School district audits release by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending November 6, 2020

On November 6, 2020 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following school district audits have been issued.

Click on the text in color to access the full report.

SusquehannaValley Central School District – Information Technology (Broome County)- School district officials did not establish adequate information technology (IT) controls to protect against unauthorized use, access and loss. District officials did not properly manage user accounts including periodically reviewing and disabling unneeded network user accounts. Auditors also determined district officials did not maintain accurate, complete and up-to-date hardware and software inventory. Officials did not ensure that computers were free from malicious software. In fact, two malicious software applications were installed on district computers. Sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

White Plains City School District – Financial Management (Westchester County) - The school board and district officials did not adopt realistic budgets or maintain reasonable levels of fund balance. However, reserves were generally funded at reasonable levels and within legal limits. The district’s fund balance over the past five years grew to $97.9 million, the equivalent of 43 percent of the district’s annual budget. Some appropriations were overestimated in previous budgets and continued to be overestimated. District officials made year-end transfers totaling about $29 million to reserves. The transfers were made to stay within the statutory surplus fund balance limit and resulted in a lack of transparency because the taxpayers were not informed of the amounts that would be added to the reserves during the fiscal year.

 

 

Penalty imposed following a disciplinary arbitration challenged

The petitioner [Teacher] in this action brought pursuant to CPLR Article 75 challenged the penalty imposed by the arbitrator - termination - following a disciplinary hearing. Supreme Court vacated the penalty portion of the disciplinary arbitration award and remanded the matter to the Board of Education [Board] for the imposition of a lesser penalty. The Board appealed the court's order.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling, on the law, reinstated the penalty imposed by the arbitrator and dismissed the Article 75 proceeding.

Citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale and Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, and other decisions, the Appellate Division opined that it did not find the penalty of termination of Teacher's employment shocking to one's sense of fairness "given the evidence of [Teacher's] pedagogical shortcomings, documented by supervisors and a peer evaluator, and his lack of improvement during two school years."

In particular, the court noted Matter of Russo v New York City Dept. of Educ., 25 NY3d 946, cert. denied 577 US 957, in which the termination of an Educator was sustained after three years of unsatisfactory performance ratings "notwithstanding [the educator's] 18 years of satisfactory teaching."

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06349.htm.

 _______________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - A 442-page e-book focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition and as an e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

 

 

 

Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited

A detective [Plaintiff] applied for General Municipal Law §207-c line of duty disability  benefits. The Employer's claims manager denied Plaintiff's application as untimely. Ultimately the Plaintiff's Union [PBA] demanded that the matter be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the relevant provision set out in the controlling collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the Employer and the PBA 

The arbitrator interpreted the disputed provisions of the CBA and found that the claims manager's denial of the application as untimely was not reasonable.

Employer then filed a CPLR Article 75 petition seeking a Supreme Court order vacating the arbitration award. PBA then cross-petitioned the court to confirm the award. The Supreme Court denied the Employer's petition and granted the PBA's cross petition. The Employer appealed the court's ruling.

Citing Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471and other decisions, the Appellate Division observed that "A court may vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his [or her] powers within the meaning of CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power."

The court then explained that for the purposes of Article 75 an arbitrator "exceeds his or her powers ... if the award gives a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, makes a new contract for the parties."

The Appellate Division then opined that, contrary to the City's contention, "the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA was not irrational, and did not effectively rewrite the agreement." Further, said the court, "the arbitrator did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on his authority by construing the CBA's terms in light of testimony as to the past practices of the [Employer] and the [PBA].

Agreeing with the Supreme Court's determination denying the Employer's petition to vacate the arbitration award and granting the PBA's cross petition to confirm the arbitration award, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling and awarded the PBA "one bill of costs."

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06254.htm