Town of Colonie, commenced an Article 78 proceeding challenging both appointments.

Ricket contended that Cunningham's appointment was invalid because he did not reside in the Town, nor did he possess the qualifications established for this position by the Town in its local law.*

As to Burick's appointment as Personnel Officer, Ricket complained that the appointment was invalid because, under the Town Law, as the Town Board was only authorized to appoint him for the remainder of his predecessor's unexpired term.

Supreme Court dismissed Ricket’s petition with respect to Cunningham but determined that Burick could only be appointed by the Town Board for the unexpired portion of his predecessor's term, and so modified his appointment to this position.

Both the Town and Ricket, respectively, appealed the Supreme Court’s rulings.

By way of background, the Appellate Division noted that after the Town had abolished the Office of Superintendent of Highways — an elected position that could only be held by a Town resident — it enacted a local law creating the position of Commissioner of Public Works - Town of Colonie Code §34 This local law, among other things, provided for “an appointed position with a definite term, and set forth a description of the position's official responsibilities and the qualifications needed to be appointed to this position.” However, the local law was silent as to whether the appointee had to be a Town resident.

Since the local law is silent as to whether the Commissioner of Public Works must be a Town resident, the Appellate Division ruled that the issue presented is whether state law serves to impose such a requirement. First, noted the court, the Town, when it enacted this local law, made no reference to any state statute, nor did it identify in the local law any state statute that it intended to supercede.

In this context, the Appellate Division noted that two state statutes are implicated by this proceeding.

1. The Public Officers Law §3(1), provides that "[n]o person shall be capable of holding a civil office who shall not, at the time he [or she] shall be chosen thereto, . . . be a citizen of the United States, a resident of the state, and if it be a local office, a resident of the political subdivision or municipal corporation of the state for which he [or she] shall be chosen, or within which the electors electing him [or her] reside" (emphasis by the court);** and

2. The Town Law §23(1), states that all "elective officer[s] of the town" and "[e]very other officer of the town at the time of his [or her] appointment and throughout his [or her] term of office shall be an elector of the town" (emphasis by the court). An elector of a town is an individual who may register as a voter therein regardless of whether that person has actually registered (see 1985 Atty Gen [Inf Op] 143).

Although the Town Law identifies some town officers that must be town residents, such as town supervisor and superintendent of highways, this listing, said the court, is not exhaustive and specifically provides that "[a]ll other officers and employees in such a town shall be appointed by the town board." In other words, the state law provides that if a town enacts a local law creating a public or civil office and the person appointed to it is a town officer, the appointee must be a town resident.

However, as neither the Public Officers Law nor the Town Law defines what constitutes a public or civil office or who qualifies as a town officer, the Appellate Division ruled  that such a determination must of necessity depend upon the nature of the position, its role in town governance and whether the position involved has responsibilities that require a "high degree of initiative and independent judgment" The Appellate Division also noted “other factors to be considered are whether an oath of office*** is required and whether the appointment is for a definite term,” citing 2006 Atty Gen [Inf Op] 1032).

The court then ruled:

“Here, the Commissioner of Public Works takes an oath of office (see Town of Colonie Code § 34-10), serves a two-year term and, according to the Town Code, is "the principal executive officer and administrative head of the Department of Public Works . . . with such powers as shall be necessary for the proper administration of the Department of Public Works consistent with applicable laws" (Town of Colonie Code § 34-3 [A]). Given the nature of this position — and the crucial role it plays providing essential services for the Town — we conclude that the Commissioner of Public Works is a town officer who must be a town resident. Since Cunningham has acknowledged that he was not a Town resident when he was appointed to this position, and does not intend to become one in the future, his appointment as Commissioner of Public Works does not comport with relevant state law and is invalid.

Const, art VIII, § 1), we note that no one has claimed during this proceeding that these payments were not made for services rendered. As such, the conclusion reached herein does not serve to alter the fact that Cunningham earned the compensation for which he was paid and, as such, the salary and benefits he earned while serving in this position did not constitute an illegal gift of public funds.

“As for Burick's appointment as Personnel Officer, the Town Law specifically provides that "[w]henever a vacancy shall occur or exist in any town office, the town board or a majority of the members thereof, may appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy" and that when "the appointment [is] made to fill a vacancy in an appointive office, the person so appointed shall hold office for the remainder of the unexpired term" (Town Law §64[5] [emphasis by the court). This provision is controlling and, thus, as Supreme Court found, Burick's appointment as Personnel Officer must be limited to the remainder of his predecessor's unexpired term (see Civil Service Law §15[1][b])****.”

* Ricket also sought a declaration that the salary and benefits paid to Cunningham while he served as Commissioner constituted "an unconstitutional gift of public funds" that must be returned to the Town.

** An elector of a town is an individual who may register as a voter therein regardless of whether that person has actually registered (see 1985 Atty Gen [Inf Op] 143).

*** See, also, Civil Service Law §62 which, in pertinent part, “Every person employed by the state or any of its civil divisions, except an employee in the labor class, before he shall be entitled to enter upon the discharge of any of his duties, shall take and file an oath or affirmation in the form and language prescribed by the constitution for executive, legislative and judicial officers….. execute his or her requires “Constitutional oath upon appointment.”

**** Civil Service Law §15[1][b], in pertinent part, provides that the Personnel of a suburban town described in subdivision four of section two of this chapter shall be appointed by the town board of such town. … The term of office of a personnel officer shall be six years…. A personnel officer shall have all the powers and duties of a municipal civil service commission.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:  
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02520.htm
.