The Moreland Commission recently established by Governor Cuomo to investigate corruption in the public service issues its first subpoenas

The Moreland Commission recently established by Governor Cuomo to investigate corruption in the public service issues its first subpoenas

The editorial team of the NYMUNIBLOG, published by the Harris Beach law firm as a public service, has posted a new item, "Moreland Commission Issues First Subpoenas." The post reports that the Moreland Commission recently appointed by Governor Cuomo to investigate corruption in the public service has issued its “first wave of subpoenas” and that more subpoenas are expected to be issued in the near future. The Commission has scheduled initial public hearings to be held in September. 

The Moreland Act, now §6 of Executive Law, was passed by the New York State Legislature and signed into law in 1907. The Act authorizes the governor, in person or through one or more persons appointed by the governor, to examine the management and affairs of any department, board, bureau or commission of the State. Commission investigators have the power to interview witnesses, administer oaths, hold hearings, and seize any material deemed relevant to the Commission's investigation.

The Commission is expected to releasing an interim report by the end of 2013 and its final report in mid-2014. 

Additional information on the scope of investigations undertaken by a Moreland Commission is posted on the Harris Beach Legal Alert website at  “Insights into the history and intricacies of a Moreland Commission investigation.”
.

Reports and audits issued by the New York State Comptroller

Reports and audits issued by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending August 19, 2013. [Click on text highlighted in bold to access the full report.] 

State Recovers $46 Million in Medicaid Payments Following DiNapoli Audit

New York state was able to recover $46 million in overpayments to nursing homes after an audit by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli found the Department of Health’s computer system failed to deduct payments some nursing home residents are required to pay for their care, according to a follow–up reportissued August 17, 2013 by DiNapoli. The new report, however, notes that deficiencies in the computer system still exist.

Contractor Charged in Federal Court for Defrauding NYS Health Department of Over $700,000

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara Wednesday announced chargesagainst JOSEPH L. JUNKOVIC for allegedly engaging in a scheme to defraud the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) out of more than $700,000 dedicated to providing cancer screening services to low–income New Yorkers. JUNKOVIC allegedly used a not–for–profit corporation that he controlled, Cancer Service Network, Inc. to obtain more than $25 million in federal and state funding to administer cancer screening services, and then billed the NYSDOH for thousands of hours that he did not in fact work. He was arrested at his Bronx home Wednesday morning and presented in Manhattan federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis.

DiNapoli: State Fiscal Picture Stable

Tax collections were $18 million below updated projections during July, but receipts since the start of the fiscal year were 13.3 percent higher than last year because of strong personal income tax (PIT) receipts in April, according to the July cash report released Friday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. July tax collections were 5.2 percent higher than last year, largely from an additional collection day for PIT withholding this month.

DiNapoli: New Medicaid Reimbursement Method Leads to $31 Million in Overpayments

The state Department of Health made as much as $31 million in excessive Medicaid payments for patients who died within 24 hours of being admitted to a hospital after a new method of calculating hospital payments went into effect, according to an auditreleased August 16, 2013 by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli: Long Island Pharmacy Swindled State Out Of $235,000

A Long Island pharmacy improperly collected at least $235,000 from Medicaid and the New York State Health Insurance Program over a four–year period, primarily through payments for phony prescriptions that were never delivered to patients, according to audits released Tuesday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

Audit Finds New York City Property Owners Underreported $20 Million in Billboard Income

Hundreds of New York City property owners failed to report an estimated $20 million of taxable income from billboards according to an auditreleased Thursday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli which was coordinated with New York City Comptroller John C. Liu. Auditors found the New York City Department of Finance failed to follow up on whether property owners were reporting income and did not impose penalties for late or inaccurate information.

NYS Common Retirement Fund Announces First Quarter Results

The New York State Common Retirement Fund’s (Fund) overall rate of return for the first quarter ending June 30, 2013, was 0.29 percent, according to New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The Fund’s estimated value at the end of the first quarter of its fiscal year was $158.7 billion.

Comptroller DiNapoli Releases Municipal Audits

the Town of Alexandria;

the Village of Bolivar;

the Town of Coldspring;

the City of Glens Falls;

the Grahamsville Fire District;

the Town of Kendall;

the Mastics–Moriches–Shirley Community Library;

the Roosevelt Fire District;

the Schuyler County Sheriff’s Department;

and, the Steuben County Soil and Water Conservation District.

.

Audit reports released by State Comptroller DiNapoli on August 16, 2013

Audit reports released by State Comptroller DiNapoli on August 16, 2013

On August 16, 2013, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the following audits were issued. . [Click on text highlighted in bold to access the full report.] 

Department of Agriculture and Markets, Uncollected Penalties (2012-S-69)
Auditors found outstanding accounts routinely have no collection activity for two years or more and are often eventually deemed uncollectible. Between April 2007 and October 2012, more than 6,000 penalized establishments went out of business resulting in the withdrawal and write off of more than $3.5 million of accounts receivable. Critical but incompatible duties associated with collection are all assigned to one employee. An absence of management oversight has increased the risk that errors, omissions and even irregularities can occur and not be detected.

Department of Motor Vehicles, Oversight and Collection of Snowmobile Registration Fees (2011-S-54)
DMV practices have allowed snowmobile registration discounts to registrants who are ineligible for them, resulting in less revenue to the trail fund for trail services. As a result, 31 of the 50 discounted registrations (62 percent) auditors sampled were for registrants for whom neither DMV nor the New York State Snowmobile Association could confirm eligibility. Given the weaknesses identified, auditors estimate lost revenues to the trail fund may be significant.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Selected Aspects of Bus Fleet Maintenance Report (2013-F-8)
An initial audit report in 2010 examined whether the MTA has standards and procedures for the maintenance of its bus fleet, performs bus maintenance in compliance with these standards and procedures, and has a comprehensive maintenance plan for its bus fleet. Auditors found that a number of improvements were needed. In a follow-up report, auditors found the MTA made significant progress in correcting the problems identified.

The MTA has implemented four recommendations and partially implemented three recommendations.

Also, as part of a statewide initiative to determine whether the use of travel money by selected government employees was appropriate, auditors looked at travel expenses for the highest-cost travelers in the state for the following state entities:

State University of New York System Administration Office, Selected Employee Travel Expenses (2012-S-100)
Auditors selected to audit one State University of New York System Administration Office employee whose expenses ranked among the highest in the state in the area of lodging. In total, they examined $188,074 in travel costs associated with this employee. Most of the expenses examined were appropriate. However, the employee selected for audit had charges totaling $5,021 that were either for non-reimbursable expenses ($200 hotel room smoking charge) or lacked adequate assurance that the charges were for the most reasonable and economical method of travel ($4,821 in car service charges).

State University of New York College at Buffalo, Selected Employee Travel Expenses (2012-S-136)
Auditors were only able to examine two years and nine months of the three years of travel expenditures totaling $127,095 because the college was not required to and did not maintain records prior to July 1, 2008. The travel expenses for the one employee selected for audit were documented and adhered to state travel rules and regulations. This employee was an athletic coach who was responsible for team travel expenses. This coach also incurred expenses for recruiting trips.

State University of New York at Stony Brook, Selected Employee Travel Expenses (2012-S-102)
Auditors examined the travel costs of eight university employees whose expenses exceeded $100,000 or had outliers in the area of train fare. In total, auditors examined $1,313,845 in travel costs associated with these eight employees. Most of the expenses auditors examined were appropriate. However, two employees had charges totaling $2,529 that were either not for legitimate business purposes or lacked adequate assurance the charge was solely for legitimate business purposes.
.

Hearsay evidence coupled with nonhearsay evidence held to constitute substantial evidence sufficient to support the appointing authority’s disciplinary decision

Hearsay evidence coupled with nonhearsay evidence held to constitute substantial evidence sufficient to support the appointing authority’s disciplinary decision

2013 NY Slip Op 05630, Appellate Division, Second Department

The appointing authority terminated the employee [Petitioner] following a Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary hearing. Petitioner was found guilty of “misconduct and/or incompetence” and was terminated from her position. Petitioner appealed.

The Appellate confirmed the appointing authority’s determination, explaining that the review of administrative determinations in employee disciplinary cases made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 is limited to a consideration of whether the appointing authority's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Although much of the evidence against Petitioner offered by the employer was hearsay, the Appellate Division said that this hearsay evidence, in conjunction with the nonhearsay evidence presented at the hearing, constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the determination that Petitioner was guilty of the charges brought against her.

As to the penalty imposed, termination, the court said that the penalty was “not so disproportionate to the offense committed as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,” citing Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_05630.htm
.

Court holds that termination of an employee after 19 years of employment because of an isolated incident of misconduct shocking to one's sense of fairness”

Court holds that termination of an employee after 19 years of employment because of an isolated incident of misconduct shocking to one's sense of fairness”

2013 NY Slip Op 51322(U), Supreme Court, Dutchess County, Justice James D. Pagones [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports.].

An employee [Petitioner] was served with a number disciplinary charges pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, found guilty of such charges and dismissed from his position.

In a previous proceeding, the Appellate Division found "that substantial evidence in the record supports the determination of [the appointing authority] that Petitioner was guilty of charges one, two, and three…” Accordingly, Justice Pagones said that in the action before him there was no issue of fact as to Petitioner’s guilt as to charges one, two and three. However, said Justice Pagones, “[t]his Court must now look specifically to the offense(s) and determine whether or not the penalty, termination, shocks the judicial conscience."

The court concluded that although the facts and the charges as sustained by the Appellate Division, “while serious, do not fit the penalty of termination.”

In brief, Petitioner was observed “consuming a beer and a shot of liquor” from approximately 1:40 p.m. until 2:40 p.m during his workday, at which point Petitioner returned to work. "This one hour time frame," said the court, "has now cost [Petitioner] his job and his benefits associated with the position."

Recognizing that Petitioner committed a serious infraction, Justice Pagones ruled that “the penalty of termination of his employment is so disproportionate to the offense committed as be shocking to one's sense of fairness” considering that there was no evidence in the record before the Court that Petitioner “during his nineteen (19) years of employment with [employer] had presented a disciplinary problem or that the incident was anything but isolated.”

Justice Pagones then remitted the matter to the appointing authority for the imposition of a lesser penalty and “held in abeyance pending submissions by [Petitioner] and [appointing authority] of a computation of the value of [Petitioner's] full back pay and benefits less any compensation derived from other employment or any unemployment benefits received from September 9, 2010 until now.”

N.B. With respect to the amount of the back pay to be awarded in the event a discharged employee is reinstated by action of a civil service commission or personnel officer or a court, prior to its amendment in 1985 Civil Service Law §§76 and 77 provided that the amount of back pay due an individual found to have been unlawfully terminated from his or her position was to be reduced by the amount of compensation he or she may have earned in any other employment or occupation following his or her termination, together with any unemployment insurance benefits he or she may have received during that period.

In 1985 §§76 and 77 of the Civil Service Law, which apply to certain employees in the classified service of a public employer, were amended [Chapter 851, Laws of 1985] and currently provide that an employee reinstated pursuant to either of these subdivisions is to receive the salary to which he or she would have otherwise been entitled, less the amount of any unemployment insurance benefit that he or she may have received during such period. The clause providing for a "reduction" in the amount to be paid for any compensation earned in other employment or occupation following his or her termination was eliminated.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_51322.htm

.

Reminder from the Internal Revenue Service to register for its “Rehired Annuitants” online presentation for government employers

Reminder from the Internal Revenue Service to register for its “Rehired Annuitants” online presentation for government employers 

Date and time of the presentation: 
August 15, 2013 at 2 p.m. Eastern Time

The Internal Revenue Service [IRS] advises that payroll tax treatment of a former government employee that returns to work for the same entity may be different than it was prior to their retirement or separation. This presentation will help government employers understand how to comply with the complicated and often misunderstood tax implications of hiring a former employee.

For more information and to register, please read this article and then click on to sign up for this free online presentation.

If you have any questions for the IRS about this presentation, click on send us an e-mail.
.

Unsatisfactory performance rating vacated because of the lack of documentation in the employee’s personnel record

Unsatisfactory performance rating vacated because of the lack of documentation in the employee’s personnel record

2013 NY Slip Op 05598, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court's ruling that dismissed a petition challenging a teacher’s annual unsatisfactory performance rating and annulled the unsatisfactory rating given the educator.

The court said that the New York City Department of Education’s [DOE] determination to sustain the unsatisfactory performance evaluation was not rationally based on administrative findings that the teacher had engaged in corporal punishment as “there was no longer any documentation substantiating an instance of corporal punishment in [the teacher’s] personnel file after the parties stipulated to the removal of two disciplinary letters from the file.”

DOE’s "Rating Pedagogical Staff Members" procedure, in pertinent part, provides:

1. That a teacher's evaluation must be supported by documentation in his/her personnel file;

2. That documentation removed from a file through grievance procedures is inadmissible in performance reviews; and

3. That documentation not addressed directly to a teacher is inadmissible in performance reviews, unless it is attached to and part of another document appropriately placed in the teacher's file.

Further, said the court, materials placed in a teacher's personnel file must include a signature and date line for the teacher, evidencing that he or she has read the material and understands that it will be placed in the file, as well as a signature and date line for a witness; unsigned documents are inadmissible in evaluation reviews.

Citing Appeal of Naomi Dowrie [46 Ed Dept Rep 273, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 15,506, in which the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Education upheld the petitioner's appeal from an unsatisfactory rating on the ground that the respondent had failed to follow its own procedures and had considered material that had been removed from the petitioner's personnel file through the grievance process, i.e., "materials not properly placed in [the] teacher's personal [sic] file," the Appellate Division concluded that there was no documentation in the record to support the unsatisfactory rating give the teacher in this instance.

The court also noted Mangone v Klein, a decision by a State Supreme Court justice in which the court, relying of Dowrie, denied DOE's motion to dismiss the educator’s petition seeking to set aside his unsatisfactory rating upon finding that there was nothing in the teacher's personnel file other than a disciplinary letter that had been ordered to be removed following arbitration related to the allegations against him. [Mangone was not selected for publication in the Official Reports but the decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2007/2007_32475.pdf].

The DOE decision is posted on the Internet at:  http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_05598.htm
.

Designating a Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary hearing officer and making a final disciplinary determination

Designating a Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary hearing officer and making a final disciplinary determination

6 Misc3d 1012(a), Affirmed 48 AD3d 815*

Civil Service Law §75 provides that the appointing authority may designate an individual to conduct a §75 disciplinary hearing and to make findings of fact and recommend the penalty to be imposed. The appointing authority is to then review such findings and recommendation and make the final determination. Where the appointing authority believes it cannot be impartial or is biased against the accused employee, the appointing authority is to delegate the decision-making authority to some other individual authorized to act in his absence. If no such person is available, then the Rule of Necessity would apply and the appointing authority would have to review the record and make the final determination, notwithstanding being “admittedly biased” or unable to act “impartially.”

Following her termination from her position, the individual [Petitioner] brought an Article 78 action seeking an order declaring that action “illegal, ultra vires, null and void.” State Supreme Court Justice Dickerson granted her petition.

Justice Dickerson’s decision indicates that on May 16, 2002, the Mayor preferred disciplinary charges against Petitioner pursuant to the Civil Service Law Section 75. The charges alleged insubordination and/or misconduct and neglect of duty and/or incompetence to perform the duties of her position.

The Mayor appointed an individual to serve as the Hearing Officer to determine the disciplinary charges. Stein sent his findings and recommendations to the Mayor on January 2, 2004. The Mayor then delegated to an independent arbitrator the full power and authority to make the disciplinary determination after considering Hearing Officer's report and recommendations.

The court ruled that the Mayor's designating an individual to serve as the hearing officer and his delegation of his decision making authority with respect to the charges filed against Petitioner to an independent arbitrator, including authority to make a final determination of those charges and subsequent termination of Petitioner's employment, were illegal, ultra vires, null and void. Justice Dickerson vacated the termination of Petitioner without prejudice to the City to appoint a new Hearing Officer for the purpose of conducting a new disciplinary hearing. He then awarded Petitioner back pay from the date of her termination together with any benefits to which she was entitled.

The decision states that the Mayor was admittedly biased, and, indeed, wanted Petitioner dismissed from her position. However, that bias, said the court, does not necessarily excuse him from the duty of making the final determination in this matter. The delegation must be to a duly qualified individual authorized to act during the absence or inability of the appointing authority not previously involved in the proceedings or charges. Only when there is no such official and one cannot be appointed, and thus no such delegation is possible, does the “Rule of Necessity” apply, permitting an otherwise partial official to make the final determination.”

The court said that an independent arbitrator with no connection "with the governmental employment at issue," was not “a duly qualified individual authorized to act during the absence or inability of the appointing authority. As the Mayor believed he was biased and not impartial, it was the Mayor's responsibility to try to delegate the decision-making authority to either the City's personnel officer, the City Clerk, or to some other individual authorized to act in his absence. If no such person was available, then the Rule of Necessity would apply and the Mayor would have had to make the final determination himself, notwithstanding being “admittedly biased.”

The court then considered Civil Service Law Section 75(2), which states, in pertinent part, "...The hearing upon such charges shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred or by a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose."

But, said Justice Dickerson, the Mayor was neither "the officer or body having the power to remove" nor was he "a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose". Under the controlling provision in the City Code, the authority to remove, which is a function of the power to appoint, was not specifically designated to anyone by the officials having that authority.

As to the hearing officer conducting the disciplinary hearing, the court said, “It is readily apparent that there was no written delegation by the appropriate authority to hear Petitioner's disciplinary case”. Jurisdiction was thus lacking and the hearing Officer had no authority to either conduct the disciplinary hearing or to make a report and recommendation regarding his “findings”. 

* The Supreme Court’s decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_50033.htm .  

The Appellate Division’s decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_01762.htm

.

Designation of managerial employees within the meaning of the Taylor Law

Designation of managerial employees within the meaning of the Taylor Law

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn. Inc. Local 1000 AFSCME AFL-CIO v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 34 AD3d 884

The Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. [CSEA] sued the Public Employment Relations Board [PERB], challenging a PERB determination designating eight New York State Dormitory Authority [DASNY] employees as managerial within the meaning of Civil Service Law §201(7)(a), the Taylor Law.*

The Appellate Division stated that the scope of its review was limited to determining if PERB’s determination was arbitrary and capricious. It then pointed out that in Lippman v Public Empl. Relations Bd., 263 AD2d 891, it had ruled that courts may defer to PERB's exposition of the terms "management" and "confidential" as they are employed in Civil Service Law §201(7)(a).

A PERB decision clarified the meaning of the phrase "formulated policy."** That ruling indicated that the phrase “formulated policy” must be "sufficiently broad" to include "persons who regularly participate in and influence a process by which the employer makes decisions regarding its mission and the means by which those policy goals and objectives can be best achieved."

The Appellate Division concluded that in this instance PERB's determination designating the eight employees as managerial was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary, noting that all of the job titles at issue were within the Office of Construction, one of the five main divisions headed by managing directors that report directly to the Authority’s executive officers and board.

Consistent with PERB's conclusion that "the organizational structure of DASNY promotes participation in the decision-making process that is more than mere technical advice to single decision-makers," the Appellate Division ruled that although "exclusions for managerial . . . employees are an exception to the Taylor Law's strong policy of extending coverage to all public employees," given the evidence presented PERB's classification of the employees as managerial was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

* Employees designated as either managerial or confidential are excluded from the definition of "public employees" and, as such, are not afforded various benefits provided under the Taylor Law (see Civil Service Law §200 et seq.) with respect to representation for the purposes of collective bargaining. Civil Service Law §201(7)(a) provides: "Employees may be designated as managerial only if they are persons (i) who formulate policy or (ii) who may reasonably be required on behalf of the public employer to assist directly in the preparation for and conduct of collective negotiations or to have a major role in the administration of agreements or in personnel administration provided that such role is not of a routine or clerical nature and requires the exercise of independent judgment."

** Matter of Public Empls. Fedn., AFL-CIO v State of New York, 36 PERB ¶ 3029

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_07936.htm

.

Audits of public entities recently issued by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

Audits of public entities recently issued by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

The State Comptroller audits local governments to assist them in improving their financial management practices. [Click on text highlighted in bold to access the full report.] 

Town of Alexandria – Non-Payroll Cash Disbursements and Fuel Inventory (Jefferson County)
The town’s non-payroll cash disbursements were not always properly authorized, adequately supported or in compliance with statutory requirements. The former supervisor improperly paid 20 claims totaling $19,919 without the audit and approval of the board. Auditors also found internal controls over fuel inventories need to be improved. Records show from June 2011 through December 2011 nearly 4,500 gallons of fuel valued at about $14,600 were not accounted for.

Village of Bolivar – Financial Condition of Water and Sewer Funds (Allegany County)
The village board has not adequately monitored the financial condition of the water and sewer funds. The water and sewer funds do not presently have sufficient resources to repay interfund loans owed to the village general fund without affecting their operations. This lack of available funds resulted from village officials not monitoring and adjusting water and sewer rates to ensure resources were adequate to repay the loans.

Town of Coldspring – Town Clerk Operations (Cattaraugus County)
The town clerk did not issue press-numbered duplicate receipts for cash collected, accurately record all transactions, remit moneys due to the town supervisor and other entities in a timely manner, or deposit cash receipts intact or in a timely manner. Auditors found a shortage in the clerk’s account totaling $1,400 which is primarily due to money owed to the town supervisor, unrecorded checks, and unpaid liabilities.

City of Glens Falls – Financial Condition (Warren County)
The city council adopts realistic budgets, and along with the mayor and city controller, continually monitors the budgets throughout the year and will initiate and approve any necessary budget amendments.  Although the city is not considered to be in fiscal stress at this time, low levels of unexpended surplus funds in the general fund and declining balances in the water and sewer funds are concerning. City officials indicate they are carefully monitoring the funds.

Grahamsville Fire District – Internal Controls Over Financial Operations (Sullivan County)
The district board has not properly developed annual budgets. From 2009 through 2011, actual expenditures exceeded budget estimates each year by an average of 22 percent. In addition, the district has not formally established reserve funds and has not adopted formal policies on how they are to be funded and how they will be used.

Town of Kendall – Justice Court (Orleans County)
Auditors found significant control deficiencies with the justice court’s operations. Justices did not ensure that all court fines, fees, and surcharges were properly accounted for. Although monthly reports were submitted to the justice court fund in a timely manner, they were not always complete and accurate. Further, the justices did not ensure that cases were properly reported to the state Department of Motor Vehicles.

Mastic-Moriches-Shirley Community Library – Claims Processing (Suffolk County)
Library officials have established adequate controls over the claims processing function that allow claims to be audited in a timely manner and ensure the claims are properly supported. The account clerk and/or director reviews invoices for department head approvals before printing checks and a schedule of claims to present to the board, which then audits the claims before signing the checks. Finally, the claims auditor performs a post-audit of the claims paid.

Roosevelt Fire District – Financial Operations and Information Technology (Nassau County)
The district board needs to improve its oversight of financial operations. Auditors found the treasurer submits monthly financial reports to the board that contain incomplete information, and the district’s financial records have not been audited by an independent public accountant since the 2010 fiscal year. In addition, internal controls over information technology are not appropriately designed or operating effectively.

Schuyler County Sheriff’s Department – Payroll, Civil Fees and Bail (2013M-120)
The county entered into an improper contract for security services with Watkins Glen International (WGI), a private entity. Over the last two years, the county has paid 351 individuals $233,840 for providing law enforcement services to WGI in connection with events at the Watkins Glen racetrack.  In these cases, the county improperly pays these individuals as if they were independent contractors by check based on completed vouchers and issues them an IRS 1099 form at the end of the year.  As a result, no taxes are reported or withheld, and no information is reported to the state retirement systems.

Steuben County Soil and Water Conservation District – Internal Controls Over Cash Receipts and Disbursements (2013M-97)
The conservation district board has not adopted policies and procedures for cash receipts and disbursements to ensure that cash is properly safeguarded. Auditors found 116 receipts totaling $47,443 were not deposited on a timely basis, 14 disbursements totaling $23,943 never appeared on a warrant for board approval, and 151 disbursements totaling $532,322 cleared the bank prior to the board’s audit and approval for payment.

.