CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BOARD - Welcome to NYC.gov

NYC CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BOARD CHAPTER 68 ENFORCEMENT CASE SUMMARIES

Current as of May 10, 2017 Below are listed the various categories of violations of Chapter 68 of the City Charter. By clicking on the heading, you will go directly to that section of the summaries. MOONLIGHTING WITH A FIRM ENGAGED IN BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH THE CITY

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ?? 2604(a)(1)(a), 2604(a)(1)(b) OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN A FIRM ENGAGED IN BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH THE CITY

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ?? 2604(a)(1)(a), 2604(a)(1)(b) VOLUNTEERING FOR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ENGAGED IN BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH THE CITY

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ?? 2604(a)(1)(a), 2604(a)(1)(b), 2604(c)(6) MISUSE OF CITY TIME

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(2) Relevant Board Rules: Board Rules ? 1-13(a) MISUSE OF CITY RESOURCES

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(2) Relevant Board Rules: Board Rules ? 1-13(b) AIDING OR INDUCING A VIOLATION OF THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LAW

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(2) Relevant Board Rules: Board Rules ? 1-13(d)

MISUSE OF CITY POSITION

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ?? 2604(b)(2), 2604(b)(3)

USE OR DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(4) GIFTS

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(5) Relevant Board Rules: Board Rules ? 1-01(a) APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CITY ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE INTEREST Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(6) APPEARANCE AS AN ATTORNEY IN LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(7) SOLICITING POLITICAL ACTIVITIES Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(9) SOLICITING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(11) POLITICAL FUNDRAISING BY HIGH-LEVEL CITY OFFICIALS Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(12) ACCEPTING COMPENSATION FOR CITY JOB FROM SOURCE OTHER THAN THE CITY Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(13) SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(b)(14) JOB-SEEKING VIOLATIONS Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(d)(1)

2

ONE-YEAR POST-EMPLOYMENT APPEARANCES Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(d)(2)

LIFETIME POST-EMPLOYMENT PARTICULAR MATTER BAN Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(d)(4)

POST-EMPLOYMENT USE OR DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ? 2604(d)(5) LOBBYIST GIFT LAW

Relevant Law: Administrative Code ? 3-225; Board Rules ? 1-16

3

MOONLIGHTING WITH A FIRM ENGAGED IN BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH THE CITY

Relevant Charter Sections: City Charter ?? 2604(a)(1)(a), 2604(a)(1)(b)1

The Board and the New York City Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") concluded a joint settlement with the Acting Executive Director for the Case Review and Support Unit at ACS, who agreed to pay a $3,500 fine?$2,000 to the Board and $1,500 to ACS? for multiple violations of the City's conflicts of interest law. The Acting Executive Director accepted a free meal for herself and her ACS staff from a day care provider as a "thank you" for helping the provider be reinstated at ACS. The City's conflicts of interest law prohibits public servants from accepting a gratuity in any amount from a person whose interests may be affected by the public servant's official action. Separately, the Acting Executive Director held a prohibited position at the Young Adult Institute ("YAI"), a firm engaged in business dealings with multiple City agencies. In furtherance of her work for YAI, the Acting Executive Director wrote two reports for YAI during her City work hours and subsequently used an ACS fax machine to send those reports to YAI. The matter was a joint settlement with ACS. COIB v. Crawley, COIB Case No. 2014-935 (Sept. 25, 2015).

A Community Coordinator for the New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA") agreed to resign her position and not challenge a prior thirty-day unpaid suspension, valued at approximately $4,692, imposed for numerous conflicts of interest law violations in addition to other conduct that violated HRA's Rules and Procedures. The Community Coordinator: (1) had a position with a private childcare business that accepted payments from HRA on behalf of clients whose children attended the daycare; (2) used her HRA computer and email account to send and receive emails relating to the childcare business and her private rental properties; (3) asked her subordinate to fill out an affidavit unrelated to the subordinate's HRA job duties as a personal favor to the Community Coordinator; (4) without authorization or a City purpose, used the Welfare Management System ("WMS") to access the confidential public assistance case records of her two brothers, her sister, her son, and her grandson to determine the status of their Medicaid benefits cases; (5) used WMS to improperly recertify her grandson's Medicaid benefits, even though the required recertification documentation had not been submitted; and (6) had an HRA coworker use WMS to improperly recertify her daughter's and her brother's Medicaid benefits, even though they had not submitted the proper recertification documentation. The matter was a joint settlement with HRA. COIB v. Judd, COIB Case No. 2015-102 (2015).

1

City Charter ? 2604(a)(1)(a) states: "Except as provided in paragraph three below, no public servant shall

have an interest in a firm which such public servant knows is engaged in business dealings with the agency served

by such public servant; provided, however, that, subject to paragraph one of subdivision b of this section, an

appointed member of a community board shall not be prohibited from having an interest in a firm which may be

affected by an action on a matter before the community or borough board."

City Charter ? 2604(a)(1)(b) states: "Except as provided in paragraph three below, no regular employee shall have an interest in a firm which such regular employee knows is engaged in business dealings with the City, except if such interest is in a firm whose shares are publicly traded, as defined by rule of the Board."

4

The Board issued a public warning letter to a now-former physical therapist for the New York City Department of Education ("DOE") for (1) moonlighting for a private physical therapy company that did business with DOE and (2) performing work for another physical therapy company during his DOE workday. The physical therapist was terminated by DOE for this conduct. The City's conflicts of interest law prohibits City employees from having a second job with a firm that has business dealings with any City agency, regardless of whether the firm is forprofit or not-for-profit. COIB v. Roberto, COIB Case No. 2014-638 (2015).

A Sanitation Worker for the New York City Department of Sanitation ("DSNY") agreed to pay a $750 fine to the Board for having prohibited moonlighting positions with three different firms with City business dealings. The City's conflicts of interest law prohibits City employees from having a second job with a firm, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, with business dealings with any City agency. This matter was a joint settlement with DSNY. COIB v. Middleton, COIB Case No. 2014-431 (2015).

A Computer Systems Manager for the New York City Department of Records and Information Services ("DORIS") paid the Board a $4,650 fine for doing business with the Office of the Public Administrator of New York County (a City agency) as an independent consultant. The City's conflicts of interest law prohibits City workers from engaging in business dealings with any City agency. The amount of the fine represents the total amount the Computer Systems Manager received as a result of the prohibited business dealings. This matter was a joint settlement with DORIS. COIB v. Akuesson, COIB Case No. 2014-488 (2015).

A now former managerial Administrative Public Health Nurse agreed to resign from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DOHMH") for two violations of the City's conflicts of interest law: first, having a second job with North Shore-LIJ Health System, a firm with business dealings with the City; and, second, participating in the interview for a position at DOHMH of one of her subordinates at North Shore-LIJ without disclosing that association to anyone at DOHMH. A superior and a subordinate in a private business are considered "associated" under the City's conflicts of interest law, and the law prohibits a City employee from being involved in any personnel matter concerning someone with who he/she is associated. COIB v. Buenaventura, COIB Case No. 2014-479 (2014).

A Sanitation Worker had a second job with Brooklyn Baseball, LLC, a firm with business dealings with the City, without authorization from the New York City Department of Sanitation ("DSNY") and a waiver from the Board. The Sanitation Worker resigned from the second job and agreed to the publication of a letter warning him and other City employees that, prior to accepting any second job with a firm doing business with any City agency, agency head authorization and a waiver from the Board must be obtained. This matter was a joint settlement with DSNY. COIB v. Cubeiro, COIB Case No. 2014-287 (2014).

The Board and the New York City Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") concluded a joint settlement with a Congregate Care Specialist in the Division of Youth and Family Justice who agreed to pay a $1,000 fine, split between the Board and ACS, for, from July 2011 until March 2014, having second job with Good Shepherd Services, a firm having substantial business dealings with ACS. COIB v. Moore, COIB Case No. 2013-460 (2014).

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download