According to a press release issued by the City of New York's Conflict of Interest Board , a City worker was suspended, without pay, for thirty days for engaging in his private real-estate business (on City computer equipment) while on City time.
Joseph Tulace, an Associate Staff Analyst with the Human Resources Administration (HRA), admitted to using his "HRA office computer to do work for [his] private real estate business during [his] City work hours."
Apparently, back in January of this year, Tulace was charged with conduct violative of City Charter section 2605(b)(2) and Board Rules sections 1-13(a) and (b), which provide, in part, as follows:
No public servant shall engage in any business, transaction or private employment, or have any financial or other private interest, direct or indirect, which is in conflict with the proper discharge of his or her official duties. [Charter section 2604(b)(2)]
[I]t shall be a violation of City Charter section 2604(b)(2) for any public servant to pursue personal and private activities during times when the public servant is required to perform services for the City. [Board Rules section 1-13(a)]
[I]t shall be a violation of City Charter section 2604(b)(2) for any public servant to use City letterhead, personnel, equipment, resources, or supplies for non-City purpose. [Board Rules section 1-13(b)]
In a "Stipulation and Dispos[i]tion" (S&D) , dated October 18, 2007, Tulace "freely and voluntarily" conceded that for a three month period -- from September 2005 to November 2005 -- he engaged in the activities in question and further agreed to a 30-day suspension without pay.
According to the S&D , the "approximate value" of the suspension is $4,550.
Of course, it is unclear whether the dollar amount Tulace was penalized has any correlation to the actual harm which taxpayers suffered as a result of Tulace's indiscretion and/or whether the City recouped any monies or profits Tulace may have earned during the period he was engaged in the violative conduct.
So, while the Board may have intended to use incident as a way "to remind public servants that they are prohibited from using City time or City resources for any non-City purposes," we're not sure that message was adequately conveyed or will be seriously received.
Without additional information, it is unclear whether the $4,550 penalty had any correlation to any objective critieria.
As far as we can tell, this could have been a mere "slap on the wrist."
Frankly, it all seems like a rather pointless (and costly) exercise.
To download a copy of the Board's Press Release (dated October 26, 2007) and accompanying "S&D," please use this link: In re Joseph Tulace