COIB Settlements Announced

 

The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board (the “Board”) announces three settlements.

 

Misuse of City Position. For 14 years, a Payroll Secretary for the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) processed payroll for all school staff, including her son, a DOE Paraprofessional. On three occasions, the Payroll Secretary created a jury service record for her son without receiving the necessary documentation, thus enabling him to be paid his full DOE salary for those days. The son did not serve on jury duty on those dates, and DOE later recouped the pay to which he was not entitled. Public servants are prohibited from taking any official action to benefit a close family member. To resolve her violations, the now-former Payroll Secretary agreed to pay a $1,500 fine. The Disposition is attached as “COIB Disposition (DOE).”

 

Prohibited Appearances. From 2019 to 2025, a Senior Project Manager at the New York City Department of Design and Construction (“DDC”) submitted applications, drawings, and other documents to the New York City Department of Buildings for 87 construction projects on behalf of his private clients. Public servants are prohibited from communicating with the City on behalf of private clients. To resolve his violations, the now-former Senior Project Manager agreed to pay a $1,500 fine. The Disposition is attached as “COIB Disposition (DDC).”

 

Misuse of City Position. A Child Protective Specialist for the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) has a close relative whose child was the subject of an ACS emergency removal. The Child Protective Specialist sent an email and text messages to the ACS Supervisor overseeing the case identifying herself as a Child Protective Specialist and attempting to influence the Supervisor’s understanding of the case to have her niece placed with the Child Protective Specialist’s mother. The Board determined that the Child Protective Specialist misused her City position for the benefit of a close relative with whom she was associated. To resolve this violation, the Child Protective Specialist agreed to a Public Warning Letter. In deciding not to impose a fine, the Board considered that the Child Protective Specialist represented that her intent was not to benefit her associated relative but to provide additional information to the Supervisor to enable a more informed decision about where to place the child. The Public Warning Letter is attached as “COIB Public Warning Letter (ACS).”