School audits by the State Comptroller issued during the week ending September 12, 2015

School audits by the State Comptroller issued during the week ending September 12, 2015

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following reports were issued during the week ending September 12, 2015. Click on the material highlighted in color below to access the full report.

Canandaigua City School District [Procurement of Professional Services]

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/schools/2015/canandaigua.pdf?utm_source=weeklynews20150913&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091115arelease

Fonda- Fultonville Central School District [Payroll]

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/schools/2015/fondafultonville.pdf?utm_source=weeklynews20150913&utm_medium 

Monroe 2 – Orleans BOCES [Software Management]

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/schools/2015/monroe2orleansboces.pdf?utm_source=weeklynews20150913&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091115arelease

and the 

Newcomb Central School District [Extra classroom activity fund]

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/schools/2015/newcomb.pdf?utm_source=weeklynews20150913&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091115arelease

Pre-suit investigations by EEOC

Pre-suit investigations by EEOC

EEOC v Sterling Jewelers, Inc., USCA, 2^ndCircuit, Docket 14-1782

Before the EEOC may bring an enforcement action under Title VII against an employer, it must comply with certain administrative obligations, including receiving a formal charge of unlawful discrimination, provide notice of the charge to the employer, investigate the charge and give the employer notice of its determination that there was “reasonable cause” to believe that a violation of Title VII had occurred. EEOC must then make a “good faith effort” to conciliate the matter.*

In this Title VII action a magistrate judge issued a “Report and Recommendation” finding that EEOC not prove that it satisfied its statutory obligation to conduct a pre-suit investigation of allegations that Sterling Jewelers “engaged in a nationwide practice of sex-based pay and promotion discrimination. The magistrate judge recommended that the federal district court grant Sterling’s motion for “summary judgment” dismissing EEOC’s action.

The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and granted Sterling’s motion seeking summary judgment. EEOC appealed.

Citing EEOC v Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal district court was incorrect in granting Sterling motion for summary judgment, explaining that the magistrate judge improperly reviewed the sufficiency of the EEOC investigation rather than simply whether there was an investigation. Under Title VII, said the Circuit Court, “courts may review whether the EEOC conducted an investigation, but not the sufficiency of an investigation.”

The court noted that only EEOC’s statutory pre-suit investigation obligation was at issue as the parties agreed that EEOC’s participation in the mediation would have satisfied its obligation to conciliate in the matter if it brought an enforcement action. Further, there were no allegations the EEOC had not satisfied any of its other pre-suit obligation in this instance.

As EEOC had, in fact, conducted an investigation in this case, the Circuit Court vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings.

* See 42 U.S.C. §2000e–5(b)

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d59d4c2a-586c-47c8-90b3-eeebe8ab2867/5/doc/14-1782_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d59d4c2a-586c-47c8-90b3-eeebe8ab2867/5/hilite/1782_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b2f1d782-6305-4aa0-aa18-f3ee2d8b40ee/5/hilite/

Audit reports for certain governmental entities posted by the State Comptroller on September 10, 2015

Audit reports for certain governmental entities posted by the State Comptroller on September 10, 2015

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits were issued on September 10, 2015. Click on the material highlighted in color below to access the full report.

Department of Economic Development - certain local development corporations

In April 2014, DED made a $16,250.00 advance payment to the LDC. Two months later, the LDC claimed the remaining $48,750 of the contract amount. To receive the second claim, the LDC needed to demonstrate that the entire $65,000 in expenses was incurred during the contract period for work relevant to the contract objectives, and was for expenses not previously paid from another funding source. Auditors found the LDC was able to substantiate only $4,284.09 in expenses under the contract.

http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/bseaudits/bse20150824.pdf

Department of Environmental Conservation – oil spill funds

DEC generally collected all fees due the Oil Spill Fund for the facilities tested. However, of 11 sampled major oil storage facilities, auditors identified eight that inaccurately reported the number of barrels of petroleum products received, subject to fees and surcharges, or transshipped. For the sampled facilities, these inaccuracies did not materially affect the revenue collected. DEC’s internal controls over payment of cleanup, administrative, and indirect costs provide reasonable assurance that only appropriate expenses were charged to the fund.

http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/14s59.pdf

Department of Environmental Conservation – electronic waste fees

Auditors found DEC properly collected, recorded, and deposited fees and surcharges due, but did not segregate the responsibilities for collecting and recording cash receipts of the fees and surcharges. Also, supervisory review of revenue and deposit activities was not documented.

http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/15s18.pdf

Division of Housing and Community Renewal – modernization program at NYC Housing Authority

DHCR officials did not have accurate and up-to-date management information regarding the status of NYCHA’s projects. The information officials provided was dated February 2010. Specifically, five projects (totaling about $4.6 million) were not yet finished, although DHCR officials indicated that they were complete. In addition, eight of the ten projects officials listed as incomplete were, in fact, finished. DHCR officials paid $6.8 million for a change order for one project that was not adequately supported. DHCR did not have formal timeframes for awarding a contract once funding was approved.

http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/14s21.pdf

State Education Department – Astor services for children

Auditors identified $39,050 in costs that did not comply with SED’s requirements for reimbursement. The non-reimbursable costs included $25,565 in other-than-personal-service (OTPS) costs that were either not allowed, not properly documented, or were not reasonable or necessary. In addition, auditors identified $13,485 in non-reimbursable fundraising activities as well as two teachers and seven teacher’s assistants who did not have the required certifications for their job titles.

http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/14s66.pdf

Unified Court System – Legal Aid Society

Auditors reviewed select payments totaling $5,448,384 UCS made to Legal Aid for salaries, equipment, and real estate rentals and found Legal Aid spent these funds appropriately.  However, UCS overpaid Legal Aid $412,184 for fringe benefit expenses that were not actual and allowable under the terms and conditions of the contract.  Legal Aid did not appropriately reconcile fringe benefits at year end, moved funds in every non-personal services budget category without providing UCS with the required notification, and moved $546,803 from non-personal services budget categories to personal services budget categories without obtaining the required prior written approval from UCS.

http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/bseaudits/bse20150826.pdf

A supervisor’s personal daily log recording observations concerning a subordinate’s performance held not to be a record “used for personnel purposes”

A supervisor’s personal daily log recording observations concerning a subordinate’s performance held not to be a record “used for personnel purposes”

Steve Poole et al, v Orange County Fire Authority, Supreme Court of California, Ct. App., G047691, G047850

The California Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, §3250 et seq.) provides that a firefighter has the right to review and respond to any negative comment that is “entered in his or her personnel file, or any other file used for any personnel purposes by his or her employer.”

In the Poole case, the California Supreme Court considered whether §3255 gives a firefighter the right to review and respond to negative comments in a supervisor’s daily log, consisting of notes that memorialize the supervisor’s thoughts and observations concerning a firefighter which the supervisor uses as a memory aid in preparing performance plans and reviews.

The court held that in this instance because the log was not shared with or available to anyone other than the supervisor who wrote the log, it does not constitute a file “used for any personnel purposes by his or her employer” and thus §3255 did not apply.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://hr.cch.com/ELD/PooleOrangeCounty.pdf

_______________

The Discipline Book, - A 458 page guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

_______________ 

Employee's application for Workers’ Compensation Benefits based on "multiple chemical sensitivity" rejected

Employee's application for Workers’ Compensation Benefits based on "multiple chemical sensitivity" rejected

2015 NY Slip Op 06756, Appellate Division, Third Department

An employee [Claimant] sought workers' compensation benefits based upon an alleged disability resulting from her exposure to toxic mold at the workplace and her claim for hypersensitivity reaction to occupational presence of fungi was established.

Claimant was found to have a temporary total disability and an award of benefits was made. Subsequently the claim was amended to include "multiple chemical sensitivity" and awards for a marked disability were continued. In a decision filed March 31, 2010, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) classified Claimant with a permanent total disability as a result of the work-related injury.

The Workers' Compensation Board modified the March 31, 2010 decision by rescinding the finding of permanent total disability and referring the matter to an impartial specialist to examine Claimant and report to the Board with respect to Claimant's disability classification.

When the matter was restored to the calendar, Theodore Them, the impartial medical specialist who examined Claimant, testified that “multiple chemical sensitivity” was not a medically-recognized condition and, in any event, it was his opinion that Claimant was not suffering from any causally-related disability.

The Board credited the testimony of Them, found no further causally-related disability, thereby reversing the WCLJ's finding of total permanent disability. In this December 19, 2012 decision the Board "closed the case."

Following a number of procedural steps by Claimant, Claimant’s employer sought Board review of a second WCLJ's ruling,*which ruling included a direction to depose Claimant's doctor. The employer contended that the Board's had promulgated a decision on December 19, 2012 that resolved the issue of Claimant's degree of disability by finding that Claimant suffered no causally-related disability and properly closed the case. The Board agreed with the employer and Claimant appealed that determination.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, observing that its review was limited to determining whether the Board abused its discretion or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in precluding further development of the record regarding the issue of Claimant's causally-related disability.

The court then ruled that the Board had “properly precluded further development of the record” since the issue of Claimant's causally-related disability was addressed and decided by the Board in its December 19, 2012 decision.

The Appellate Division then explained that “To the extent that Claimant now asserts, on the instant appeal, that the Board erred in crediting the opinion of the impartial specialist that Claimant had no causally-related disability, her remedy was to perfect her appeal from the Board's December 19, 2012 decision,” which had not been done.**

* In a ruling issued April 8, 2013 the WCLJ construed the Board's December 19, 2012 decision as rejecting his prior decision that Claimant suffered a causally-related total disability, but continued the case for further development of the record to determine Claimant's appropriate, lesser degree of disability.

** The Appellate Division noted that Claimant “filed a notice of appeal with this Court as to the December 19, 2012 Board decision, but failed to timely perfect that appeal.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_06756.htm

 ______________________

Disability Leave for fire, police and other public sector personnel - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law §§207-a/207-c and other laws, rules, regulations and court decisions. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html

 ______________________