Quantcast
Channel: NYC Rubber Room Reporter and ATR CONNECT
Viewing all 1018 articles
Browse latest View live

The 3020-a Arbitration Newswire: Gotcha Squad Attorney Ian Nikol

$
0
0
Other posts under the title The 3020-a Arbitration Newswire:

The 3020-a Arbitration Newswire: Winning and Losing Appeals and the Teacher-Principal Relationship


The 3020-a Arbitration Newswire: Digging Up The Garbage On the UFT/DOE Partnership of Harm For Charged DOE Employees


The 3020-a Arbitration Newswire: The Xerox Machine


When a teacher receives a packet with 3020-a charges in it, the charges - either of alleged misconduct or incompetency - and Notice of the Determination of Probable Cause are all  products of the legal department, either the Teacher Performance Unit (TPU- incompetency cases) or Administrative Trials Unit (ATU- misconduct cases). Both the TPU and ATU are subparts of the Office of Legal Services headed by the General Counsel, who is also the attorney who represents the Chancellor, Carmen Farina. The current General Counsel is Howard Friedman. The former General Counsel was
Former General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase
Courtenaye Jackson-Chase. The ATU, TPU, OEO, OSI, SCI and all the Attorneys, staff, and employees who work for these groups, are collectively called the Gotcha Squad. My advice: if you see something, say something, but NOT to any of these groups! They will charge you with something if you make a complaint to any of them (if you are a teacher, non-administrative staff/employee, or parent).
General Counsel Howard Friedman
Having studied and watched the Gotcha Squad scam and being a victim of their venom myself, I have the process of the DOE falsely charging someone, lying under oath, covering up fraud and corruption, ignoring legal and contractual rights, nailed - which gives me strategies to use to defend my clients at 3020-a.

Even Attorney Ian Nikol believes I know what I'm doing. He told the administrators at MS 226 (including Principal Rushell White) while he was there preparing for them to testify against one of my clients who had been wrongfully charged with 3020-a, that I knew all about the DOE and what has been going on. I know my stuff.

Thanks, Ian! He was not always so flattering, more about that later.




Naeemah Lamont, Ian Nikol, Rishonna Fleishman
Whether you are the Respondent, a witness, or an observer at the 3020-a arbitration of a teacher, if the NYC Department of Education was represented by Ian Nikol you can never forget how unprofessional Ian was, and how he bullied everyone in the room - including arbitrators - to push his agenda forward (termination of the charged employee). His last day with the Department was Thursday, May 19, 2016. He told us he was going to the Department of Correction. Good luck with him, I mean good luck to him, I mean good luck to you.


Ian Nikol (on the left)
I have watched Ian Nikol for many years, as well as his partner in crime, Dennis Da Costa, previously highlighted on this blog: Teacher Performance Unit Deputy Director Dennis Da Costa. Dennis is also no longer listed on the NYC DOE webpage.

Ian used to attend all his hearings with his sidekick, Harlyn Griffenberg-Greer, because Ian has to talk with someone during testimony. He cannot sit and listen for more than a minute or two. Interruptions and objections are his way to dominate the process so that the witness for the teacher loses his/her thought, and forgets what they were supposed to say. Ian does not write notes, he writes a word and draws boxes around the word....over....and....over.......

It is tiring watching Ian scribble his boxes, making the four lines bigger by drawing them over and over again, whispering to whomever is sitting next to him, laughing at secretly funny things, making faces, looking at the ceiling for some answer, etc. His antics are not amusing, and even more alarming is the lack of concern or at least the lack of interest on the part of the arbitrator to stop him.

Arbitrator Philip Maier did try to change Ian's behavior. At a recent 3020-a, while my closing arguments were read into the record by the attorney, Ian became bored. He took his cell phone out and held it up while he played games, looked at his email, I dont know what. He giggled several times. I wrote a tiny note to my client to see if she noticed what he was doing. I guess the Arbitrator saw what Ian was doing, and suddenly the arbitrator told the transcription recorder person to go off the record, and told Ian to stop looking at his cell phone, and to put it away. Ian did as told, but pouted and folded his arms, clearly angry at the reprimand. He looked like he was in shock.

After our closing was finished, we broke for lunch. Then, as we entered the hearing room for Ian's closing, I saw newbie DOE Attorney David Raskin enter the room with Ian. Ian told everyone that David would be sitting in. Ian never reads any papers, so he just started talking with his many notes in front of him, while ....yep, you guessed it!!!! Raskin took out his cell phone, and read his email, played games, whatever, until Ian was finished. It was a lowpoint in Ian's DOE career, but he got away with it. My question to Mr. Raskin would be, why would he play Ian's childish games? I don't get it.

But all of Ian's childish ways (which, by the way, never diverted me in any way, I simply wrote notes about what he did, then he whispered to the person next to him, "Betsy is writing notes about me") are trumped by Ian's malicious prosecution, his trampling any and all rights whether these rights are in the law, contract, regulations, or not. He doesn't care. He doesn't like witnesses for the defense, they simply get in his way. He hates charged employees.

The 3020-a of Yolanda Walker is a case in point, and in my opinion, at this hearing the true malicious nature of Ian Nikol was clearly visible.

Yolanda Walker hired me to do her 3020-a as her paralegal. She chose to go pro se, as she was a fearless and feisty person willing to stand up and say what needed to be said. She was also very ill when she was charged. She told me she would not tell the arbitrator for her case, Sara Miller Espinosa, how ill she was. I did not say anything because of course all communication I have with my clients are confidential until they tell me they want to expose someone, then I will.

Ian Nikol's first demand when Yolanda's hearing began was to remove me as Yolanda's advocate and he demanded that the arbitrator rule that I had to sit as far away from Yolanda as possible, against the wall, and never speak with her. Arbitrator Sara Miller Espinosa denied his request.

Ian's next move was to demand that the Arbitrator deny Yolanda's medical leave, scheduled for the month of December 2014 so that she could have surgery. He brought in a note from, he told everyone, the payroll secretary, saying that Yolanda had never applied to take a medical leave for surgery. I had determined that Ian would do something underhanded like that, so I told Yolanda to bring the letter from the real payroll secretary (Ian had not told the truth, his letter was from Principal Scanlon's secretary) acknowledging Yolanda's leave for the month of December.

But Yolanda was too ill to have surgery, so we started her 3020-a December 5, 2014. Ian could not care that Yolanda was very ill, he was as nasty as ever, hoping that I would dissolve into a pile of gibberish. Instead, I thrive on challenges such as this. Yolanda and I were an excellent team.

How do I know? Ian became an out of control mess, yelling at us, objecting to every word Yolanda said, and literally fighting us as if he was a professional boxer. I was saddened by Ian's behavior, because I knew how ill Yolanda was. She told me that I could not tell him but I did not think it would have made any difference.

Yolanda had been teaching for almost 30 years, but Scanlon charged her without doing a single observation. Instead, he sent in a teacher, Breina Lampert to observe her, and rate Yolanda for the 2012-2013 school year. Scalon testified:

5                                                                A. Ms. Lambert told me that there was,
6                                 you know, a history for instruction in the classroom
7                                 and that the students were learning -- and that their
8                                 grades, their Regents passing grades -- suffering by
9                                 it and that she felt that, you know, for the reasons I
10                            stated and the recommendations made that it was an
                   unsatisfactory lesson.

So Scanlon filed 3020-a charges against Yolanda. For no reason. This is one of the most stupifying facts that come out of 3020-a hearings....that the charges are without reason, irrational, and simply false.

Ms. Lampert was made an Assistant Principal the following school year, and ended up in the NY POST and other newspapers for cheating on tests.Ian didn't care that a teacher rated another teacher. He brought in Ms. Lampert to testify, and I assisted Yolanda in creating an objection for the record that Lampert's testimony was a violation of the contract. Ian finally demanded that her testimony be stricken from the record.

Also in December 2014 Ian Nikol lied about ever seeing the Performance Management document. He would not allow Daniel Scanlon or Grace Zwillenberg, former Principal of John Adams High School, testify to using that document to get rid of teachers. Ian had, previously, seen the very same document presented to Daniel Scanlon and Grace at another 3020-a hearing for another teacher at John Adams, (I was hired as the paralegal) and Scanlon called the papers titled "Performance Management" his "Bible". Grace Zwillenberg the former Principal, testified also that this document was her "Bible". I told Arbitrator Espinosa that Ian had not been truthful.

Ian stood up and started screaming, that's it!!! I've had it!!!!!! I will be right back!!!!! He stormed out of the hearing room, and appeared about 7 minutes later with his Supervisor,  Attorney Dennis Da Costa.

Dennis went on the record (I requested that a record be made) and testified that I had to shut my mouth in the hearing room, on or off the record, outside the hearing room, and anywhere on the floor and/or the building. Yolanda got very upset.

Courtenaye Jackson-Chase
At that time the General Counsel for the NYC DOE was Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, a person I very much respect and like, despite our different positions on 3020-a cases. She left the DOE in May. I met Courtenaye more than 10 years ago at the NYSSBA meeting at the Hilton Hotel, and I liked her immediately. I was working for the UFT at the time, so I had a chance to ask for meetings with her several times.

When Dennis Da Costa said that I had to shut my mouth anywhere in the DOE buildings, at all times, I knew that I needed to go to Courtenaye. Not because we were going to give in to Ian, but because I felt that Yolanda could not take much more of Ian's abusive behavior. I called Courtenaye, and she agreed to see me. The 3020-a hearings used to take place across the street from Tweed, Courtenaye's office, on Chambers Street.

I ran across the street, and told Courtenaye about Yolanda, her illness, Ian's actions and Dennis Da Costa's hysterical outburst, etc. I asked Courtenaye to ask Ian to settle the case, as Yolanda needed to retire, but Ian only gave her to  August 31 2015 to retire. Courtenaye told me, I will see what I can do.

I ran down the street, bought a slice of pizza, and ran back to the hearing.

When Arbitrator Espinoza started the hearing once again, Ian was as nice as could be. He told the Arbitrator that he believed that a settlement could be reached. Yolanda and I went into a room nearby with Ian, and he agreed to give Yolanda a retirement date of October 5, 2015. I wrote a heartfelt thank you to Courtenaye.

Yolanda was very happy. She died October 11, 2015.

I miss her.

Other negotiations I have done at 3020-a as the representative/paralegal for the Respondent:

Rochester, N.Y. (no lawyer): 3 cases where the Rochester School District filed charges against teachers and wanted termination, I successfully negotiated withdrawal of charges; a promise not to pursue another 3020-a in the future (which was already being investigated) ; retirement and withdrawal of charges.

Addison N.Y (no lawyer).: successfully negotiated terms of settlement whereby the charged teacher received a retirement date 1 1/2 years after the charges were withdrawn, the last year full salary stay at home (to get the full 30-year pension).

New York City: assisted private attorneys in about 10 cases to get charges withdrawn, and retirement packages requested by the teachers. I have 3 complete exonerations.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, The NYC Public Voice


NYC DOE Lost $Millions in Federal Medicaid Funds For Special Education. Fire Carmen Farina. Now.

$
0
0
From 1996 when I started in the public schools of NYC with my oldest daughter who had an IEP, I have studied the abominable actions of the NYC DOE as it denies special education services to children who need these services to succeed. I became a parent advocate and do Impartial Hearings to undo this damage for all parents.

Then while working for the UFT 2007-10 and after, I have seen the abominable actions taken by the NYC DOE to silence special education teachers, paras, and other employees when they ask the question: "Where's the money?" If the employee is not tenured, he/she gets discontinued for some made up reason. If the employee has tenure, he/she gets charged with 3020-a and the DOE makes up reasons to fire him/her.

Below is a post on the newest scream coming from Scott Stringer about the loss of Federal Medicaid funds. He has been in the know about this for at least 14 years, and all I can see that he has done about it is get his name in the papers, possibly to set up a run for Mayor.

Someone, do something, dont just talk about it.

Start with firing Carmen Farina.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, The NYC Public Voice
Carmen Farina, NYC DOE Chancellor
Below is the latest article re-posted here from my website Parentadvocates.org
NYC Failed To Secure Hundreds of Millions of Federal Medicaid Funds For Special Education
The New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to recoup $356 million in federal Medicaid funds for special education services between FY12 and FY14 and is projected to lose out on $310 million more in reimbursement through FY18, Comptroller Scott M. Stringer revealed in a new analysis released today. "This is not new news. We have heard about the NYC DOE doing the same thing for almost 3 years. When will this change? NYC Chancellor Carmen Farina must be fired." writes Betsy Combier, Editor           
http://www.parentadvocates.org/graphics/spacer.gif
http://www.parentadvocates.org/graphics/spacer.gif
   

   
http://www.parentadvocates.org/graphics/spacer.gif
Scott Stringer
The failures of the NYC Department of Education in the area of special education are appalling, not only in terms of getting Federal Medicaid funds, but in getting children their special services and in keeping the licensed special education teachers in the classroom. This is not new news. We have heard about the NYC DOE doing the same thing for more than 3 years. When will this change?

See my posts in 2004:
NYC UFT Gives an Overview of the 'Special Education Mess'

A Question For Carmen Farina, NYC Chancellor: Where is the Money?

Special Education in New York City Does Not Exist; Ed Officials Mislead the Public and Discard the Kids
(2004)

New York City Ed Department Cited by Audit as Defrauding Federal Government
(2005)

Get the picture? And Chancellor Carmen Farina was Deputy Chancellor during the Bloomberg/Klein years, until she was forced out

Chancellor Carmen Farina must be fired.

Betsy Combier, Editor


COMPTROLLER SCOTT M. STRINGER FINDS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FAILED TO SECURE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF FEDERAL MEDICAID FUNDS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION

NEW YORK, NY – The New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to recoup $356 million in federal Medicaid funds for special education services between FY12 and FY14 and is projected to lose out on $310 million more in reimbursement through FY18,Comptroller Scott M. Stringer revealed in a new analysis released today.

“The Department of Education’s ineffectiveness in claiming Medicaid reimbursements for special education has resulted in millions of dollars being ‘left on the table’, forcing City taxpayers to pick up the tab,” Comptroller Stringer said. “To put this in perspective, the funds we’ve missed out on in the past two years are more than the entire UPK budget for FY15. It’s time for DOE to come up with a real plan to secure our federal reimbursement for mandated services that support our most vulnerable students.”

The Comptroller’s analysis shows a steep decline in DOE Medicaid reimbursements beginning in FY06, when it realized $17 million in reimbursements compared to an average of $110 million in the previous ten years. The drop in reimbursement can be attributed to new processes put in place after a series of federal audits determined the City and State had received over $1 billion in Medicaid funds from claims that should have been “disallowed.”

In July 2009, the Department of JusticeOffice of the Inspector GeneralCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services and New York State reached a settlement in which the State agreed to return $539.75 million to the federal government, $100 million of which would be paid back by New York City. Since the settlement, New York State has made its own claiming rules for school districts more restrictive as a way to avoid potential future clawbacks, since the State is responsible for fifty percent of the districts’ Medicaid costs.

According to DOE’s own estimates, the City’s success in securing these dollars is not projected to improve in the near future. The current budget adjusted Medicaid reimbursements downward from FY15 through FY18 by a cumulative $310 million. If that stands, the City would lose out $666 million in total federal funding over a seven-year span.
Comptroller Stringer made several recommendations to improve DOE’s claims process and ensure City dollars are not replacing federal funding:
DOE must clarify its claims process so that it can recoup its spending on Medicaid eligible special education services;
A joint City, State and federal taskforce should be established in order for DOE to maximize the return on its Medicaid eligible spending; and
The state and federal governments must come through on their financial responsibilities to New York City children by cutting the red tape and bureaucracy that stands in the way of DOE being reimbursed for mandated services.
To read the full report, click here.

SEE:

Advocates For Children

Thousands of New York City Students Deprived of Special-Education Services, Report Says

From 2014:

EXCLUSIVE: School officials lose $356M in special education funds over sloppy accounting
NY DAILY NEWS, August 22, 2014
LINK

City public schools lost $356 million during the past three years in federal Medicaid payments for special education services because city and state officials failed to properly apply for reimbursement, the Daily News has learned.

“Red tape and bureaucracy should not stand in the way of (the city) being reimbursed for the vast array of services provided,” city Controller Scott Stringer said in a report obtained by The News.

As a result, between 2012 and this year, the city Department of Education kept shifting funds originally slated for books, supplies and other general costs to pay for those special education services, Stringer said.

And unless officials reform their practices quickly, the school system will miss out on another $310 million from Medicaid over the next four years — for an astonishing total loss of $666 million.

“That’s just unacceptable,” Stringer said. “There’s no excuse for leaving so much money on the table.”

Under federal law, Medicaid provides 100% reimbursement to state and local school districts for special education services such as speech, occupational and physical therapy, counseling, evaluations of students, and pupil transportation.

Each school district, however, must first pay for the service, then provide extensive documentation to its state education department, which in turn applies to Medicaid for reimbursement. After Washington approves the money, the states and local districts get to split the payments between them.

But over the past few years, United Federation of Teachers President Mike Mulgrew and other school system labor leaders have warned that New York City, unlike other school districts in the state, keeps botching its documentation of special education expenditures.

Stringer’s report appears to back that up. He found the city has collected only a tiny fraction of the Medicaid money it should have.

In the fiscal year that ended June 30, for example, the Department of Education initially expected to receive $117 million from Medicaid for services to 170,000 special education pupils. Instead, it has received just $2.2 million, and billed for only another $180,000.

Department of Education officials say they’ve been working hard to improve the Medicaid billing system they inherited from the Bloomberg  years.

“We are confident that our . . . corrective action plan, along with additional actions the DOE has taken since last December, will result in increased Medicaid revenue this fiscal year and in the future,” department spokeswoman Devora Kaye said

Betsy Combier Speaks Out on the Constitutional Mess Created by Mayoral Control of the New York City Board of Education (2008)

New York City Special Education Problems Persist, Says UFT VP, City Council Speaker, and everyone else


The NY POST Sues The New York City Department of Education For Freedom of Information (FOIL) Violations

$
0
0
Joe Baranello
See also Parentadvocates.org

Congratulations to the New York POST (NYPOST) newspaper, and reporters Susan Edelman, Aaron Short, and Yoav Gonen, for filing a petition against the NYC DOE for FOI Law violations! As an Editor, writer, and a person who files countless FOI requests of the Department I know how the NYC DOE illegally denies access to documents, videos, letters and other information they simply do not want the public to see. The disdain of the NYC DOE for the law is shocking. 

See my FOIL request denials:

The Second "Who Are You Kidding Award" Goes To Dennis Walcott





Editor Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, The NYC Public Voice
           
http://www.parentadvocates.org/graphics/spacer.gif
http://www.parentadvocates.org/graphics/spacer.gif
The NY POST Sues The New York City Department of Education For Freedom of Information (FOIL) Violations

Congratulations to the New York POST (NYPOST) newspaper, and reporters Susan Edelman, Aaron Short, and Yoav Gonen, for filing a petition against the NYC DOE for FOI Law violations!

As an Editor, writer, and a person who files countless FOI requests of the Department I know how the NYC DOE illegally denies access to documents, videos, letters and other information they simply do not want the public to see. The disdain of the NYC DOE for the law is shocking.

Betsy Combier
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
President, ADVOCATZ/Theater Kids, Inc.
betsy.combier@gmail.com

Here is the Petition:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the annexed Verified Petition and Complaint, the exhibits attached thereto, the Affidavit of Jeremy A. Chase, and the memorandum of law in support of the Petition, Petitioners NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, Aaron Short, and Yoav Gonen will move this Court at the New York State Supreme Court, New York County Courthouse, located at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007, in the Motions Submission Part, Room 130, at 9:30 a.m. on September 16, 2016, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard for an Order and Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules for the relief demanded in the annexed Verified Petition and Complaint.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 7804,
Respondents’ answer, if any, must be served upon the undersigned by September 12, 2016 and
Petitioners’ reply, if any will be served on September 15, 2016.

Petitioners-Plaintiffs NYP Holdings, Inc. (“NYP”), Susan Edelman, Aaron Short, and Yoav Gonen (collectively, “Petitioners”), for their verified petition for judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, and their complaint seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 3001, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This hybrid Article 78 petition and Complaint against the New York City Department of Education and Carmen Fariña, as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education (collectively “Respondents” or “DOE”) arises out of Respondents’ repeated failure to determine whether to grant or deny access to information Petitioners have requested as is required by the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”). Instead, Respondents have engaged in a pattern and practice of unilaterally granting themselves repeated extensions of time to respond to FOIL requests ad infinitum, thereby flouting their duty under FOIL to make their records available to the public.
2. FOIL requires that within five business days of the receipt of a request for records, an agency must “make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied.” N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 89(3)(a) (emphasis added).
Joe Baranello
3. Since September 2014, Petitioners have submitted a number of FOIL requests to DOE. In each case, DOE Central Records Access Officer & Agency Attorney Joseph A. Baranello has acknowledged receipt of the request by letter and stated that “a response is currently anticipated by [x date].”
4. Not once, however, have Respondents granted or denied the request by the anticipated date, and instead Mr. Baranello has sent the following form letter, again and again:
This letter concerns the above-referenced Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. Pursuant to section VI.B of Chancellor’s Regulation D-110, due to the volume and complexity of requests we receive and process, and to determine whether any records or portions thereof will be subject to redactions permitted under Public Officers Law §87(2), additional time is required to respond substantively to your request. Accordingly, a response is currently anticipated by [x date].

(hereinafter the “Form Delay Letter”).

5. This Form Delay Letter offers no legally-cognizable explanation for DOE’s unilateral delays in determining whether it will grant or deny a request. Nor does the Form Delay Letter offer an approximate date that is “reasonable under the circumstances of the request.” N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 89(3)(a). Instead, Respondents completely ignore the circumstances of the request and, without any consideration of how long the determination of whether to grant or deny a particular request should reasonably take or the particular factors that may affect the time for a decision, kick the proverbial can down the road to the Petitioners’ and the public’s detriment.
6. Petitioners are left in limbo – their requests neither granted nor denied – with the only certainty being the receipt of another monthly Form Delay Letter from Respondents gifting themselves more time and abdicating their statutory duty to make their records available to the public. All the while, the Petitioners and the public are left in the dark about the workings and failings of their government.
7. Recognizing that Respondents refuse to even determine whether Petitioners’ requests should be granted or denied – let alone provide Petitioners with the requested documents – in May 2016 Petitioners construed Respondents’ excessive delays in responding as constructive denials of their requests and filed administrative appeals of the constructive denials with the DOE (Ms. Edelman and Mr. Short on May 18, 2016 and Mr. Gonen on May 24, 2016). At the time of filing their administrative appeals, Petitioners were collectively waiting for Respondents to grant or deny twelve separate FOIL requests – five (5) for Ms. Edelman, four (4) for Mr. Short, and three (3) for Mr. Gonen. Petitioners had received between three (3) and fourteen (14) Form Delay Letters for each request, and had been waiting for between four (4) and twenty (20) months for responses to each request. As of the date of this Petition, Petitioners have been awaiting a “yes” or a “no” on each of the remaining ten outstanding requests for between more than six (6) months and more than twenty (20) months.
8. In decisions dated June 6, 2015 and June 8, 2015, the First Deputy General Counsel of the DOE Judy Nathan, on behalf of Respondents, rejected Petitioners’ administrative appeals, finding that the requests had not been constructively denied and were not ripe for review. Ms. Nathan reasoned that because Respondents continued to send monthly extension letters with new “approximate date[s]” for the agency to respond, and because the Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) considers a request constructively denied only when the request is neither granted nor denied “within the time limits set forth . . . in the acknowledgment letter or
any extension letter(s) . . . ,” no constructive denial could occur so long as DOE continued to send Form Delay Letters.
9. The Chancellor’s Regulation which provides for unlimited “extension letter(s)” is an invalid usurpation of legislative authority, as it is inconsistent with the language and the legislative purpose of Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a) and the Committee on Open Government’s implementing regulations (the “Implementing Regulations”), neither of which authorizes multiple unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the request.
10. If this provision of the Chancellor’s Regulation is allowed to stand – or if Respondents’ actions here in taking repeated unilateral pro forma extensions of their time to grant or deny a request is condoned as “reasonable under the circumstances of the request(s)” – the entire FOIL would be rendered meaningless and agencies could avoid (or in DOE’s case, continue to avoid) providing public records merely by sending the same pat letter month after month – and avoid any administrative or judicial review by claiming their extensions are not constructive denials.
11. Having now exhausted their administrative remedies, Petitioners now seek (1) a declaration pursuant to CPLR § 3001 that Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) is invalid and contrary to FOIL and the Implementing Regulations, and that the DOE’s practice of granting itself serial unilateral extensions of time to respond to FOIL requests is unlawful and tantamount to a constructive denial; and (2) an Order pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, directing the DOE to produce all disclosable records responsive to Petitioners’ ten outstanding requests1 within twenty (20) days of the Court’s order; and (3) award Petitioners their the costs and fees, together with such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.

PARTIES

12. Petitioner NYP Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, 10036-8790. NYP Holdings, Inc. is the publisher of the New York Post (the “Post”), the oldest, continuously published daily newspaper in the United States, having first been published by Alexander Hamilton in 1801. Today, the Post is sold in many states in the United States, both at newsstands, by subscription, and digitally via the Internet.
13. Petitioner Susan Edelman is an investigative reporter for the New York Post Sunday edition who covers a variety of news beats including education news. She has reported extensively on education spending, teacher pay, misconduct in education, and a host of other topics of significant public interest.
14. Petitioner Aaron Short is an investigative reporter for the New York Post Sunday edition covering government. Between January 2014 and June 2015 he covered education and state government for the Post’s daily edition. In both roles, he has reported on various issues of significant public interest relating to education and the New York City Department of Education.
15. Petitioner Yoav Gonen is an investigative reporter and the City Hall Bureau Chief for the New York Post. In this role, he has reported extensively on various issues of significant public interest relating to public education and the New York City Department of Education.


footnote1: Since Ms. Edelman and Mr. Short filed their administrative appeal, perhaps fearing this action, Respondents have granted in part two of the nine FOIL requests at issue on their appeal – F#11,479 on May 27, 2016 and F#10,586 on June 17, 2016. The Requests, however, are relevant to Petitioners’ request for declaratory relief under CPLR § 3001.

16. Respondent the New York City Department of Education consists of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, also known as the Panel for Educational Policy, established by Educ. Law § 2590(b), the Chancellor, and other school employees.2 DOE is an “agency” within the meaning of Public Off. Law § 86(3). Its principal office is located at 52 Chambers Street, Room 308, New York, NY 10007.
17. Respondent Carmen Fariña is the Chancellor of the DOE and is charged with administration of New York City’s public schools, including the provision of academic standards, student placement, school funding, and teacher recruitment. Her principal office is located at 52 Chambers Street, New York, NY 10007.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

18. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 7801 et seq. to review the actions by bodies or officers who have failed to perform a duty enjoined on them by law.
19. The court also has jurisdiction pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3001 to render declaratory relief.
20. Venue properly lies in New York County pursuant to CPLR § 506(b) and CPLR § 7804(b) because that is where DOE’s principal office is located and because it is within the judicial district wherein DOE made the determinations petitioned against and complained of and where it refused to perform the duties specifically enjoined upon it by law.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. THE FIRST REQUEST (F#10,586)

21. On September 23, 2014, Mr. Short requested the following records from the DOE


footnote 2: See DOE, Bylaws of the Panel for Educational Policy of the Department of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/leadership/PEP/bylaws/default.htm (last visited Jun. 28, 2016).
(the “First Request”): a list of public school teachers, sorted by school, who have taken between 11 and 20 days off from school in the 2013-2014 school year, and a list of teachers who have taken 20 or more days off. A true and correct copy of the First Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
22. DOE is required to maintain this record. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of records relating to employee absences or accruals, employee’s time records covering leave, absences, hours worked and scheduling, vacation schedules, report of absence and request for leave without pay).
23. On September 30, 2014, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Mr. Short acknowledging receipt of his request and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response by October 29, 2014. A true and correct copy of the September 30, 2014 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
24. On October 29, 2014, however, instead of receiving a determination of whether the request was granted or denied, Mr. Short received a Form Delay Letter from Mr. Baranello stating that “a response is currently anticipated by December 1, 2014.” Over the next several months, Mr. Baranello sent a series of identical Form Delay Letters to Mr. Short granting DOE unilateral extensions of its time to grant or deny the request to the following new anticipated dates:
• February 2, 2015,

• March 31, 2015,

• April 28, 2015,

• May 27, 2015,

• June 24, 2015,

• September 18, 2015,

• October 19, 2015,

• November 17, 2015,

• December 17, 2015,

• January 21, 2016,

• February 19, 2016,

• March 18, 2016, and

• April 15, 2016.

True and correct copies of the Form Delay Letters related to the First Request are attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
25. At the time Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal on May 18, 2016, the April 15, 2016 deadline had passed and Mr. Short had received neither a substantive response nor even another Form Delay Letter from Respondent.
26. On June 17, 2016, a month after the appeal was filed, more than two months after the most recent “approximate date” for DOE to grant or deny the request had passed, and twenty
one (21) months after Mr. Short filed his initial request, Petitioners received a response from Respondent, granting in part the First Request. Mr. Short was provided with a single excel spreadsheet with the name of every teacher redacted. The amount of time it took to review and redact this single document – Respondents’ stated reason for the delay other than the volume of other requests – took only as long as it would take to type the word “REDACTED” and paste it into two columns of a spreadsheet. A true and correct copy of the Response to the First Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
27. Because DOE took so long to respond to the First Request, the information sought in the request for the 2013-2014 school year is now stale. As a result, Petitioners did not appeal this partial denial.

II. THE SECOND REQUEST (F#10,764)

28. On November 20, 2014, Mr. Short requested the following records from the DOE (the “Second Request”): a list or spreadsheet of arrests of DOE employees and the type of crime or non-criminal incident for which they were charged from January 1, 2010 to November 20, 2014. A true and correct copy of the Second Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
29. DOE is required to maintain this record. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of records relating to investigative records and disciplinary proceedings, personnel-related records of reports of allegations of child abuse against school employees and volunteers in an “educational setting”).
30. On December 1, 2014, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Mr. Short acknowledging receipt of his request and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response by December 31, 2014. A true and correct copy of the December 1, 2014 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
31. Instead of receiving a determination of whether the request was granted or denied, Mr. Baranello sent Mr. Short a series of Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the request to the following new anticipated dates:
• February 2, 2015,

• March 31, 2015,

• April 28, 2015,

• May 27, 2015,

• June 24, 2015,

• August 20, 2015,

• September 18, 2015,

• October 19, 2015,

• November 17, 2015,

• December 17, 2015,

• January 21, 2016,

• February 19, 2016,

• March 18, 2016, and

• April 15, 2016.

32. At the time Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal on May 18, 2016, the April 15, 2016 deadline had passed and Mr. Short had received neither a substantive response nor even another Form Delay Letter from Respondent.
33. Then, after Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal and almost three months after the most recent “anticipated date” for DOE to respond had passed, DOE sent a fifteenth (15) Form Delay Letter granting itself yet another unilateral extension until
• July 12, 2016.

True and correct copies of the Form Delay Letters related to the Second Request are attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
34. As of the date of this Petition, July 12, 2016 came and went with no response.

This request has been outstanding for more than twenty (20) months.

III. THE THIRD AND FOURTH REQUESTS (F #11,061, F#11,068)

35. On March 4, 2015, Mr. Gonen requested the following records from the DOE (the “Third Request”): a copy of all e-mails sent and received by DOE Press Secretary Devora Kaye on March 3, 2015. A true and correct copy of the Third Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
36. On March 6, 2015, Mr. Gonen requested the following records from the DOE (the “Fourth Request”): a copy of all e-mails sent and received by Ms. Kaye on March 2, 2015. A true and correct copy of the Fourth Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
37. DOE is required to maintain these records. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of records for which a FOIL request has been received).
38. On March 11, 2015, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Mr. Gonen acknowledging receipt of the Third and Fourth Requests, and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response to both by April 7, 2015. A true and correct copy of the March 11, 2015 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
39. Instead of receiving a determination of whether the requests were granted or denied, Mr. Baranello sent Mr. Gonen a series of Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the requests to the following new anticipated dates:
• May 5, 2015,

• June 3, 2015,

• July 1, 2015,

• July 30, 2015,

• August 27, 2015,

• September 25, 2015,

• October 26, 2015,

• December 28, 2015,

• January 26, 2015 [sic],

• February 26, 2016,

• March 25, 2016,

• April 22, 2016, and

• May 20, 2016.

40. After Mr. Gonen filed his administrative appeal and DOE denied it, DOE sent three additional Form Delay Letters for a total of sixteen (16) Form Delay Letters granting itself
further unilateral extensions until:

• June 20, 2016,

• July 19, 2016, and

• August 16, 2016.

True and correct copies of the Form Delay Letters related to the Fourth Request are attached hereto as Exhibit 11.
41. As of the date of this Petition, this request has been outstanding for more than seventeen (17) months.

IV. THE FIFTH REQUEST (F#11,115)

42. On March 17, 2015, Mr. Gonen requested the following records from the DOE (the “Fifth Request”): a breakdown of the reason for/method of departure for each of the 291 educators/staffers in the ATR (“Absent Teacher Reserve”) pool that Mayor de Blasio has said repeatedly have been “moved” out of the schools system since April 2014, including the teacher’s name, location of last teaching assignment, and reason for/method of departure, as well as copies of any related stipulations of settlement or expedited 3020-A hearing reports. A true and correct copy of the Fifth Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
43. DOE is required to maintain these records. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of records for which a FOIL request has been received, as well as records related to substitute teacher registries and terminations).
44. On March 13, 2015, four days prior to submitting the Fifth Request, Mr. Gonen e-mailed Jason Fink of the DOE’s Press Office asking him to provide the same list he later requested in the first part of the Fifth Request. On March 17, 2015, Mr. Fink contacted Mr. Gonen to tell him, “So apparently you have a FOIL request in that seems to cover this.” In response, Mr. Gonen wrote, “It’s true. That doesn’t preclude you from answering sooner. I’d cancel the foil if so.” A true and correct copy of this e-mail chain is attached hereto as Exhibit 13. On March 20, 2015, Mr. Fink sent Mr. Gonen an e-mail containing a chart of the ATR exits with minimal detail in response to Mr. Gonen’s earlier e-mail to the Press Office. This information was provided completely independent of the FOIL process. A true and correct copy of Mr. Fink’s e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 14.
45. On March 24, 2015, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Mr. Gonen acknowledging receipt of his FOIL request, observing that a portion of the request had already been provided to Mr. Gonen, and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response to the remainder of the request by April 20, 2015. A true and correct copy of the March 24, 2015 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
46. Instead of receiving a determination of whether the request was granted or denied, Mr. Baranello sent Mr. Gonen a series of Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the request to the following new anticipated dates:
• May 18, 2015,

• June 16, 2015,

• July 15, 2015,

• August 12, 2015,

• September 10, 2015,

• October 8, 2015,

• December 9, 2015,

• January 12, 2016,

• March 10, 2016,3

• April 7, 2016,

• May 5, 2016, and

• June 3, 2016.

47. After Mr. Gonen filed his administrative appeal and DOE denied it, DOE sent three additional Form Delay Letters for a total of fifteen (15) Form Delay Letters granting itself further unilateral extensions until:

• July 1, 2016,

• August 1, 2016, and

• August 29, 2016.

True and correct copies of the Form Delay Letters and Mr. Gonen’s e-mail exchange with Mr. Mantell about delays related to the Fifth Request are attached hereto as Exhibit 16.
48. As of the date of this Petition, this request has been outstanding for just under seventeen (17) months.

V. THE SIXTH REQUEST (F#11,479)

49. On July 6, 2015, Ms. Edelman requested the following records from the DOE (the “Sixth Request”): records on the re-scoring of the Regents exams in New York City schools including all records of requests by New York City superintendents and other personnel to re- score the January 2015 Regents exams. A true and correct copy of the Sixth Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 17.

footnote 3: On February 22, 2016, well over a month after DOE’s most recent anticipated date of response (January 12, 2016) had passed, Mr. Gonen wrote to Will Mantell of the DOE press office who sends all FOIL responses on behalf of Mr. Baranello, and asked “hey Will, have you sent anything since this notice? I don’t see anything if you did,” to which Mr. Mantell responded, “Doesn’t look like it. I’ll look into it tmo.” This email exchange is included as part of Exhibit 16.

50. DOE is required to maintain these records. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of records relating to Regents exam test results).
51. On July 13, 2015, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Ms. Edelman acknowledging receipt of her request and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response by August 10, 2015. A true and correct copy of the July 13, 2015 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 18.
52. Instead of receiving a determination of whether the request was granted or denied, Mr. Baranello sent Ms. Edelman a series of Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the request to the following new anticipated dates:
• September 8, 2015,

• November 4, 2015,

• December 7, 2015,

• January 8, 2016,

• February 8, 2016,

• March 25, 2016, and

• May 20, 2016.

True and Correct copies of the Form Delay Letters related to the Sixth Request are attached hereto as Exhibit 19.
53. On May 27, 2016, a week after the most recent “anticipated date” for DOE to respond had passed, ten days after Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their appeal, and more than ten (10) months after she filed her initial request, Ms. Edelman received a response from Respondent, granting in part her request. Ms. Edelman was provided with a single excel spreadsheet. The amount of time it took to review and redact this automatically generated
information – DOE’s stated reason for the delay other than the volume of other requests – took only as long as it would take to type the word “REDACTED” and paste it into three columns of a spreadsheet. A true and correct copy of the Response to the Sixth Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 20.
54. As with the First Request, because DOE took so long to respond to the Sixth Request, the information sought in the request is now stale. As a result, Petitioners did not appeal this partial denial.

VI. THE SEVENTH REQUEST (F#11,571)

55. On August 12, 2015, Ms. Edelman requested the following records from the DOE (the “Seventh Request”): copies of reports completed or finalized since January 1, 2014 by the Office of Special Investigation (OSI). A true and correct copy of the Seventh Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 21.
56. Among its various responsibilities, the OSI investigates allegations of improper and unlawful behavior, including corporal punishment, verbal abuse against students, and various other forms of misconduct in the DOE. The DOE is required to maintain these records. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of records relating to child abuse or maltreatment reports and related records and complaints about use of corporal punishment against students).
57. On August 19, 2015, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Ms. Edelman acknowledging receipt of her request and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response by September 17, 2015. A true and correct copy of the August 19, 2015 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 22.
58. Instead of receiving a determination of whether the request was granted or denied, Mr. Baranello sent Ms. Edelman a series of Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the request to the following new anticipated dates:

• October 16, 2015,

• November 16, 2015,

• December 16, 2015,

• January 20, 2016,

• February 18, 2016,

• April 14, 2016,

• May 12, 2016, and

• June 10, 2016.

59. After Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal and DOE denied it, DOE sent four additional Form Delay Letters for a total of twelve (12) Form Delay Letters granting itself further unilateral extensions until:

• July 11, 2016,

• July 25, 2016,

• August 8, 2016, and

• August 22, 2016.

True and correct copies of the Form Delay Letters related to the Sixth Request are attached hereto as Exhibit 23.
60. As of the date of this Petition, this request has been outstanding for just under twelve (12) months.

VII. THE EIGHTH REQUEST (F#11,677)

61. On October 2, 2015, Mr. Short requested the following records from the DOE (the “Eighth Request”): payroll records for Renewal School Superintendent Amy Horowitz and all staff who work with Ms. Horowitz on the Renewal School initiative for 2015, or for the 2014-2015 school year. A true and correct copy of the Eighth Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 24.
62. DOE is required to maintain these records. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of payroll records). Further, one of the few exceptions to the FOIL’s rule that agencies do not need to create records to respond to a FOIL request is that every agency is required to create “a record setting forth the name, public office address, title and salary of every officer or employee of the agency.” Pub. Off. Law. § 87(3)(b).
63. On October 9, 2015, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Mr. Short acknowledging receipt of his request and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response by November 9, 2015. A true and correct copy of the October 9, 2014 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 25.
64. Instead of receiving a determination of whether the request was granted or denied, Mr. Baranello sent Mr. Short a series of Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the request to the following new anticipated dates:

• December 10, 2015,

• February 11, 2016,

• April 8, 2016, and

• May 6, 2016.

65. At the time Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal on May 18, 2016, the May 6, 2016 deadline had passed and Mr. Short had received neither a substantive response nor even another Form Delay Letter from Respondent.
66. Nevertheless, after Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal and a month after the most recent “anticipated date” for DOE to respond had passed, DOE sent three additional Form Delay Letters for a total of seven (7) Form Delay Letters granting itself further unilateral extensions until:

• July 5, 2016,

• August 2, 2016, and

• August 30, 2016.

True and correct copies of the Form Delay Letters related to the Eighth Request are attached hereto as Exhibit 26.
67. As of the date of this Petition, this request has been outstanding for more than ten (10) months.

VIII. THE NINTH REQUEST (F#11,856)

68. On December 2, 2015, Ms. Edelman requested the following records from the DOE (the “Ninth Request”): records of disciplinary action involving school bus drivers and “matrons” or other such aides since December 1, 2014. A true and correct copy of the Ninth Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 27.
69. DOE is required to maintain these records. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of records relating to disciplinary proceedings).
70. On December 8, 2015, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Ms. Edelman acknowledging receipt of her request and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response by January 11, 2016. A true and correct copy of the December 8, 2015 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 28.
71. Instead of receiving a determination of whether the request was granted or denied, Mr. Baranello sent Ms. Edelman a series of Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the request to the following new anticipated dates:

• February 9, 2016,

• March 9, 2016,

• April 6, 2016,

• May 4, 2016, and

• June 2, 2016.

72. Then, after Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal, DOE sent five additional Form Delay Letters for a total of ten (10) Form Delay Letters granting itself further unilateral extensions until:

• June 30, 2016,

• July 15, 2016,

• July 22, 2016,

• July 29, 2016, and

• August 12, 2016.

True and correct copies of the Form Delay Letters related to the Ninth Request are attached hereto as Exhibit 29.
73. As of the date of this Petition, this request has been outstanding for more than eight (8) months.

IX. THE TENTH REQUEST (F#11,858)

74. Also on December 2, 2015, Ms. Edelman requested the following records from the DOE (the “Tenth Request”): records detailing weapons found or confiscated in city schools in the 2013-2014 school year, the 2014-2015 school year, and the current school year. A true and correct copy of the Tenth Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 30.
75. DOE is required to maintain these records. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of records relating to disciplinary proceedings).
76. Ms. Edelman had previously requested and been provided with this exact information by DOE for prior year’s reporting. Recognizing that this data is readily available to Respondent, in an effort to expedite processing of her request, Ms. Edelman attached to her request the similar records DOE released to her in March 2012. A true and correct copy of the DOE’s Response to Ms. Edelman’s previous FOIL request and the two spreadsheets provided (one for each school year) are attached hereto as Exhibit 31.
77. On December 8, 2015, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Ms. Edelman acknowledging receipt of her request and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response by January 11, 2016. A true and correct copy of the December 8, 2015 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 32.
78. Instead of receiving a determination of whether the request was granted or denied, Mr. Baranello sent Ms. Edelman a series of Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the request to the following new anticipated dates:

• February 9, 2016,

• March 9, 2016,

• April 6, 2016,

• May 4, 2016, and

• June 2, 2016.

79. Then, after Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal, DOE sent five additional Form Delay Letters for a total of ten (10) Form Delay Letters granting itself further unilateral extensions until:

• June 30, 2016,

• July 15, 2016,

• July 22, 2016,

• July 29, 2016, and

• August 12, 2016.

True and correct copies of the Form Delay Letters related to the Tenth Request are attached hereto as Exhibit 33.
80. As of the date of this Petition, this request has been outstanding for more than eight (8) months.

X. THE ELEVENTH REQUEST (F#11,894)

81. On December 16, 2015, Mr. Short requested the following records from the DOE (the “Eleventh Request”): attendance records for all DOE principals in the 2013-2014 school year, 2014-2015 school year, and in 2015 between September 9, 2015 and December 15, 2015. A true and correct copy of the Eleventh Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 34.
82. The DOE is required to maintain these records. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of records relating to employee absences or accruals, employee’s time records covering leave, absences, hours worked and scheduling, vacation schedules, report of absence and request for leave without pay).
83. On December 22, 2015, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Mr. Short acknowledging receipt of his request and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response by January 26, 2016. A true and correct copy of the December 22, 2015 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 35.
84. Instead of receiving a determination of whether the request was granted or denied, Mr. Baranello sent Mr. Short a series of Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the request to the following new anticipated dates:

• March 23, 2016, and

• April 20, 2016.

85. At the time Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal on May 18, 2016, the April 20, 2016 deadline had passed and Mr. Short had received neither a substantive response nor even another Form Delay Letter from Respondent.
86. Nevertheless, after Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal and a month after the most recent “anticipated date” for DOE to respond had passed, DOE sent three additional Form Delay Letters for a total of five (5) Form Delay Letters, granting itself further unilateral extensions until

• June 16, 2016,

• July 15, 2016, and

• August 12, 2016.

True and correct copies of the Form Delay Letters related to the Eleventh Request are attached hereto as Exhibit 36.
87. As of the date of this Petition, this request has been outstanding for more than seven (7) months.

XI. THE TWELFTH REQUEST (F#12,015)

88. On January 25, 2016, Ms. Edelman requested the following records from the DOE (the “Twelfth Request”): records of all procurement card (P-card) expenses by DOE personnel since August 21, 2014. A true and correct copy of the Twelfth Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 37.
89. DOE is required to maintain these records. See NYCRR tit. 8, Ch. IV, App. I (requiring retention of records relating procurements of goods and services and credit card expenditures).
90. As with the Tenth Request, Ms. Edelman had previously requested and been provided with this exact information for the period from September 1, 2013 to August 21, 2014. Again, in an effort to expedite the processing of her request, Ms. Edelman attached to her request DOE’s response to her prior request. A true and correct copy of the DOE’s Response to Ms. Edelman’s previous FOIL request along with a pdf of the first 44 lines of the spreadsheet produced by DOE is attached hereto as Exhibit 38.
91. On January 28, 2016, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Ms. Edelman acknowledging receipt of her request and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response by February 26, 2016. A true and correct copy of the January 28, 2016 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 39.
92. Instead of receiving a determination of whether the request was granted or denied, Mr. Baranello sent Ms. Edelman a series of Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions of time to grant or deny the request to the following new anticipated dates:

• March 25, 2015 [sic],

• April 22, 2015 [sic], and

• May 20, 2015 [sic].

93. Then, after Mr. Short and Ms. Edelman filed their administrative appeal, DOE sent six additional Form Delay Letters for a total of nine (9) Form Delay Letters granting itself further unilateral extensions until:

• June 20, 2015 [sic],

• July 19, 2016,

• July 26, 2016,

• August 2, 2016,

• August 8, 2016, and

• August 15, 2016.

True and correct copies of the Form Delay Letters are attached hereto as Exhibit 40.
94. As of the date of this Petition, this request has been outstanding for more than six (6) months.

XII. PETITIONERS’ EFFORTS TO GET DOE TO GRANT OR DENY THEIR REQUESTS

95. Over the course of this extended period of delay, Petitioners did not sit idly by.
96. On November 17, 2015, frustrated with DOE’s dilatory tactics, Ms. Edelman e-mailed Respondent, contesting its practice of sending multiple “form letters delaying compliance with no specific reason.” Specifically, she wrote, “You say the documents will be forthcoming the following month, but I have no confidence that you will send anything other than another form letter with another delay.” Ms. Edelman received no response to her e-mail. A true and correct copy of Ms. Edelman’s November 17, 2015 email is attached hereto as Exhibit 41.
97. Further, on both March 31, 2016 and April 14, 2016, counsel for the Post sent letters to DOE requesting that it respond to the Post’s requests and to inform it that the DOE pattern and practice of delays was unreasonable and contrary to law. In each of these letters, the Post stated that if the requested records were not provided in a timely fashion, the Post would have no choice but to consider DOE’s excessive and repeated delays a constructive denial. Neither Mr. Baranello nor anyone at DOE responded to the Post’s letters. A true and correct copy of the Post’s March 31, 2016 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 42. A true and correct copy of the Post’s April 14, 2016 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 43.

XIII. PETITIONERS’ ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE DENIALS OF THE TWELVE REQUESTS

98. As of May 2016, Petitioners had yet to receive a substantive response to any of the twelve FOIL requests that form the substance of this Petition.
99. Accordingly, on May 18, 2016, Ms. Edelman and Mr. Short timely submitted an administrative appeal of the constructive denials of the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Requests. A true and correct copy of Mr. Short’s and Ms. Edelman’s May 18, 2016 Appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit 44.
100. By letter dated June 6, 2016 from DOE First Deputy General Counsel Judy Nathan, the DOE denied Mr. Short’s and Ms. Edelman’s administrative appeal out of hand. The DOE held that the Requests had not been constructively denied because “according to Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A), a request may be deemed constructively denied only where a requestor ‘is neither granted nor denied access to records within the time limits set forth above [in section V(VI)] or in the acknowledgment letter or any extension letter(s)…’ (emphasis added).” Further, DOE observed that Mr. Baranello had “properly determined that additional time was required” to respond because of “the total number of requests as well as the extensive and voluminous nature of some of the items requested” and that “review and redaction of the requested records . . . are time-consuming.”
101. Ms. Nathan also held that the Sixth Request was moot because on May 27, 2016, a week after the most recent “anticipated date” for DOE to respond had passed, and more than ten (10) months after she filed her initial request, Ms. Edelman received a response from Respondent, granting in part her request. Ms. Edelman was provided with a single excel spreadsheet. The amount of time it took to review and redact this automatically generated information – DOE’s stated reason for the delay other than the volume of other requests – took only as long as it would take to type the word “REDACTED” and paste it into three columns of a spreadsheet. See supra, Exhibit 20.
102. Although Ms. Nathan denied Mr. Short’s and Ms. Edelman’s appeal, she directed DOE to respond to their requests “as expeditiously as possible.” A true and correct copy of DOE’s June 6, 2016 Denial Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 45.
103. Similarly, on May 24, 2016, Mr. Gonen timely submitted two administrative appeals of the constructive denials of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Requests. A true and correct copy of Mr. Gonen’s May 24, 2016 Appeal from the constructive denial of the Third and Fourth Requests is attached hereto as Exhibit 46. A true and correct copy of Mr. Gonen’s May 24, 2016 Appeal from the constructive denial of the Fifth Request is attached hereto as Exhibit 47.
104. By letter dated June 8, 2016 from DOE First Deputy General Counsel Judy Nathan, the DOE denied Mr. Gonen’s administrative appeals out of hand. As with Ms. Edelman’s and Mr. Short’s appeal, the DOE held that Mr. Gonen’s requests had not been constructively denied because “according to Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A), a request may be deemed constructively denied only where a requestor ‘is neither granted nor denied access to records within the time limits set forth above [in section V(VI)] or in the acknowledgment letter or any extension letter(s)…’ (emphasis added).” Further, DOE observed that Mr. Baranello had “properly determined that additional time was required” to respond because of “the extensiveness of your various request items,” and that “review and redaction of the requested records . . . are time-consuming.” A true and correct copy of DOE’s June 8, 2016 Denial Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 48.
105. On July 19, 2016, in response to a request from Petitioners, Kristin O’Neill, Assistant Director of the Committee on Open Government, issued an advisory opinion regarding Petitioners’ requests and whether the Chancellor’s Regulations are consistent with FOIL and the Implementing Regulations. The Committee concluded that “there is no provision in the statute for repeated extensions,” and an “agency is not permitted to establish the right to repeated extensions via regulation, where such right does not exist in statute or in the Committee’s own regulations.” Further, the Committee concluded that it was reasonable for Petitioners to conclude that the receipt of repeated extension notices and failure of DOE to determine Petitioners’ rights of access constituted constructive denials. A true and correct copy of the Advisory Opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit 49.

XIV. OTHER EVIDENCE OF A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF DELAY

106. On January 13, 2016, Ms. O’Neill issued an advisory opinion at the request of Nairobi Vives, Esq. whose FOIL request to Empire State Development had been similarly delayed by numerous unilateral extensions. There, the Committee also observed that “there is no provision in the statute for repeated extensions,” and opined that after three unilateral extensions by the agency, it was reasonable for the requester to construe the delay in responding as a constructive denial. A true and correct copy of the Advisory Opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit 50.
107. In April 2013, the then-Public Advocate For the City of New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio, issued a report titled “Breaking Through Bureaucracy: Evaluating Government Responsiveness to Information Requests in New York City.” In the report, the Mayor gave the DOE a “D” rating for its handling of FOIL requests in general and an “F” for its response time. Further, the Mayor stated that the failure of an agency to send a “yes” or “no” response six months after the initial request is “unacceptable and represent de-facto denials . . . (and) undermines the spirit of the Freedom of Information Law.” A true and correct copy of the Report is attached hereto as Exhibit 51.
108. On July 28, 2015, New York Post reporter, Carl Campanile submitted a request for copies of reports completed by the DOE OSI that substantiated claims of test or grade tampering/inflation or other cheating in public schools for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school year. This request is nearly identical to – albeit narrower than – the Seventh Request at issue on this petition (OSI reports completed or finalized since January 1, 2014). See supra ¶ 49. On August 4, 2015, Mr. Baranello sent a letter to Mr. Campanile acknowledging receipt of his request and stating that DOE anticipated providing a response by September 1, 2015. Since then, Mr. Baranello sent eleven (11) Form Delay Letters granting DOE unilateral extensions until September 30, 2015, October 29, 2015, January 4, 2016, February 2, 2016, March 2, 2016, March 30, 2016, April 27, 2016, May 25, 2016, June 23, 2016, July 22, 2016, and finally August 19, 2016. This request has now been outstanding for more than a year without a response.
While this request is not at issue in the instant Article 78 Petition, it demonstrates further that DOE is engaged in a pattern and practice of unreasonably delaying responding to FOIL requests. A true and correct copy of the initial request, acknowledgment letter and subsequent Form Delay Letters are attached hereto as Exhibit 52.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – DOE LACKS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REGULATIONS IN CONTRAVENTION OF N.Y. PUB. OFFICERS LAW § 84 ET SEQ.)

109. Petitioners repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 108 above, and incorporate such allegations as if fully set forth herein.
110. The public’s right of access to government information is governed by the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), N.Y. Pub. Officers Law § 84 et seq.
111. FOIL requires that “Each agency shall promulgate rules and regulations, in conformity with this article and applicable rules and regulations promulgated . . . pursuant to such general rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the committee on open government in conformity with the provisions of this article”. N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 87(1)(b).
112. With respect to the timing of determining whether to grant or deny a request, FOIL requires that within five business days of the receipt of a request for records, an agency must “make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied.” N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 89(3)(a) (emphasis added).
113. Further, in the event an agency fails to determine whether to grant or deny a request within a reasonable time period, both FOIL and the Implementing Regulations make clear that it constitutes an appealable denial – i.e., a “constructive denial.” N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 89(4)(a) (“Failure by an agency to conform to the provisions of subdivision three of this section shall constitute a denial.”); 21 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1401.5(e) (“failure to comply with the time limitations . . . shall constitute a denial of a request that may be appealed”).
114. In addition to the plain language of the FOIL, the Implementing Regulations require that if an agency is unable to grant or deny a request within five business days, that it must include an approximate date in the acknowledgment letter if it anticipates disclosing records in twenty days or fewer, or a date certain if beyond twenty days. 21 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1401.5(c)(3). The Implementing Regulations also provide that “failure to comply with the time limitations . . . shall constitute a denial of a request that may be appealed.” 21 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1401.5(e).
115. Neither FOIL nor its Implementing Regulations authorizes agencies to take repeated extensions or afford an agency the option of repeatedly providing “a new reasonable approximate date for the agency’s response” as DOE contends. See Exhibits 45, 48.
116. Nevertheless, Chancellors Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) purports to authorize DOE to issue “extension letter(s)” thereby contravening the express language of the FOIL and the Committee on Open Government’s Implementing Regulations. Specifically, Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) provides that “A requester who is neither granted nor denied access to records within the time limits set forth above or in the acknowledgment letter or any extension letter(s) may consider the request constructively denied and may appeal such denial in accordance with the procedures set forth below.” (emphasis added)
117. Permitting DOE to send unlimited extension letters without the specter of a constructive denial, as opposed to providing a single reasonable “approximate date” for when it will grant or deny a FOIL request, permits the agency to delay responses in perpetuity, frustrates the public’s right to know, and upends the system of administrative appeals and judicial review as set forth in the FOIL.
118. Chancellors Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) is inconsistent with the language of N.Y. Pub. Officers Law § 89(3)(a) and its underlying purpose as it purports to permit DOE to unreasonably delay and effectively prevent access to government information without judicial review merely by sending monthly letters unilaterally extending its time to grant or deny FOIL requests.
119. DOE acknowledges that it applies Chancellors Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) so as to permit it to send repeated extension letters for months on end provided each letter includes “a new reasonable approximate date” for the agency to respond.
120. DOE also acknowledges that Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) deems a request constructively denied only when the request is neither granted nor denied “within the time limits set forth . . . in the acknowledgment letter or any extension letter(s) . . .”
121. Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) is plainly an invalid usurpation of legislative authority and avoidance of judicial review.
122. Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) has caused, and continues to cause, immediate and irreparable harm to the rights guaranteed to Petitioners and to the public at large under FOIL, Article 1, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
123. The validity or invalidity of Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) presents a ‘substantial or novel (issue), likely to recur and capable of evading review.’” Hearst Corp. v. City of Albany, 88 A.D.3d 1130, 1131 (3d Dep’t 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d 499, 507 (2010)). It is likely that the issue presented here will recur in the future, as the DOE maintains that Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) entitles it to issue serial extension letters, ad infinitum, in response to FOIL requests.
124. Petitioners have no means to challenge Respondents extended, unilateral, and unreasonable delays. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law.
125. Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to a judgment declaring that Chancellors Regulation D-110 is unlawful and/or is inconsistent with N.Y. Pub. Officers Law § 84 et seq. and is, accordingly, invalid.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – DOE’S PRACTICE OF SENDING REPEATED FORM DELAY LETTERS IS INHERENTLY UNREASONABLE AND CAUSE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE DENIAL UNDER N.Y. PUB. OFFICERS LAW § 84 ET SEQ.)

126. Petitioners repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 125 above, and incorporate such allegations as if fully set forth herein.
127. The public’s right of access to government information is governed by the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), N.Y. Pub. Officers Law § 84 et seq.
128. With respect to the timing of determining whether to grant or deny a request, FOIL requires that within five business days of the receipt of a request for records, an agency must “make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the
approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied.” N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 89(3)(a) (emphasis added).
129. Further, in the event an agency fails to determine whether to grant or deny a request within a reasonable time period, both FOIL and the Implementing Regulations make clear that it constitutes an appealable denial – i.e., a “constructive denial.” N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 89(4)(a) (“Failure by an agency to conform to the provisions of subdivision three of this section shall constitute a denial.”); 21 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1401.5(e) (“failure to comply with the time limitations . . . shall constitute a denial of a request that may be appealed”).
130. Neither FOIL nor its Implementing Regulations authorizes agencies to take repeated extensions or afford an agency the option of repeatedly providing “a new reasonable approximate date for the agency’s response” as DOE contends. See Exhibits 45, 48.
131. DOE has taken the position that sending as many as sixteen separate Form Delay Letters and failing to determine whether to grant or deny a request for as many as twenty-one (21) months is reasonable under the circumstances of a request that calls for the production of a single document.
132. DOE has also taken the position that it may send as many Form Delay Letters as it wants without triggering a constructive denial so long as it sends an extension letter within the time limit set forth by its prior extension letter.
133. DOE’s interpretation of Chancellor’s Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) and the FOIL in general has caused, and continues to cause, immediate and irreparable harm to the rights guaranteed to Petitioners and to the public at large under FOIL, Article 1, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
134. Whether it is reasonable for DOE to take numerous unilateral extensions of its time to determine whether to grant or deny a request presents a ‘substantial or novel (issue), likely to recur and capable of evading review.’” Hearst Corp. v. City of Albany, 88 A.D.3d 1130, 1131 (3d Dep’t 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d 499, 507 (2010)). It is likely that the issue presented here will recur in the future, as the DOE maintains that its actions of sending unilateral extension letters for up to twenty one (21) months if not longer for requests that call for the production of a single document is inherently reasonable.
135. Petitioners have no means to challenge Respondents extended, unilateral, and unreasonable delays. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law.
136. Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to a judgment declaring that Respondents’ interpretation and application of Chancellors Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) authorizing it to send repeated unilateral extension letters is unlawful and/or is inconsistent with N.Y. Pub. Officers Law § 84 et seq.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(ARTICLE 78 PETITION – DIRECTING DOE TO PRODUCE RECORDS RESPONSIVE TO OUTSTANDING REQUESTS)

137. Petitioners repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 136 above, and incorporate such allegations as if fully set forth herein.
138. Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law & Rules is the appropriate method for review of agency determinations concerning FOIL requests.
139. The Requests reasonably described the requested records.
140. The information requested is of significant interest to the general public.
141. DOE has engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to comply with its obligations under New York Public Officers Law Section 84 et seq., and Respondents’ Chancellor’s Regulation D-110 by routinely ignoring statutory deadlines, constructively denying requests and ultimately failing to disclose to Petitioners the requested documents to which they are entitled.
142. The DOE’s failure to perform its duties violates the letter and spirit of FOIL, which provides for open disclosure to the public.
143. So long as the DOE maintains its pattern and practice of non-compliance with FOIL, Petitioners are profoundly hindered in their ability to report on the government – the “public’s business” – and hold the DOE accountable for its practices. The DOE has in its trust the City’s children and how it executes that trust is of supreme public concern. See Pub. Off. Law § 84.
144. DOE’s actions have caused, and continue to cause, immediate and irreparable harm to the rights guaranteed to Petitioners and to the public at large under FOIL, Article 1, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
145. Petitioners have exhausted their administrative remedies and have not obtained the requested records.
146. At least with respect to four of the twelve FOIL requests at issue (the First, Second, Eighth, and Eleventh Requests), Respondents failed to grant or deny access to records even within the time limits set forth in their extension letters. Accordingly, even crediting Respondents’ own interpretation of the Chancellor’s Regulation, these four requests at a minimum have been constructively denied and are ripe for decision.
147. To the extent DOE claims as it did in its June 6, 2016 and June 8, 2016 denials of Petitioners’ administrative appeals that Petitioners have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies because DOE has not yet granted or denied their Requests, the exhaustion of administrative remedies under DOE’s conception thereof would be futile since DOE repeatedly and unreasonably delays making any decision granting or denying their requests.
148. As a result of the foregoing, DOE has violated FOIL.
149. Petitioners have no adequate remedy other than this proceeding, and no previous application for the relief requested herein has been made to the court

PRIOR APPLICATION

150. No application has been made for the relief requested herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant judgment:

(1) Declaring that Chancellor’s Regulation Chancellors Regulation D-110(VIII)(A) is unlawful and/or is inconsistent with N.Y. Pub. Officers Law § 84 et seq. and is, accordingly, invalid;
(2) Declaring that the DOE’s practice of sending repeated Form Delay Letters is inherently unreasonable and that determinations in its administrative appeal decisions that it may continue to deny access to public records because it has re- issued serial unilateral extensions violates its obligations under FOIL, N.Y. Pub. Officers Law § 84 et seq.;
(3) Granting Petitioners’ Article 78 Petition, finding that DOE has constructively denied Petitioners’ requests, that Petitioners have exhausted their administrative remedies, and directing DOE to produce all disclosable records responsive to Petitioners’ outstanding requests within twenty (20) days of the Court’s order;
(4) Awarding Petitioners their costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89(4)(c); and
(5) Awarding Petitioners such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York August 9, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

Laura R. Handman
Jeremy A. Chase
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
Tel.: (212) 489-8230
Fax: (212) 489-8340
laurahandman@dwt.com jeremychase@dwt.com

Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, Aaron Short, and Yoav Gonen

Summons-Complaint
MOL
AFFIDAVIT of Attorney Jeremy A. Chase
RJI


Francesco Portelos: "A Troublemaking, Combative, and Disgruntled Employee", DOE Dismissed as Defendant

$
0
0
Victor Jordan, Lydia Howrilka, Lucio Celli, Francesco Portelos, Jonathan Hinesley, Al Leon, unknown


UPDATE: Judge Hall took the New York City Department of Education out of the Portelos Complaint on Friday, so the DOE is out of any consideration by the jury:

DOE dropped as a defendant in 'rubber room' teacher case


I stopped by the trial of Francesco Portelos in Federal Court (the Eastern District, 225 Cadman Plaza E, Room 425N; Judge Darcy Hall) on tuesday after my client's 3020-a ended early, and saw Francesco testify. He cried three times, because now that he is an ATR he cannot do per session, which he used to have 5 times every week and now he has to go straight home, and his family is suffering. Hmmmm..

Wait - maybe I heard this testimony wrong, but I dont think so.

Francesco was asked what charges were sustained by Arbitrator Felice Busto after his 3020-a. He could not remember hardly any of them. I dont understand why Bryan would ask that question, but I'm not a lawyer, so ....read my post on my website Parentadvocates.org, the charges which were sustained are all there:

EDITORIAL: Cyberstalker Francesco Portelos and His Blame Game Must Be Stopped

Francesco is no whistleblower:

If you go to the UFT website, you will see that there is a page called "Whistleblower Protection".

"Whistleblower Protection

The city whistleblower law prohibits any “adverse personnel action” (dismissal, suspension, discipline, “U” rating, denial of assignment without justification) against you in retaliation for you making a report about the conduct of a DOE officer or employee that you believe presents “substantial and specific risk of harm to the health, safety or educational welfare of a child” in a DOE school to any of the following: the public advocate, Department of Investigations (DOI), the city comptroller, the head of OSI, a city council member, the mayor, the chancellor, or a deputy chancellor. The law does not cover you from any retaliation that results from a report you make to anyone other than those listed above, including your principal, assistant principal or chairman.
If you believe you have been retaliated against for “blowing the whistle,” you should report it to the DOI and your UFT borough office. DOI has authorized the head of SCI to investigate all allegations of retaliation. If SCI finds that there has been retaliation, it will inform the chancellor and make recommendations for remedying the situation. If the chancellor does not act on the recommendations, the case will be forwarded to the mayor. The case will also become part of the DOE’s annual report to the city council.
There are also other laws that protect certain whistleblowers in specific situations. Any conduct you believe should be reported should also be reported to your district representative so that the union can help you."

As I was told by a knowledgeable source in 2000, "There is always retaliation"
Therefore, if you see something and want to say something, come up with a plan, first.

Here are some suggestions:

If you see an employee abusing a child in any physical way - hitting, pushing, kicking, touching in a sexual manner, or any other obviously potentially criminal act - report the employee to the police, after writing an exact statement of what you saw, with time/date/place/people involved. Better yet, try to get a video or at least an audio recording of what happened. Take this to the police and file a police report. Call the parent. Send an email to the DOI and the UFT. Then let the principal know (unless the abuse is being done by the principal or AP). 


Watching the trial on tuesday, what was most shocking to me was the terrible performance of  Francesco's Attorney Bryan Glass. He could not ask a question in the right way, and the Judge often had to do sidebars with the attorneys. It looks to me like Bryan was not listening to her.

As many readers of this blog know, I have been attacked, defamed and harassed by Francesco and his cult followers Lucio Celli, Christina Vickers, Jonathan Hinseley, Lydia Howrilka, Danielle Kushner, Victor Jordan, Bob Provenza - so what, you say? Many readers might say, "...that's your problem, too bad. Glad its not me."
Lucio Celli

What I'm saying is, it's me now, even though all I did was ask Francesco to take down a video where I was called a "homophobe", but it could be you next time. In my opinion, revenge and retaliation is what Francesco, Lucio, and the others in their crew are all about, folks. Francesco wants you to do what he wants, or else.

Francesco Portelos and His "Victim Complex"

See Lucio Celli's emails copied in a post on this blog, where he is after Judge Blassman (PERB ALJ), former General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, NYSUT Attorney Kathy Battle, UFT Rep. Mary Atkinson, and of course, me:
Lucio Celli emails
More Lucio Celli emails
Email to the EEOC from Lucio's NYC DOE email account
Lucio Celli's Amended Complaint filed behind the back of his attorney

As I posted in my article about former DOE Attorney Ian Nikol, Courtenaye Jackson-Chase helped me get the settlement for Yolanda Walker, my fearless teacher friend, and for her help I am forever grateful. Yolanda died October 11, 2015. Courtenaye also helped me get former Voyages Principal Joan Klingsberg's job back after Joan was terminated. Why she did not tell the truth to Lucio, I dont know. But her lie gave Lucio and Francesco the right to start their cyberbullying and harassment of Courtenaye, as you can see from the emails sent out posted above. These emails are only a small portion of the emails which were sent by these two and their crew.
Jonathan Hinesley, on the left

For the record, I am not working with either Jonathan Tand or Steve Morelli on Lucio's case, and never have done so.

 Francesco Portelos attacked through anonymous emails every principal in town on his defamatory website DTOE.com.  His mission is to threaten any principal who gets an anonymous negative comment:

"“Issues at Your School” – An email no 
NYC principal wants to receive
Turning the tables. That’s what progressive caucus UFT Solidarity began to do when members contact us that they are under warrantless attack. For almost a decade NYC DOE administrators had unfettered power to destroy careers. Problem with a teacher who grieves contractual violations or want to get rid of a pesky chapter leader? No problem. All a principal had to do was start building a paper trail of trumped up charges and fraudulent observations. Sometimes a simple phone call to the DOE’s Office of Special Investigation (OSI) would do the trick. The teacher would be removed for months or years without knowing why they were removed. That’s if they were tenured. If not, the would be discontinued and out in a few days. The union? The UFT has been absent in thwarting attacks against members and sometimes is actually involved in helping the members get railroaded See [UPDATED] Bizarre Behavior Coming from Queens UFT Office.
So what is a member under attack to do? Well, luckily we live in the age of technology and have come up with some tools to fight back. This is how it works, and it does work. (Not all the time but it’s getting better.)
At UFT Solidarity, we have collaborated on an email we send to administrators who are bullying and harassing our members. The email is written in a way where we let the administrator know that the members in their school and not sitting ducks and will have support. We let the administrator know that we are educating their staff on how to fight back and encourage them to support and not continue their attacks. What we hope, or assume, happens is that that the administrator sends it to their superintendent and DOE lawyers. In turn we hope that the superintendent and lawyers respond to the administrator with something like this:
“Oh no. We have seen these before and it can get ugly. Expect there to be Freedom of Information Law requests on your records such as time cards, financial records and emails. They even obtain video surveillance footage. Your staff is probably already secretly recording you. Expect stories of you to be added to social media with comments being added by staff, students and parents. You will be added to their Administrator’s in Need of Improvement (ANOI) list online if you have not been already.uftsolidarity.org/anoi. Expect them to launch investigations on anything you have done that violates a chancellor’s regulation, policy or law. Investigators will be coming. Finally, expect a group of their members and your staff and students, albeit small, to be outside your school with flyers and signs. If you have not bought a Costco size bottle of Tylenol, then we suggest you do that.”
At least that is what we hope the lawyers tell the administrator and they second guess their future actions.
The Email:
——-
Principal X,


Unfortunately your school has come to the attention of ourteacher advocacy group. Apparently there are allegations of harassment and unwarranted attacks on educators at your school. As you could imagine, an atmosphere of workplace bullying and harassment is not conducive to a nurturing learning environment for our students.
Just as a courtesy, we are letting you know that we are educating your staff members with information on how to defend their careers so they may continue to instruct and nurture students to their fullest potential. Those tools can be in the form of legally audio recording, using the Freedom of Information Law to obtain information necessary to prove their allegations against you, organizing rallies and creating various social media articles.
Perhaps your best recourse would be to speak with the superintendent, your senior field counsel and Borough Support Center representative, to figure out ways to support educators rather than treading on their careers.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
UFT Solidarity
“Building a stronger union.”
If you don’t believe me, then you can perform an internet search on many of the administrators we have listed on our ANOI list. You can ask Principal Micheaux and AP Martinez of the Bronx. Ask Principal Adonna McFarland or Principal Namita Dwarka. Our list is over 100. Namita Dwarka and her school has been on the cover of the NY Post the last three days. The brave people responsible are UFT Solidarity members and supporters who have been following our playbook.
Also see our campaign page as our team and platform are growing. For this reason I have not been able to blog much here. My time has been spent building and organizing with great educator activists and enjoying time with my family. My sleeves are rolled up and we are ready to increase our work this September. Our ATR Alliance group is also growing and becoming more knowledgeable. A similar letter is being drafted for ATR Field Supervisors.
As we delve deeper into the UFT 2016 campaign season, expect more push back in more schools. We will bring positive change one way or another. Improving the classroom settings will improve the classroom learning.
UFT Solidarity - "Building a Stronger Union."
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mrportelos


What is alarming about this? Francesco does not care if the derogatory anonymous comments are true or not true.

 This group of public school teachers believe that anything they say about a person is ok, and they will lie about anyone. This is unbecoming a teacher and they must be held accountable. In my opinion, all of the people associated with Francesco should be charged with 3020-a if they are tenured, or discontinued if not tenured, like Lydia Howrilka.

After I put up my blog post

"Francesco Portelos and NY State Tenure Law"I received a call from a friend of both Francesco and I, who told me that Francesco asked her to ask me to take my post down, because he never said anything that was on my blog. 


Not true!!!! He has directly, recklessly, maliciously and without any right, lied and defamed me. He has sent my picture out and told people I am a thief, a homophobe, and a liar.


Then, on August 9, 2016, a day after his jury was picked, Francesco sent a friend of mine and blogger the following:

From: Francesco Portelos <mrportelos@gmail.com>
To: Fidget Teach
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 7:40 am
Subject: Laurie

Hi Laurie,
     I hope all is well. I'm asking nicely that you remove this defamatory and unnecessary blog post from your site please. Thank you.
Francesco A. Portelos
Educator
www.EducatorFightsBack.org
UFT Solidarity Caucus
www.UFTsolidarity.org
"The foundation of every state is the education of its youth." -
 Greek Philosopher Diogenes

She refused. She wrote her opinion of Francesco, as she can, and should.

Here are my other posts about Francesco Portelos, and comments:

Francesco Portelos






Francesco Portelos said...
Hopefully everyone can see through your lie filled rants. I know most do. Did you tell everyone how Randi Weingarten gave you her cell number before you launched your smear campaign?
Anonymous said...
I am a former parent at IS 49. When my child was at the school my wife and I heard all the gory details about the Principal and we want to say that we were more concerned about the teacher turned terrorist Francesco Portelos than we were about the finances of Hill. Parents were frightened to speak about Portelos and we all despised him. He used his computer to break into any confidential record of anyone. Including the children with IEP. Ms. Hill was on to him way before he went after her. And the way that Portelos went after the chapter leader Mr. Candia was scary - I mean, getting Candia's girlfriend in trouble soley to retaliate against him? Portelos jeopardized the safety of everyone in the school. The names and faces of each and every teacher who follows this guy should be memorized so that they all are removed from the classrooms. Please.
Anonymous said...
Portelos is a very dangerous .
Anonymous said...
Why would anyone want Portelos in their school, or any of his gang? Watch out for them.
Anonymous said...
There is no limit to Francesco's wrecklessness.
He inflates numbers about supporters.
He tenaciously pesters people for political support.
He divulges email confidences if things go the slightest bit sour.
He shares screen captures of text message dialogues.
This guy should not be active with other teachers as his actions put their confidentiality at risk.
The notion of this guy having any position in the UFT is very unsettling. Therefore, people should put Francesco Portelos' UFT Solidarity out of their minds.

Below is the report on Francesco's cross-examination yesterday, August 17, 2016.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, The NYC Public Voice

Under cross examination, 'rubber room' teacher's behavior questioned

By Mira Wassef | mwassef@siadvance.com 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter 
LINK
on August 17, 2016 at 8:28 PM, updated August 17, 2016 at 8:48 PM
BROOKLYN, N.Y. -- The Staten Island teacher exiled to a "rubber room" was portrayed as a troublemaking, combative and disgruntled employee who defied orders from his superior, the defense argued during trial proceedings Wednesday in Brooklyn Federal Court.
During cross-examination, defense attorney Jessica Giambrone aggressively questioned Francesco Portelos' character, credibility and behavior during his tumultuous tenure at the Dreyfus Intermediate School in Stapleton.
Portelos, a Rosebank resident, is suing the Department of Education and then-Principal Linda Hill for allegedly violating his civil rights, claiming they made up disciplinary charges as retaliation for him exposing Hill's overtime abuses.
First, the defense claims, Portelos secretly recorded conversations and an altercation with two members of the school staff. In January 2012, Giambrone said, Portelos got into a heated verbal disagreement with another teacher and the two exchanged profanities. But, without the teacher knowing, Portelos had recorded the roughly 17-minute altercation.
He also recorded the subsequent meeting with Hill and the other two staffers. Hill, now retired, cited him for using the word "F---" during the disagreement.
Portelos' response, Giambrone claimed, was, "I wouldn't use f--- as a noun."
He testified that he was the only one disciplined for the altercation.
He then posted about 60 seconds of the fight on the Internet, the defense lawyersaid.
In April 2012, Giambrone argued the plaintiff recorded a female assistant principal allegedly inappropriately touching a child in the school. 
"I took the video because there was a history of her improperly touching a child," Portelos testified.
He then published certain portions of that video on YouTube and the Staten Island Advance website during the investigation into those allegations, she claimed.
"I digitally altered the girl in the video so you couldn't tell who she was and altered her voice," Portelos admitted on the stand.  "I didn't know how to submit video (to DOE) because I was in hot water, so someone submitted it for me. I resubmitted it again, but still the assistant principal wasn't reassigned."
The defense also contends that Portelos repeatedly ignored Hill's order to refrain from emailing the school staff without prior permission. He would send emailssaying, "my name has been dragged in the mud" and whoever made complaints about him should retract them and he may "show mercy."
But, Portelos contends he was permitted to email union members at I.S. 49.
After the plaintiff ignored Hill's request, she disabled his access to the school's website, dreyfus49.com, the defense said. The former tech teacher, Giambrone said, then disabled Hill's administrative access to the site.
Portelos had the rights to the site and Hill had asked him to turn it over to her, but he refused.
After consulting with a lawyer, Portelos said he was concerned about liability and privacy issues.
Hill then ordered him to shut it down, and he did.
In 2012, Portelos was removed from I.S. 49 and reassigned, but still remained involved in school affairs.
Giambrone revealed that Portelos bought the domain rights to another school website that had previously expired, and forwarded the traffic from that site to a new website he created, which was named after the street where Dreyfus is located.
Portelos was sent to a Far Rockaway campus, where he worked in a storage room -- the rubber room -- in the basement that had two windows. There, he started a blog where he documented his experience doing absolutely nothing for one year while collecting his teaching salary.
Portelos faced 38 termination charges from the DOE, but an arbitrator dismissed most of them, fined him $10,000 and ordered he return to the classroom.
The trial resumes Thursday.

NEWS ALERT: Francesco Portelos Loses His Federal Case, Jury Says His Speech Was Not Protected and Gives No Damages

$
0
0
Francesco Portelos

 The jury at the trial in Federal Court saw, I guess, Francesco's very bad performance on the stand (in my opinion) and that he was a disruptive employee who did not have protected speech.
Victor Jordan, Lydia Howrilka, Lucio Celli, Francesco Portelos, Jonathan Hinesley, Al Leon, unknown
Francesco's attorney Bryan Glass evidently did not ask that Francesco's union activity/speech be protected.

Francesco Portelos: "A Troublemaking, Combative, and Disgruntled Employee", DOE Dismissed as Defendant
OP-ED: Why Cyberstalker Francesco Portelos and His Bully Mob, UFT Solidarity, Failed

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, The NYC Public Voice

Jury rules against 'rubber room' teacher in suit vs. principal

silive.com
-- The principal won.
A seven-person jury in Brooklyn Federal Court on Tuesday ruled against "rubber room" teacher Francesco Portelos in his civil case against former principal Linda Hill and former District 31 Superintendent Erminia Claudio.
After a seven-day trial, the jury ruled Portelos' superiors did not retaliate against him for participating in protected free speech under the first amendment and awarded no damages. 
Portelos, a Rosebank resident and former tech teacher at Dreyfus Intermediate School (I.S. 49) in Stapleton, had claimed in a lawsuit then-principal Hill had him exiled to the "rubber room" for exposing Hill's overtime abuses.
The judge had instructed the jury to determine if "speech was the motivating factor" in carrying out an adverse employment action against the plaintiff.
In 2012, Portelos was removed from I.S. 49 and reassigned to a building in Far Rockaway, Queens, where he worked in a storage room -- the rubber room -- in a basement that had two windows. There, he started a blog -- protectportelos --  where he documented his experience of doing absolutely nothing for one year while collecting his hefty teaching salary.

'Rubber room' teacher vows an appeal after 'disappointing' jury verdict

LINK
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — After four years, the fight still isn't over.
Even though a seven-member jury ruled against "rubber room" teacher Francesco Portelos, the former tech teacher at I.S. 49 is confident his attorneys will file an appeal.
"My concern as a public school parent is that this decision will prevent teachers from speaking up because there's nothing to protect them," Portelos said outside Brooklyn Federal Court Tuesday afternoon. "I hope this doesn't bring a chilling effect to potential whistleblowers. We just have to be smarter about the way we expose the wrongdoing."
Portelos, a former tech teacher at Dreyfus Intermediate School (I.S. 49) in Stapleton, was suing then-Principal Linda Hill and then-Superintendent Erminia Claudio, claiming he was retaliated against for exposing Hill's overtime abuses. Hill was found responsible for the double-dipping by billing for simultaneous after- school programs, and paid an $801 fine.
But after sitting through a six-day trial and deliberating for more than four hours, the jury sided with the former administrators over the whistleblowing teacher.
When the judge asked the foreman if the panel believed the defendants retaliated against the plaintiff, he said, "No."
A quiet hush went over the courtroom, and the group of approximately 10 teachers who attended the trial regularly were stunned and speechless.
"What a shame," one said, leaving the courtroom.
"What happened?" another wondered.
Portelos, who exposed Hill's double-dipping practices through an anonymous FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) request to obtain Hill's timecards in January 2012, believes the jury was handcuffed by the limited evidence they were allowed to consider.
During the deliberations, the jury had a question about the timeline, and  specifically asked the judge to provide the testimony about when Portleos made the timecards complaint. According to the testimony given to the panel, it was March 2012.
"They were pigeon-holed us as to what we can bring in front of them," said Portelos, who is still a full-time teacher that rotates around various Staten Island schools. "We were more credible. The evidence presented was not accurate."
Portelos, a Rosebank resident, feels the jury should've been able to hear about the FOIL request and his complaint about how the principal mishandled a $7 million budget in December, 2011.
"I'm disappointed," he said. "Despite the decision, there is little regret."
Portelos said the jury foreman stopped to talk to him on his way out of the parking garage. The foreman told him the panel came in Tuesday morning ready to rule in his favor, but the court timeline and evidence forced them to rule against him, Portleos said.
"It gives me a little bit of closure," he said.
Two jurors, including the foreman, declined to comment after the proceeding.
In April 2012, Portelos was removed from I.S. 49 and reassigned to a building in Far Rockaway, Queens, where he worked in a storage room -- the rubber room -- in a basement that had two windows. There, he started a blog -- protectportelos --  where he documented his experience of doing absolutely nothing for one year while collecting his hefty teaching salary.
The move garnered media attention, and eventually Portelos was facing 38 termination charges from the DOE. But an arbitrator dismissed all but 11 of the charges, fined him $10,000 and ordered that he return to a classroom.

Chris Emdin: Why Do Black Men Quit Teaching?

$
0
0
Students at a Baltimore high school in April

Why Black Men Quit Teaching

How can we help black boys succeed in school? One popular answer is that we need more black male teachers.
The logic appears simple: Black boys are not faring well, and the presence of black men as teachers and role models will fix this problem. The former secretary of education, Arne Duncan, brought this theory to national attention with a number of speeches at historically black colleges and universities. His successor, John King Jr., has taken up the argument, often repeating the statistic that only 2 percent of our nation’s teachers are African-American men.
The argument may be well intentioned, but it is a cop-out. Schools are failing black male students, and it’s not because of the race of their teachers. These students are often struggling with the adverse effects of poverty, the inequitable distribution of resources across communities and the criminalization of black men inside and outside of schools. Black male teachers can serve as powerful role models, but they cannot fix the problems minority students face simply by being black and male.
Black male teachers are not just expected to teach and be role models; they are also tasked with the work of disciplinarians. The stereotype is that they are best at dispensing “tough love” to difficult students. Black male educators I work with have described their primary job as keeping black students passive and quiet, and suspending them when they commit infractions. In this model, they are robbed of the opportunity to teach, while black male students are robbed of opportunities to learn.
Teachers hear the phrase “tough love” all the time; it is used to justify hurtful practices such as not giving black students the second chances that others receive to complete assignments, suspending students for breaking minor rules that others are not punished for, or yelling at students for being playful or asking too many questions.
Many black male teachers at first believe in the need for “tough love.” When they realize it is code for doing damage to black students, they are filled with remorse and often leave the field of teaching. About a year ago, a teacher named Joseph Mathews came rushing into my office saying: “I can’t look those black boys in the face and make them feel like I felt in school anymore. I have to quit.” This is a pervasive yet under-researched phenomenon that seriously affects teacher retention.
To his credit, Mr. King has recognized what he calls “the invisible tax” on minority educators. This tax is paid in the extra disciplinary and relationship-building work that black teachers do beyond teaching. Unfortunately, acknowledging the tax does little to alleviate it or its consequences.
Instead of fixating on black male teachers, we need to examine how teachers are trained, their beliefs about young minority men, and how they engage their students. They should be prepared to teach to each student’s unique needs, and to recognize that no student learns best under conditions that make him feel uncared for. If the notion that we must hire black male teachers in order to have positive role models for black youth makes sense, how can we not recognize that untrained and unprepared black male teachers can cause more harm than good?
I vividly remember, as a boy, having a black male teacher who didn’t see any value in me as a person, and who didn’t seem to enjoy teaching black and brown boys. Our school was diverse, with students from many ethnic and racial backgrounds, and this teacher clearly treated black male students differently, raising his voice and enforcing rules more strictly. He was allowed to teach the way he did because he was dealing with black male students who were perceived to need “tough love.” But I felt targeted by the very teacher who (because he was black) was supposed to be the person I connected to.
This cycle of dysfunction is repeated in schools across the country when black men, unprepared and burdened with expectations that inhibit them from being effective, are placed in front of students and told to teach. A better solution is to train all teachers, black and white, to acknowledge the biases they hold about their students based on their race, class, gender, sexual orientation and physical ability. Then they can learn strategies for being effective with these students despite their differences.
The new crop of black male teachers being herded into schools this fall as saviors of the same black children that schools have failed need to be told that teachers are not heroes; they do not need to save children, they just need to educate them.
This is not a call for more white teachers or a statement about some inherent inability of black male teachers. It is a call for a more thoughtful approach to teacher recruitment and retention, and a renewed focus on teacher preparation. Have we not seen the effects of programs that recruit mostly white, middle-class college graduates to “tough schools” only to see high teacher turnover, ineffective teaching and increasing achievement gaps? Why are we embracing a black male version of the same broken model, instead of working to fix the problem?

 Christopher Emdin, an associate professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, is the author of “For White Folk Who Teach in the Hood ... and the Rest of Y’all Too: Reality Pedagogy and Urban Education.”

Teacher Tenure Remains Law and Public Policy in California

$
0
0
Tenure rights still exist in New York City, despite the efforts of the NYC Department of Education to alter procedures at 3020-a arbitration involving the Law, Education Law 3020-a in order to fire good teachers from their jobs - with the help of NYSUT and the UFT.

California has been battling a lawsuit for several years which tried to end tenure for their teachers. But the effort failed.

Beatriz Vergara

       

Vergara Decision Against Tenured Teachers in California is a Big Step....Backwards


A Select Few Make A Profit Off of the California Vergara Lawsuit on the End of Tenure 

Rights For Teachers



Betsy Combier

Vergara Decision Stands: CA Teacher Tenure to Stay
By Jonathan R. Tung, Esq. on August 23, 2016 3:00 PM
The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Vergara v. California, one of the most significant teacher's tenure cases to date. This means that the state appeals court decision is undisturbed, preserving many employment rights for teachers.
Passion in the Court
The decision not hear Vergara was a contentious one as evidenced by the split in the court. An attorney who represented some of the plaintiffs in the Vergara suit told reporters that he'd never before seen dissenting statements like the ones given this last Monday in any previous Supreme Court denials.
The two dissenting justices were Goodwin Liu and Mariano-Florentino Cuellar; they both strongly disagreed with the court's refusal to grant review.
Launch Pad
Since the case was not heard by California's highest court, plaintiffs' attorneys are in a bit of a rut, though they apparently have not lost any vim or spirit. In fact, Ted Boutrous, attorney for StudentsMatter, said that the justices' opinion will be a "launching pad" for further cases. The plaintiff founder of StudentsMatter expressed disappointment with the decision but vowed that "Vergara is just the beginning."
It difficult to see how that could be the case except in spirit. Since Vergera did not raise any federal question issues, federal courts do not have parallel jurisdiction to hear the case. So, the California Supreme Court was the state's last chance.
What Was at Stake
The Vergara decision involved a number of state employment statutes that the state had argued was unconstitutional. The injured party, the argument went, was the students who suffered because seniority and tenure rules made it more difficult to fire under-performing teachers from classrooms.
Opponents of union power touted the non-hearing as a victory. Some of the criticisms are lodged at the state's protection of teachers. So far, California is one of the few states in which seniority is the sole factor in determining the order to lay teachers off. At trial, evidence was presented that indicated that anywhere between $50,000 to almost half a million dollars had to be spent to fire a teacher -- a process that could take up to 10 years.
For the latest California legal news, subscribe to FindLaw's California Cases Newsletter.
Related Resources:
·         Tenure Protections Upheld in Vergara v. California (EducationDive.com)
·         CA Supreme Court Bans Dredges for Mining Gold (FindLaw's California Case Law Blog)
·         Will California's Concealed-Carry Gun Restrictions Go Before SCOTUS? (FindLaw's California Case Law Blog)
·         Cal Supreme Court Says 'Yes' to Percentage Attorney Fees (FindLaw's California Case Law Blog)

- See more at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/2016/08/vergara-decision-stands-ca-teacher-tenure-to-stay.html#sthash.DeF6rD6P.dpuf

The 3020-a Arbitration Newswire: The Just Cause Standard

$
0
0
A very important part of any 3020-a arbitration is Just Cause. In fact, many people say that the 3020-a is a "Just Cause" Hearing.

I agree with that. And I also agree that the DOE may agree to a Just 'Cause Hearing meaning
"we are charging you with misconduct just 'cause we want to"


See my post on one of my other blogs, Inside 3020-a Teachers' Trials:

Arbitration decisions: Are They in Compliance With The JUST CAUSE STANDARD - or is the Penalty Determined Under the JUST 'CAUSE Someone Dislikes You Standard?

If you are working in disciplinary hearings or 3020-a arbitration, or you want to appeal an arbitrator's decision, you should use JUST CAUSE in your argument.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice

 In a 3020-a arbitration proceeding, the Department of Education has the burden to prove the specifications served on the Respondent. They must prove that there is just cause for a penalty (or none at all),  a fine, a suspension, or termination. The Respondent must prove that there is no Just Cause for any penalty.

Just cause is important to everyone who participates in any proceeding. If someone is accused of some kind of misconduct, and an investigator does a full and fair investigation into whether or not the person did, indeed, do what he/she is accused of, and then, with all the evidence properly gathered, finds no proof that the person did the alleged act, the person goes free, and must receive no penalty.

The DOE investigative agencies, namely OSI, SCI and OEO, dont "investigate" anything or anyone. They find out what the complaint is, then prove the complaint is true after speaking with the principal, Superintendent or "legal" of the DOE, flinging evidence and truth out the window.

The Just Cause Standard:

THE JUST CAUSE STANDARD is incompatible withfavoritism or discrimination. Employers must treat employees who engage in the same type of misconduct alike.
An employer commits “disparate treatment” if, without a justifiable basis, it imposes a markedly harsher penalty on one employee than on another who violated the same or a highly similar policy or rule. Disparate treatment violates just cause whether it stems from favoritism; personal hostility; racial, ethnic, gender, religious, or anti-union bias; inadvertence; sympathy; or mistake. The union does not need to prove the reason (and usually should not attempt to do so). The proper remedy is to reduce the grievant’s sanction to the lowest level imposed on others.
The following cases illustrate disparate treatment:
• A trucking company suspended a driver for thirty days for speeding. A year earlier, it suspended another driver for one day for the same infraction.
• A government agency fired a worker who reported to work under the influence. On previous occasions, it allowed employees to work despite clear signs of inebriation.
• A supervisor saw a worker driving a forklift backwards and charged her with a safety violation. On an earlier occasion, he simply told a worker to turn the lift around. 
MAKING THE CASE
A union seeking to make a disparate treatment defense must identify at least one other employee (called a “comparable”) who violated the same or a very similar rule as the grievant but was given a substantially lesser penalty. It must also show that the comparable’s infraction was as serious as that of the grievant and that the comparable’s record was not appreciably stronger. In most cases, the union will need information from the comparable’s personnel file.
If the union knows the names of workers who received lighter penalties, it should request copies of their personnel files. Otherwise, it should submit the following written information request:
Please furnish the union with a list of each employee and former employee who, within the past five years, was charged with __________. For each such employee please provide a copy of the notice of discipline and a copy of the employee’s personnel file.
Grievance tip: The personnel files of employees who received the same penalty as the grievant can also be a goldmine. For example, the employer may have fired Worker A for a second or third offense while discharging the grievant after a single infraction.
How far back can the union go? No fixed rule limits how far back a union can go to prove disparate treatment. Many arbitrators accept cases as old as five to seven years. Some go back even further. Cases more than ten years old are likely to be rejected, especially if new management has taken charge.
Note: Arbitrators sometimes excuse past leniency if societal views on an offense have hardened. Examples include sexual harassment, safety, drug use, and violence. Penalties imposed before the union negotiated its first contract may also be rejected.
How many needed? A single comparable, especially if recent, can establish disparate treatment. The union does not have to prove a “past practice.” An exception may apply to an attendance case in a large enterprise; because employees can fall through the cracks, an arbitrator may insist on more than one case of unequal treatment.
Grievance tip: Stewards should make entries in their notebooks or on their computers whenever they learn of an employee who openly violates a company policy without being penalized. Such incidents can be invaluable when defending other employees.
Settlements. A comparable employee may have received a lesser penalty due to a grievance settlement or a “last-chance agreement.” Review the agreement. If it states that it is “without prejudice” or is “non-precedential,” an arbitrator is likely to reject it as evidence of disparate treatment.
Supervisors. If comparables cannot be found within the bargaining unit, the union should consider nonunit personnel such as supervisors, office staff, and engineers. When a rule applies to all employees in a facility—a ban on fighting, for example—the equal treatment rule applies. An employer may not impose a substantially harsher penalty on a bargaining unit member than it imposed on a nonmember who committed the same offense.
Note: Under U.S. labor law, a union has a right to examine the personnel file of a supervisor or other non-unit employee if it has a factual basis for believing that the person engaged in similar misconduct as the grievant and if the rule in question applies to all employees.
Grievance tip: Stewards should make dated notebook entries whenever they observe a supervisor violating a rule or policy. 
VALID DISTINCTIONS
An employer can defeat a disparate treatment claim if it has a valid basis for imposing a harsher penalty on the grievant. For instance, in comparison with prior offenders, the grievant may have:
• A more egregious disciplinary record 
• Considerably less service time
 
• Committed a more severe or dangerous infraction
 
• Acted intentionally
 
• Been warned recently for committing a similar violation
 
• Fewer mitigating or extenuating circumstances
 
• Refused to accept responsibility
 
• Threatened witnesses
 
• Been uncooperative during the investigation
Example: A worker was fired for smoking in the plant. Although the company only gave written warnings to previous offenders, an arbitrator rejected the union’s claim of disparate treatment because the grievant, unlike the others, smoked in an area where items were flammable.
Not every distinction between employees justifies a harsher penalty. Among the excuses arbitrators often reject are the following: 
• The supervisor who punished the grievant has a more demanding disciplinary philosophy than other supervisors.
 
• The grievant is a union steward or officer.
 
• The penalty given the comparable was a mistake.
Example: While differences in service time or past discipline can justify differences in penalties, wide disparities, for example, between a warning and a discharge, are frequently regarded as violations of the equal treatment principle. 
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Cross-unit comparison
Q. A worker was fired for taking home scrap. Can we cite a member of another union in the facility who was only suspended for five days for a similar offense?
A. Yes. Employees who are subject to the same or similar rules should be issued the same or similar penalties, regardless of bargaining unit.
One vs. many
Q. Over the past five years, six employees were charged with failing to lock out their machines during repairs. The company fired five but gave one a 30-day suspension. Yesterday, another worker was fired for the offense. Can we argue disparate treatment?
A. Yes. The fact that most offenders were fired is beside the point. The significant fact is that the employer gave special treatment to a similarly-situated employee.
Post-discipline comparable
Q. We filed a grievance for an employee who was fired for refusing an order. A month before arbitration, the company issued a written warning to a worker for a similar transgression. Can we cite the warning as evidence of disparate treatment?
A. Yes. Most arbitrators say disparate treatment can be proven by subsequent events.
Negligence is negligence
Q. Employee M was fired after backing his truck into a loading dock and causing $8,000 in damages. Two years ago, the company suspended employee T for a similar accident with damages of $500. Can we claim disparate treatment?
A. Yes. When negligent acts have the same potential for causing harm, arbitrators often insist that employers apply similar penalties, even if the actual damages are significantly different.
Similar highs
Q. The company fired a worker who tested positive for marijuana. A year ago an employee who came to work drunk was suspended for two weeks. Disparate treatment?
A. Yes. Treating employees who commit drug offenses more harshly than employees who commit alcohol offenses violates the equal treatment principle.
<>Holding steward to higher responsibilities
Q. A steward was suspended for loafing, a heavier penalty than is usually applied for this offense. During the second-step grievance meeting, the general manager said that the penalty was justified because “stewards are supposed to set an example.” Does this give us a case?
A. Yes. Other than illegal strikes and refusals to obey, an employee’s status as a steward does not justify enhanced punishment. 

Failure to investigate others
Q. Company policy requires employees to be drug-tested if they have an accident that causes lost time or a need for medical care. A worker who went home after a fall was tested and fired for cocaine. Can we argue disparate treatment because two other employees and a supervisor who incurred lost-time injuries were not tested?
A. Yes. As one arbitrator explained: “Disparate treatment arises when the grievant has been treated unequally with respect to notice, application of a rule, investigation, proof, or penalty.” Investigating the grievant but not the other employees violates the equal treatment principle.
Reset
Q. After we won an arbitration case by pointing out that employees who violated the company’s “zero-tolerance” fighting policy have not always been fired, the company posted a notice that in the future it would discharge all offenders. Does this preempt future disparate treatment claims?
A. Possibly. Although the logic is not apparent, many arbitrators overlook past favoritism if an employer makes a public announcement that a penalty will be applied in all future cases.
Possible repercussion
Q. If we cite an employee who received a lenient penalty for the same offense, could management increase the penalty to make it consistent?
A. No. As explained in Chapter 3, the double jeopardy rule prevents an employer from increasing a previously assessed penalty.

This is a sample chapter from Just Cause: A Union Guide to Winning Discipline Cases by Robert M. Schwartz. 
You can order
 Just Cause by downloading an order form or by going to our online store.

“The just cause standardhas been seminally defined by Arbitrator Carroll Daugherty, and incorporates the following seven tests:
 
1.  Did the employer give the employee forewarning or foreknowledge of the possible or probable disciplinary consequences of the employee’s conduct?

2. Was the employer's rule or regulation reasonably related to (a) the orderly, efficient, and safe operation of the Department of Education/school's educational guidelines and (b) the performance that the employer might properly expect of the employee? 

3.  Did the employer, before administering discipline to an employee, make an effort to discover whether the employee did in fact violate or disobey a rule or order of the administration? 

4. Was the company’s investigation conducted fairly and objectively? 

5.  Did the investigator obtain substantial evidence or proof that the employee was guilty as charged? 

6.  Has the employer applied its rules, orders, and penalties evenhandedly and without discrimination to all employees? 

7.  Was the degree of discipline considered by the employer reasonably related to (a) the seriousness of the proven offense and (b) the record of the employee in his service with the company?”  

A look back to Saturday, August 29, 2015:

Mike Mulgrew Finally Admits He, the UFT, and NYSUT Were Wrong To Go Along With Investigators Who Falsely Substantiated Misconduct of UFT Members
 I am disgusted by the "I'm sorry" statements coming from Mike Mulgrew. That is exactly what I see in his turnaround on the horrible, incompetent, and malicious prosecution of UFT members by the NYC DOE investigative agencies - and here I include the Office of Special InvestigationsSpecial Commissioner of Investigation, and the Office of Equal Opportunity, the "Gotcha Squad" .

When Randi Weingarten hired me to be a SWAT Team member for all members held in NYC "rubber rooms" (our nickname; they were called Teacher Re-assignment Centers or TRCs in all my reports) in 2007, I was given access, with Jim Callahan and Ron Isaacs, to all the rooms and all the members who needed advice. Jim and Ron both had other responsibilities, but my work was solely to help members in need. My office was on the 16th floor sandwiched between Gene Rubin, head of the Medical Office for the UFT, and Amy Arundell, head of everything else.

A few doors down were Michele Daniels and Howard Solomon. In fact, the 16th floor had all the grievance reps, so I would call/visit them whenever a member wanted me to, or whenever I had a question. I made sure to memorize the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or UFT contract.

So what?

So, I was told that whatever the NYC DOE charged a member with was true, and the member was guilty as charged. Under no circumstances was I to look into or question any investigation, as this would be tampering with it.

But Randi, then Mike Mulgrew and the UFT crew kept "the talk" alive, that the DOE was 'going after' members and the UFT would protect anyone charged.

They did not mean it, and proved it by setting members up to lose grievances, Appeals, and 3020-a.

Despicable.

Just one last tip - if you are charged with 3020-a for incompetency and/or misconduct of any kind, do NOT resign no matter how hard it is to say no.

That, dear readers, is the bottom line and a call to arms.

Betsy Combier, Editor
President, ADVOCATZ

Union prez urges more transparent process for teacher discipline at NYC schools

Ben Chapman, NY Daily News, August 28, 2015

Randi Weingarten, Mike Mulgrew

LINK
Teachers union president Michael Mulgrew called for an overhaul of the city Education Department’s employee discipline procedures in a highly critical letter sent to agency officials Friday.

In a two-page missive delivered to city schools boss Carmen Fariña and distributed to the press, Mulgrew urged Fariña to create a more fair process for probing and punishing teachers.
Carmen Farina

Proof that the current system needs work, Mulgrew writes, is a report by city investigators released last week that detailed the department’s mishandling of the investigation and suspension of a beloved Manhattan school therapist whose punishment has since been overturned.

“Students should not be deprived of able educators based on shoddy investigative work or personal predispositions, and we should never permit politics and personal agendas to matter more that truth,” Mulgrew wrote to Fariña.

In the letter, Mulgrew called on Fariña to create new, transparent and objective procedures for reviewing the findings of investigations of teachers.

He cited the case of Manhattan Public School 333 therapist Debra Fisher, who got into trouble for sending an email during work hours in October, seeking to raise cash for a needy student.

Fisher, a 10-year veteran of city schools, was suspended without pay for 30 days over the incident, fueling the ire of families across the city.

But on Aug. 18, a report from the city’s Special Commissioner of Investigation found that an Education Department investigator made inaccurate statements and drew the wrong conclusions in his probe of Fisher.

Education officials reversed Fisher’s punishment four days later.

In his letter, the union chief demanded an objective review of previously closed investigations conducted by the investigator who botched the Fisher case.

Mulgrew, who has enjoyed a smooth and relatively cordial relationship with Fariña — compared to his battles with her predecessors — wouldn’t comment on the flap. Neither would union reps.

But Education Department spokeswoman Devora Kaye said the agency’sreorganization of its investigative unit is already underway.

“We hired a new director...to overhaul the division, and every case will now have an attorney reviewing and drafting the final investigative report,” Kaye said.

Fisher, who will return to work with a clean record when the new school year begins in September, agreed that the agency’s investigative process needs a fix.

“I think that changes need to be made,” Fisher said. “This system should not be hurting good people and that’s the bottom line.”

 On an issue that is testing President Randi Weingarten's public détente with the city, a new group within the United Federation of Teachers is arguing that the union take a tough stance on the treatment of teachers who have been disciplined.

No comments:


Kids Learn When They Feel Safe and Valued

$
0
0
As a parent of 4, I think Ms. Schwartz is right when she says
"“Kids don’t learn when they don’t feel safe or valued.”

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice

What Kids Wish Their Teachers Knew

When Kyle Schwartz started teaching third grade at Doull Elementary School in Denver, she wanted to get to know her students better. She asked them to finish the sentence “I wish my teacher knew.”

The responses were eye-opening for Ms. Schwartz. Some children were struggling with poverty (“I wish my teacher knew I don’t have pencils at home to do my homework”); an absent parent (“I wish my teacher knew that sometimes my reading log is not signed because my mom isn’t around a lot”); and a parent taken away (“I wish my teacher knew how much I miss my dad because he got deported to Mexico when I was 3 years old and I haven’t seen him in six years”).

The lesson spurred Ms. Schwartz, now entering her fifth teaching year, to really understand what her students were facing outside the classroom to help them succeed at school. When she shared the lesson last year with others, it became a sensation, with the Twitter hashtag “#iwishmyteacherknew” going viral. Other teachers tried the exercise and had similar insights. Many sent her their students’ responses.

In her recently published book, “I Wish My Teacher Knew: How One Question Can Change Everything For Our Kids,” Ms. Schwartz details how essential it is for teachers and families to be partners.

“I really want families to know how intentional teachers are about creating a sense of community and creating relationships with kids,” Ms. Schwartz said. “Kids don’t learn when they don’t feel safe or valued.”

Melody Molinoff of Washington, D.C., who has two sons, ages 9 and 11, in the public school system, agreed.

“Parents see the teacher as their partner in bringing up their child, and that’s a huge responsibility that we are putting on our teachers and our schools,” Ms. Molinoff said. “I always want my sons’ teachers to know what their challenges are, what they like, just more about them.”

Mary Clayman, a fourth-grade teacher in the Washington public schools, said she has noticed the same thing from the other side of the desk.

“I’ve taught over 500 kids so far in my career and parents in every grade want to know how their child is doing socially and emotionally, often times more so than whether they can multiply or divide quite yet,” Mrs. Clayman said.

In her book, Ms. Schwartz writes about mistakes that might have been prevented if she had known her students better. She had a student named Chris who was obsessed with science. Ms. Schwartz thought she had done Chris a huge favor by securing a spot for him in a science-focused summer camp. But she was unaware of the family’s financial struggles and it turned out that his parents could not afford to take time off from work to get Chris to camp.
132COMMENTSMs. Schwartz said classrooms can become a supportive environment for students coping with grief. She suggests that schools have “grief and loss” inventories for students who have gone through a crisis, with input from families so that the child’s future teachers know what that student is dealing with.

“As teachers, we know parents are the first and best teachers for their children and we want them to work with us,” she said.


Assaults While At Work for the DOE Get The Employee No Damages

$
0
0
I find the decision of the Second Department in cases where a DOE employee was assaulted by a student to be unjust, arbitrary and capricious. Maybe because I am not an Attorney I am missing something?

If a DOE employee is assaulted by a student, while on the job, the DOE doesnt owe the employee anything. The Appellate Department Second Department says that:

while the DOE might owe a special relationship to students no such relationship is owed to teachers and administrators. "

Yikes. No duty of care? See here.
Everyone who works for the Department of Education is on their own if harmed while working?

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice

Can a teacher recover damages from the DOE for injuries sustained from a student assault?

No. Betty Brumer, a fourth grade teacher at a public school in Brooklyn, alleges that she was injured when she was assaulted by one of her students. According to the plaintiff, the student had been restrained by a school security guard after engaging in a fight with another boy during a fire drill.
Although the security guard escorted the student away from the  rest of the class, the student subsequently  returned to the  scene and began fighting again. The plaintiff alleges that during this second episode, the student hit her, causing her to fall to the ground and sustain injuries.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that while the DOE might owe a special relationship to students no such relationship is owed to teachers and administrators. The Court went further to explain that a special relationship can be formed in three ways: “`(1) when the  municipality violates a statutory  duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes  positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety  violation'”
None of these were present for Ms. Brumer.
Betty Brumer, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (Index No. 32716/09)

2014-00461

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

132 A.D.3d 795; 18 N.Y.S.3d 149; 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7683; 2015 NY Slip Op 07611


October 21, 2015, Decided

CORE TERMS: teacher, special relationship, summary judgment, school district, owe, inter alia, school premises, administrators, municipality, supervising, adults, recover damages, personal injuries, security guard


HEADNOTES
Schools—Teachers—Assault by Student—Dismissal of Complaint for Failure to Show Special Relationship between School District and Teacher


COUNSEL:  [***1] Cronin & Byczek, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Linda M. Cronin of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers, Margaret King, and Keegan K. Staker of counsel), for respondents.

JUDGES: L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JJ. HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

OPINION
 [**149]  [*795]  In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Landicino, J.), dated July 5, 2013, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendants City of New York, New York City Department of Education, principal Douglas Avila, and assistant principal Joseph Simione which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that order is affirmed, with costs.
 [**150]  The plaintiff, a fourth grade teacher at a public school in Brooklyn, alleges that she was injured when she was assaulted by one of her students. According to the plaintiff, the student had been restrained by a school security guard after engaging in a fight with another boy during a fire drill. Although the security guard escorted [***2]  the student away from the rest of the [*796]  class, the student subsequently returned to the scene and began fighting again. The plaintiff alleges that during this second episode, the student hit her, causing her to fall to the ground and sustain injuries.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries. After depositions were conducted, the defendants City of New York, New York City Department of Education, principal Douglas Avila, and assistant principal Joseph Simione (hereinafter collectively the school defendants) moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, contending that there was no special relationship between them and the plaintiff, and, as such, that they did not owe her a duty of care. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the school defendants' motion.
A school district may not be held liable for the negligent performance of its governmental function of supervising children in its charge, at least in the absence of a special duty to the person injured (see Dinardo v City of New York, 13 NY3d 872, 874, 921 NE2d 585, 893 NYS2d 818 [2009]; Ferguson v City of New York, 118 AD3d 849, 988 NYS2d 207 [2014]; Stinson v Roosevelt U.F.S.D., 61 AD3d 847, 847-848, 877 NYS2d 400 [2009]; Moreno v City of New York, 27 AD3d 536, 536-537, 813 NYS2d 143 [2006]). Although a school district owes a special duty to its minor students, that duty does not extend to teachers, administrators, [***3]  or other adults on or off school premises (see Ferguson v City of New York, 118 AD3d at 850; Stinson v Roosevelt U.F.S.D., 61 AD3d at 847-848).
With regard to teachers, administrators, or other adults on or off school premises, a special relationship with a municipal defendant can be formed in three ways: "'(1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation'" (Thomas v New York City Dept. of Educ., 124 AD3d 762, 763, 2 NYS3d 178 [2015], quoting Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186, 199-200, 810 NE2d 393, 778 NYS2d 111 [2004]).
Here, as the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the school defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe the plaintiff a special duty (see Thomas v New York City Dept. of Educ., 124  [*797]  AD3d at 763; Ferguson v City of New York, 118 AD3d at 850; Stinson v Roosevelt U.F.S.D., 61 AD3d at 847-848). The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard (see Thomas v New York City Dept. of Educ., 124 AD3d at 763; Ferguson v City of New York, 118 AD3d at 850; Moreno v City of New York, 27 AD3d at 536-537). As no special duty existed, we need not consider whether, in supervising the students, the school defendants were performing a discretionary function which would avail them of the governmental immunity defense (see Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 75-76, 960 NE2d 356, 936 NYS2d 587 [2011]; Dinardo v City of New York, 13 NY3d at  [**151]  874; Ferguson v City of New York, 118 AD3d at 850).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the school defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing [***4]  the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see Ferguson v City of New York, 118 AD3d at 850; Moreno v City of New York, 27 AD3d at 536-537). Hall, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
and,
Guerrieri v New York City Dept./Bd. of Educ.
2015 NY Slip Op 07816 [132 AD3d 949]
October 28, 2015
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2015

 Thomas Guerrieri et al., Appellants,
v
New York City Department/Board of Education, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Gardiner & Nolan, Brooklyn, N.Y. (William Gardiner of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers, Nicholas J. Murgolo, and Damian S. Todola of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated August 16, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Department/Board of Education for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Thomas Guerrieri (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was employed as a school bus driver by an independent contractor that contracted with the New York City Department/Board of Education (hereinafter the defendant) to provide transportation services to the defendant's students. In 2002 the injured plaintiff allegedly was assaulted by one of the defendant's students while he was transporting that student. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced this action against, among others, the defendant. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the plaintiffs appeal.
"Liability for a claim that a municipality negligently exercised a governmental function 'turns upon the existence of a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public' " (Coleson v City of New York, 24 NY3d 476, 481 [2014], quoting Garrett v Holiday Inns, 58 NY2d 253, 261 [1983]). While a school district owes a special duty to its students to adequately supervise them to prevent foreseeable injuries to fellow students, that duty does not extend to adults (see Ferguson v City of New York, 118 AD3d 849, 850 [2014]; Stinson v Roosevelt U.F.S.D., 61 AD3d 847 [2009]). Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not owe the injured plaintiff a special duty (see Ferguson v City of New York, 118 AD3d at 850; Stinson v Roosevelt U.F.S.D., 61 AD3d at 847; Goga v Binghamton City School Dist., 302 AD2d 650, 651 [2003]; Reynolds v Central Islip Union Free School Dist., 300 AD2d 292, 293 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Dickerson, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op 32097(U).]

ZELINDA ANTOINETTE DINARDO, Respondent, v CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

No. 158

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK

13 N.Y.3d 872; 921 N.E.2d 585; 893 N.Y.S.2d 818; 2009 N.Y. LEXIS 4144; 2009 NY Slip Op 8853

October 15, 2009, Argued
 

December 1, 2009, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered December 23, 2008. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, (1) affirmed an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), which, after a jury trial, had dismissed the action against defendant City of New York (it having been voluntarily discontinued by plaintiff during trial) and awarded plaintiff damages against defendant Board of Education in the amount of $ 512,465, and (2) dismissed an appeal from the original judgment of that court, as superseded by the appeal from the amended judgment. 
Dinardo v. City of New York, 57 AD3d 373, 871 NYS2d 15, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9795 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't, 2008), reversed. 

DISPOSITION: Order reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, in a memorandum.
CORE TERMS: special relationship, discretionary, municipality, assurance, supervisor, classroom, matter of law, injured party's, special relationship, justifiable reliance, ministerial, municipal, discretionary acts, justifiably relied, false sense of security, happening, ongoing, induced, teacher, hang, duty to act, immunity rule, tort liability, entitled to judgment, government action, police officer, police protection, reasoned judgment, vigilance, favorable


HEADNOTES
Municipal Corporations -- Tort Liability
Defendant Board of Education was entitled to judgment as a matter of law in an action by plaintiff teacher who was injured when she tried to restrain a student, who had been verbally and physically aggressive for several months, from attacking another. In negligence cases premised on a special relationship between a municipality and a plaintiff, the injured party's reliance is critical as is the municipality's voluntary affirmative understanding of a duty to act. There was no rational process by which the jury could have reached a finding that plaintiff justifiably relied on assurances by the Board. Vaguely worded statements by plaintiff's supervisor and principal that "something" was being done to have the student removed, without any indication of when, or if, such relief would come, did not, as a matter of law, constitute an action that would lull a plaintiff into a false sense of security or otherwise generate justifiable reliance. Plaintiff was aware that the administrative process for determining whether a student should transfer to a different program or school could take up to 60 days and was still ongoing when the incident occurred.


COUNSEL: Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Marta Ross and Edward F.X. Hart of counsel), for appellant.

Clark, Gagliardi & Miller, P.C., White Plains (Henry G. Miller and John S. Rand of counsel), for respondent.

JUDGES: Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur. Chief Judge Lippman concurs in result in an opinion. Judge Ciparick concurs in result.

OPINION
 [**586]   [***819]   [*873] MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed.
Plaintiff Zelinda Dinardo, a special education teacher at a New York City public school, was injured when she tried to restrain one student from attacking another. The student had been verbally and physically aggressive for several months, and plaintiff had repeatedly expressed concerns to her supervisors about her safety in the classroom. The school's supervisor of special education and the principal had both told her that "things were being worked on, things were happening" and urged her to "hang in there because something was being done" to have the student removed. Following her injury, plaintiff commenced this action alleging, among other things, that by these assurances the Board of Education of the City of New York had assumed an affirmative duty to take action with respect to the removal of the student and that she justifiably relied upon those assurances. When the student was not removed in a timely fashion, plaintiff alleges, the altercation which led to her injury resulted.
At trial, at the close of plaintiff's proof, the Board of Education moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401. Following a jury verdict in Dinardo's favor, the Board of Education moved to set aside the verdict under CPLR 4404 (a).  [*874]  Supreme Court denied both motions. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment awarding Dinardo damages. Two Justices dissented on a question of law, and the Board of Education appeals as of right under CPLR 5601 (a).
The Board of Education now argues that the conduct alleged to have constituted a promise to act on her behalf was discretionary government action, which cannot be a basis for liability (see McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d 194, 202-203, 905 NE2d 1167, 878 NYS2d 238 [2009]; Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34, 40-41, 459 NE2d 182, 471 NYS2d 73 [1983]). We have no occasion to decide that question because, even assuming the school officials' actions in this case were ministerial, there is no rational process by which a jury could have found liability. [***820]   [**587] 
In negligence cases premised on a special relationship between municipality and plaintiff,
"the injured party's reliance is as critical . . . as is the municipality's voluntary affirmative undertaking of a duty to act. . . . Indeed, at the heart of most of these 'special duty' cases is the unfairness that the courts have perceived in precluding recovery when a municipality's voluntary undertaking has lulled the injured party into a false sense of security and has thereby induced [her] either to relax [her] own vigilance or to forego other available avenues of protection" (Cuffy v New York, 69 NY2d 255, 261, 505 NE2d 937, 513 NYS2d 372 [1987]).
The assurance by the municipal defendant must be definite enough to generate justifiable reliance by the plaintiff.
Affording Dinardo every inference that may properly be drawn from the evidence presented and considering the evidence in a light most favorable to her (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556, 686 NE2d 1346, 664 NYS2d 252 [1997]), we conclude that there is no rational process by which the jury could have reached a finding that plaintiff justifiably relied on assurances by the Board of Education. The vaguely worded statements by Dinardo's supervisor and principal that "something" was being done to have the student removed, without any indication of when, or if, such relief would come, do not, as a matter of law, constitute an action that would lull a plaintiff into a false sense of security or otherwise generate justifiable reliance. Indeed, plaintiff was aware that the administrative process for determining whether a student should transfer to a different program or school could take up to 60 days and was still ongoing when the incident occurred. There was therefore no "special relationship" between  [*875]  the Board of Education and plaintiff (see Cuffy, 69 NY2d at 259), upon which a cause of action for negligence could be based, and the Board of Education is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


CONCUR BY: LIPPMAN

CONCUR
Chief Judge LIPPMAN. (concurring). I disagree with the majority's conclusion that a rational jury could not have found that a special relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant Board. For several months prior to the incident giving rise to this action, the student exhibited increasing behavioral problems, including bringing a knife to school, which resulted in a week's suspension. Concerned about the student's behavior and the classroom safety risks it presented, plaintiff and her supervisor submitted to the Board's Committee on Special Education a written recommendation to remove the student from plaintiff's classroom and place him in a learning environment better equipped to his highly problematic conduct. The recommendation was supported by notes that plaintiff had kept regarding the student's behavior. These notes disclose that the subject student frequently punched, kicked and threw various items at his classmates. He also threatened to kill plaintiff, another teacher, and his fellow classmates on numerous occasions.
While the transfer request was pending, plaintiff repeatedly told her supervisors that she was concerned about the safety of her classroom and "didn't know how much longer [she could] hang in there." She testified, "it was getting more and more impossible to conduct the class . . . I wanted to quit. I couldn't go on anymore . . . It was getting unsafe, and I was concerned about safety in the classroom, and . . . I did not want to return." In response, her supervisors told her to "hang in there"  [***821]   [**588]  because "something was being done" and "things were happening."
Viewing the evidence, as we must at this juncture, in the light most favorable to plaintiff (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556, 686 NE2d 1346, 664 NYS2d 252 [1997]), I think the jury could have rationally concluded that a special relationship existed between the plaintiff and defendant Board. Although the transfer request was still outstanding when plaintiff was injured, the supervisors' repeated assurances that "things were happening" and "something was being done" suggested an impending solution to the dangerous situation. It would not be unreasonable for the jury to infer that plaintiff, in justifiable reliance on these assurances, chose to remain in the classroom and continue teaching rather than quitting as she had threatened. It should be stressed that the  [*876]  stark choice facing plaintiff was whether she should resign and abandon her class or continue to teach in a situation which was by any reasonable measure dangerous. In electing to follow the latter, socially desirable course, plaintiff relied upon the municipality's assurances that the situation would soon be rectified. Indeed, the evidence, properly viewed, practically compels the conclusion that the assurances made to plaintiff induced her to "relax [her] own vigilance or . . . forego other available avenues of protection" (Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 261, 505 NE2d 937, 513 NYS2d 372 [1987]), and thus sufficed to establish the special relationship upon which recovery is conditioned.
Nevertheless, I concur in the majority's result on constraint of McLean v City of New York (12 NY3d 194, 905 NE2d 1167, 878 NYS2d 238 [2009]). In McLean, this Court held that government action, if discretionary, may never form the basis for tort liability, even if a special relationship exists between the plaintiff and the municipality. According to McLean, the special relationship exception only applies where the challenged municipal action is ministerial (see id. at 203). In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on Tango v Tulevech (61 NY2d 34, 40, 459 NE2d 182, 471 NYS2d 73 [1983]) and Lauer v City of New York (95 NY2d 95, 99-100, 733 NE2d 184, 711 NYS2d 112 [2000]). But, in those cases, the Court never expressly considered whether the special relationship exception applied to discretionary governmental acts. Even if Tango and Lauer can arguably be read to imply that the special relationship exception does not apply to discretionary acts, that interpretation was flatly rejected in Pelaez v Seide (2 NY3d 186, 810 NE2d 393, 778 NYS2d 111 [2004]), decided after Tango and Lauer, but prior to McLean. In Pelaez, this Court explicitly held that a "narrow exception" to the general discretionary immunity rule exists when a plaintiff establishes a special relationship with the municipality (2 NY3d at 193). One year later, in Kovit v Estate of Hallums, we recognized that the police officer was exercising his discretion and that in order "[t]o hold the City liable for the negligent performance of a discretionary act, a plaintiff must establish a special relationship with the municipality" (4 NY3d 499, 506, 829 NE2d 1188, 797 NYS2d 20 [2005]). I can discern no convincing rationale for the Court's disregard of this relevant binding precedent, which so unreasonably narrows--indeed effectively eliminates--the special relationship exception.
Although I agree that liability should not generally attach when a municipal employee is exercising his or her reasoned judgment, the broad immunity recognized for discretionary acts should not extend to situations where a special relationship is  [*877]   [***822]   [**589] present. The touchstone of the special duty rule is that the government, by its undertaking to the specific plaintiff, has gone above and beyond the general duty it owes to the public and created a unique relationship with that plaintiff, upon which he or she is entitled to rely. This is entirely consistent with the general tort principle that a defendant should be held liable for the breach of a duty it voluntarily assumed (see Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co., 247 NY 160, 167, 159 NE 896 [1928]).
Whether the municipality's act is characterized as ministerial or discretionary should not be, and never has been, determinative in special duty cases. Indeed, in Cuffy, a seminal case in the special duty context, the plaintiffs alleged that the police had a special duty to protect them based on a police officer's promise that an arrest would be made or some other protective action would be taken regarding an ongoing dispute between plaintiffs and their neighbors (69 NY2d at 259). Although noting that the provision of police protection is within the reasoned judgment of officials and therefore necessarily discretionary in nature, we recognized that an exception to the discretionary immunity rule exists when a special relationship exists between the municipality and plaintiff (see id. at 260; see also Kircher v City of Jamestown, 74 NY2d 251, 255-256, 543 NE2d 443, 544 NYS2d 995 [1989]; De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 305, 457 NE2d 717, 469 NYS2d 611 [1983]). Unfortunately, under the rule announced in McLean, a plaintiff will never be able to recover for the failure to provide adequate police protection, even when the police voluntarily and affirmatively promised to act on that specific plaintiff's behalf and he or she justifiably relied on that promise to his or her detriment. This is particularly disturbing given our recognition that the "police cases . . . all but occupy the special relationship field" (Pelaez, 2 NY3d at 205).
The rule in McLean, which clearly extends beyond police protection and applies to all discretionary governmental actions, allows public officials to unjustifiably hide behind the shield of discretionary immunity even when their actions have induced a plaintiff to change his or her behavior in the face of a known threat. Because almost any governmental act may be characterized as discretionary (see Tango, 61 NY2d at 41, citing Prosser, Torts § 132, at 990 [4th ed]), McLean too broadly insulates government agencies from being held accountable to injured parties.
The determination here as to whether and when to transfer a potentially dangerous student is undoubtedly within the discretion of the Board and thus may not subject the Board to  [*878]  liability given the recent holding in McLean. Accordingly, I reluctantly concur with the majority that the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the complaint dismissed.
Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum; Chief Judge LIPPMAN concurs in result in an opinion; Judge CIPARICK concurs in result, stating: The majority does not decide whether this is ministerial or discretionary. I think it was discretionary and therefore, under our recent decision in McLean v City of New York (12 NY3d 194, 905 NE2d 1167, 878 NYS2d 238 [2009]), must concur, but if I were to go to the issue of special relationship, as the majority does, I would  [***823]   [**590]  disagree for the reasons stated in the concurrence of the Chief Judge.
Order reversed, etc.




Rimma Kunik Wins Her Article 78 Challenging The Rating Of "Unsatisfactory"

$
0
0

Matter of Kunik v New York City Dept. of Educ.
2016 NY Slip Op 05812
Decided on August 17, 2016
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on August 17, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department 
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
 
SHERI S. ROMAN
 
JEFFREY A. COHEN
 
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

2015-04025
 
(Index No. 13049/13)
 

[*1]In the Matter of Rimma Kunik, appellant, 

v

New York City Department of Education, et al., respondents.

Melito and Adolfsen, P.C., New York, NY (Steven I. Lewbel of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Jane L. Gordon and Megan E. K. Montcalm of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review the respondents' rating of the petitioner's job performance for the 2012-2013 school year, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), entered February 4, 2015, which granted the respondents' cross motion pursuant to CPL 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition and, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition is denied, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the service and filing of an answer and the administrative record within 30 days after the date of this decision and order, and for further proceedings on the petition in accordance herewith.
The petitioner, who at the relevant time was a school teacher at Fort Hamilton High School in Brooklyn, received a rating of "unsatisfactory" from the respondents for her job performance in the 2012-2013 school year. The petitioner appealed the rating with the respondent New York City Department of Education's (hereinafter the DOE) Office of Appeals and Reviews. Prior to the DOE's determination of the appeal, the petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge the rating. The parties subsequently stipulated to remove the case from the court's calendar pending determination of the administrative appeal. Thereafter, the DOE denied the petitioner's administrative appeal. The petitioner then moved to restore the petition and sought leave to amend the petition to amplify certain facts. Prior to answering the petition, the respondents cross-moved to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f) for failure to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court granted the respondents' cross motion, finding that the DOE's determination was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion, and, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.
The Supreme Court erred in granting the respondents' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition. "On a motion to dismiss a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), all of the allegations in the petition are deemed true and the petitioner is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference" (Matter of Grecco v Cimino, 100 AD3d 892, 897; see Matter of Johnson v County of Orange, 138 AD3d 850; Matter of MVM Constr., LLC v Westchester County, 112 AD3d 635, 635-637; Matter of Oddone v Suffolk County Police Dept., 96 AD3d 758, 762). In determining such a motion, the sole criterion is whether the petition sets forth allegations [*2]sufficient to make out a claim that the determination sought to be reviewed was " made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" (CPLR 7803[3]; see Matter of Oddone v Suffolk County Police Dept., 96 AD3d at 762). When evidentiary material outside the pleading's four corners is considered, and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the pleader has a cause of action, not whether the pleader has stated one and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader is not a fact at all, and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275; Matter of Clavin v Mitchell, 131 AD3d 612, 614).
Applying this standard, the petition and the documents annexed to it establish a cognizable claim that the respondents' determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Contrary to the respondents' contention, the petitioner's claim is not a mere disagreement as to whether the rating of "unsatisfactory" was deserved. Rather, as set forth in the petition, the petitioner alleges that the process used by the respondents in arriving at the rating was based on a failure to observe her entire class lesson, faulty background knowledge, and unlawful procedure. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the respondents' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition (see Matter of Schlemme v Planning Bd. of City of Poughkeepsie, 118 AD3d 893, 895; Matter of MVM Constr., LLC v Westchester County, 112 AD3d at 636; Matter of Oddone v Suffolk County Police Dept., 96 AD3d at 762; Matter of Zaidins v Hashmall, 288 AD2d 316, 316-317).
Thus, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the service and filing of an answer to the petition and the complete administrative record (see CPLR 7804[d], [e]), and for further proceedings thereafter on the petition.
BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice

AG Schneiderman Says That the NYC DOE Has Failed To Accurately Report Bullying in Public Schools

$
0
0
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman

NYC public schools have been underreporting bullying, 
report suggests
Ben Chapman, NY Daily News
LINK
The city has failed to accurately tally incidents of bullying in public schools, a report issued Wednesday by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman suggests.
Schneiderman’s analysis of state Education Department data from the 2013-14 school year found that 1,257 of 1,792 city schools — or 71 % — reported zero incidents of harassment, bullying or discrimination of students for that entire year. And 1,762 schools — or 98% of the total — reported 10 or fewer incidents.
Those low figures “suggest both significant underreporting of material incidents of harassment and discrimination by schools in New York City, along with some confusion or uncertainty as to how to classify those incidents that are reported,” Schneiderman’s report stated.
The findings highlight the importance of accurately tracking bullying in city classrooms, the AG added.
“It’s vitally important that students feel comfortable coming forward with fears of discrimination or harassment,” said Schneiderman. “And it’s equally important that schools honestly report their responses to these issues.”
The Dignity for All Students Act of 2010 required all city schools — and public schools across the state — to report incidents of bullying to a public database, so that school leaders and education officials could better address the issue.
But the city has been criticized for years for failing to accurately gather and report data on bullying.
A 2014 analysis by the Daily News found that a whopping 1,378 Big Apple schools — or 80% — reported zero incidents of bullying or harassment for the 2012-13 year.
And an audit last year by state Controller Thomas DiNapoli determined that the city Department of Education did not report roughly 400 violent and disruptive incidents that occurred in city schools from 2011 to 2013 to the state Education Department as required by law.
City Education Department spokeswoman Toya Holness said Schneiderman’s report relies on outdated data and doesn’t adequately capture the city’s efforts to fight bullying.
“Our schools are the safest they’ve ever been, and reporting incidents is not an option, it’s a requirement,” said Holness. “Explicit protocols and robust training programs are used in all schools.”

Cops, Not Counselors, Are in Schools To Guide Students

$
0
0

There is something terribly wrong with this policy.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice

1.6 Million Students Go to Schools That Employ Cops But No
Counselors
LINK
High school counselors are charged with helping students work through academic or emotional problems. They might be the first line of defense if a student is struggling with depression, anxiety, abuse or other trauma—all factors that might lead to or exacerbate problematic use of drugs. Counselors are also supposed to guide the college application process, helping kids figure out how to get in, pay for school—or whether college is right for them and what kind ofcontinuing education best fits their needs. Naturally, this has been deemed an expendable position in many places—it’s one of the first jobs to go when public schools face budget cuts, the Washington Post points out.
On-campus cops are doing solid, though!
This morning, the US Education Department released a collection of data drawn from 2013-2014 surveys of nearly every single one of the nation’s 95,000 public schools. The results are part of the Civil Rights Data Collection, a survey done every other school year to measure access and equity in the public school system. The data show that 850,000 high school students didn’t have access to a school counselor. Meanwhile, 1.6 million (k – 12th grade) students attended a school that employed a law enforcement officer but no counselor.
In fact, 24 percent of elementary schools and 42 percent of high schools had a law enforcement officer on staff. Among high schools in with more than 75 percent of students were black or Latino, more than half had an officer patrolling campus.
Critics of law enforcement presence on school grounds point out that officers are more likely to escalate situations that could be de-escalated. Videos of officers seemingly over-reacting and using excessive violence against children and teenagers surface routinely. It also leads to suspensions and even criminal charges for seemingly normal teen misbehavior, which can be expensive and needlessly suck young kids into the criminal justice system.
As the Southern Poverty Law Center points out, there was an almost 40 percent jump in the number of school resource officers between 1997 and 2007, according to the US Department of Justice.
“The vast majority of these arrests are for nonviolent offenses. In most cases, the students are simply being disruptive,” notes  Marilyn Elias, a SPLC contributor. “And a recent US Department of Education study found that more than 70 percent of students arrested in school-related incidents or referred to law enforcement are black or Hispanic. Zero-tolerance policies, which set one-size-fits-all punishments for a variety of behaviors, have fed these trends.”


The NYC DOE Allows Violence by Students and Cover-ups by Principals

$
0
0
The NYC Department of Education has made reporting students who hit, cheat, or abuse other students, teachers and staff verboten; forbidden; prohibited; dont even think about it. . If a Principal reports assaults on students or staff, the school may get on the VADIR list for most violent schools, and this leads to all bad consequences.

So, gang members know that they have freedom to do whatever they want. And teachers are not protected. See my recent post

No Damages For Assaults While At Work for the DOE


Where is the UFT?

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice

Principal Jason Wagner


BRONX, N.Y. — Last year, they were rookie teachers at the Pelham Lab High School in the Bronx. By the end of the school year, they’d had enough.
Totally disillusioned, they both quit. They contacted PIX11 News to tell their story, provided we conceal their identities. They both spoke about having dreamed of being a teacher, getting degrees in Education and the excitement they felt before starting their jobs last fall.
What happened to their dreams? Reality got in the way. One of the teachers, who we’ll call Ray, says “I was struck with an object the first day of school. I’ve been hit in the face. I’ve had objects thrown at me. I’ve been generally verbally and physically abused from day one.”
The second teacher, we’ll call her Susan, had a similar experience. “There were kids in my class that were so misbehaved and crazy, running around, screaming at me, cursing at me. The first day that I kicked them out of my class, I was told that I was not allowed to do that. They got brought back to my class and their behavior didn’t change. Ray and Susan both complain of getting no support from the school Principal, Jason Wagner. “He doesn’t care about teachers. He doesn’t care as long as he looks good and the school looks good and there’s nothing on paper or there’s no points against him,” says Susan.
Ray says none of the other administrators do anything to deal with the misbehavior because they are afraid of Principal Wagner. “He uses bullying , intimidation and harassment techniques against everyone.” They both complain “ there’s no disciplinary action against the students whatsoever. All the burden is placed on the teachers.” Susan says the teachers have no power. “You know, 20 plus staples in a cup of coffee, zero punishment. Zero punishment for the door being knocked down. I’ve been pushed by kids, cursed out on a weekly basis. Nothing I can do about it.”
Pelham Lab High School at 3000 East Tremont Ave., is one of six schools that share the Lehman Educational Complex. Pelham has 211 students, 95 percent minority. A spokesman for the Department of Education says “Nothing is more important than the safety of all students and staff. These claims are not an accurate depiction of the disciplinary practices taking place at the school. Principal Wagner has protocols in place to report and address incidents.”
But both teachers we spoke with say the behavior problems at the school are so severe that it makes it extremely difficult to do any actual teaching. While these two teachers have given up their dreams of being educators, they say it’s the students that are the real losers.

The 3020-a Arbitration Newswire: Changing "Rules"

$
0
0
All of the links below under Memos To The Field are only as valid as someone at the New York State Education Department wants them to be. That's why I have "" surrounding "rules" in the title.

After completing more than 40 cases, I know which arbitrator will abide by which rule and who will not. And then there are the comments, "oh, that's what the new rule says....." and off I go to my computer to file another Freedom of Information request (FOIL).

Anyone who works very hard reading all the transcripts, who knows what the UFT contract says and what the Education Law says, and can argue Just Cause, can win the 3020-a hearing.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

 Please be advised that there were extensive modifications to Education Law §3020-a including the creation of a new Education Law §3020-b, effective July 1, 2015. Please click on this link to view the various OSPRA memos to the field outlining the various changes: www.highered.nysed.gov/tsei/employeremployee. A pre-hearing conference must be held within 10-15 days of the Hearing Officer’s acceptance of this case for standard and expedited Education Law §3020-a cases, within 7 days for an expedited Education Law §3020-b case based on two ineffective APPR ratings, and within 5 days for an expedited Education Law §3020-b case based on three ineffective APPR ratings. The timeline for the conduct of the proceedings and the issuance of the decision is outlined in the statute and the regulations. Pertinent due dates are reflected in TEACH (calculated to the best approximation available to the department). At the conclusion of the case, Hearing Officers must upload their decisions on TEACH and create their vouchers on TEACH. When a decision is made, an automated email will go to the parties. Please click on the link below to log into the TEACH System and upload, view and/or download the decision and other relevant documents.


Memos to the Field

Occasionally, there is a need to issue memoranda to the field to clarify information pertaining to the various regulatory and administrative responsibilities of OSPRA. Copies of important memoranda may be obtained by following the relevant links below.
DateSubject
Feburary 2016Fingerprinting Fee Increase
September 2015Education Law §3020-a Hearing Officer Rates
August 2015Teacher Tenure Hearing Changes
July 2015Fingerprinting Changes – Important Dates and Escrow Accounts
June 2015Fingerprinting Changes – FAQ’s
May 2015Fingerprinting Rejection Report
May 2015Fingerprinting Changes – Transition Timelines
April 2015Fingerprinting Changes
March 2013Teacher Tenure Hearings – New Online Tenure Case Management System
December 2012Hearing Officer Voucher Guidelines
May 2012Education Law Section 3020-a Hearing Officer Rates (effective April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013)
April 2012Education Law §3020-a Changes (Effective April 1, 2012)
September 2011Fingerprinting Sports Officials
October 2009Conditional Clearances



See also Test Security, Data Privacy and Educator Integrity

Education Law §3020-a Hearing Officer Rates
Date:
September 2, 2015
To:
Education Law §3020-a Hearing Officers
From:
Deborah A. Marriott
Subject:
Education Law §3020-a Hearing Officer Rates
Pursuant to New York State Education Law §3020-a(3)(b)(i)(B), the Commissioner sets forth the following maximum rates of compensation and study hours for hearing officers adjudicating matters pursuant to Education §3020-a.  The rates and study hour limitations were first imposed for cases commencing after April 1, 2012.  This memo supersedes the May 9, 2012 memo to the field entitled “Education Law 3020-a Hearing Officer Rates (effective April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013)” and sets forth new rates and study hour limitations for cases commencing on or after July 1, 2015.
In accordance with 8 NYCRR §82-3.12(a), hearing officers shall be compensated by the New York State Education Department (“Department”) on a per diem basis, pro-rated for actual time spent as described further herein, and reimbursed for the costs of necessary travel and other reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of their duties in accordance with the December 14, 2012 memo to the field entitled “Hearing Office Voucher Guidelines.”

Maximum Rate of Compensation
Per Diem Fee:
The maximum per diem fee shall be that listed in the biographical profile for the arbitrator that the American Arbitration Association (AAA) submits to the Department pursuant to Education Law §3020-a(3)(a); provided, however, that such per diem fee shall not exceed $1,400 per day.  In no instance will an arbitrator be reimbursed a “special rate” for adjudicating an Education Law §3020-a matter that is higher than the arbitrator’s customary per diem fee for other non-Education Law §3020-a labor arbitration hearings.  It is the responsibility of the arbitrator to make sure that both AAA and the Department are aware of any rate changes.
Definition of a Day:
A “day” for per diem purposes is defined in 8 NYCRR §82-3.12(c) as seven (7) hours of hearing or study time, exclusive of meal breaks, prorated to the nearest 1/10 of an hour.

Cancellation Fee:
Any late cancellation fee charged by the hearing officer shall be paid by the party or parties responsible for the cancellation as set forth in 8 NYCRR §82-3.12(b).
Maximum Hearing Time:
Charges for hearing time will be reimbursed only for the actual time spent in hearing.
Maximum Study Time:
Study time is defined as all other administrative tasks, such as hearing preparation, phone calls, correspondence, evidence review and decision writing. Except as provided for herein, charges for study time shall not be in excess of actual time spent on the hearing, prorated to the nearest one-tenth of an hour. The Department will not reimburse for study time beyond a maximum of a 1:1 ratio of hearing days to study days, and expects that the study time for a hearing that lasts in excess of seven days will not require more than seven days of study time. If a hearing officer requires more than the maximum study time for a particularly complex matter, the hearing officer can make an application to the commissioner for additional reimbursement. In situations where good cause substantiates additional study time, as determined by the commissioner, such applications will be granted.

Special Reimbursement Rates for Probable Cause Hearings
Education Law §3020-a(2)(c) was amended to permit a school district to implement a suspension without pay where the charges are for misconduct constituting physical or sexual abuse of a student.1  In such instances, a “Probable Cause Hearing” must be held within 10 days of the suspension without pay to determine whether sufficient probable cause exists to support the charges.  At the conclusion of the probable cause hearing, the impartial hearing officer may make an oral ruling (in certain circumstances) or issue a written decision on the record as to whether the suspension without pay should be continued or reversed.  In accordance with the statute, the Department has created special regional rotational lists on the TEACH system for these types of hearings.  The regulations governing these types of proceedings may be found at 8 NYCRR §82-3.10. 
Due to the compressed timelines and the need to ensure a ready supply of hearing officers for these proceedings, the Commissioner has created a special reimbursement structure for Probable Cause Hearings.  To the extent that the hearing is conducted in person, the hearing officer will be reimbursed at twice the normal per diem rate for the first day of the hearing not to exceed seven (7) hours.  All subsequent hearing days, if any, are to be billed at the normal per diem rate.  All hearing time is to be billed for actual time spent at the hearing, prorated to the nearest 1/10th of an hour.  Study time shall be billed at the normal per diem rate, and is subject to the same rules outlined above.
If there are any questions, please contact Deborah A. Marriott, Director of the Office of school Personnel Review and Accountability at (518) 474-3021 or deborah.marriott@nysed.gov.

1 To the extent that a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the city of New York provides for suspension without pay for the same conduct, the provisions of the agreement supersede Education Law §3020-a(2)(c).




Mediation and Restorative Justice Work As Alternatives To Suspensions

$
0
0
My experience as a former PTA President and current parent/teacher advocate is that the NYC DOE lost its' way years ago, and principals citywide became pawns in zero tolerance for anything that looks like trouble. The result was to blame your weakest link, usually the teacher, and ask questions later - resulting in the re-assignment centers, or rubber rooms.

It seems that people at the DOE are listening to reason, and bringing new policies to schools, namely mediation, peer intervention, and other strategies for intervention.

Its about time, but still not widespread enough. All schools should have alternative dispute resolution programs and policies imbedded in the Safety Plan.

Let's put "Talk First" policies out there in our schools.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

An Effective but Exhausting Alternative to High-School Suspensions

When kids get into trouble at school, traditional forms of discipline often lead to more trouble. Is there a more productive way to change behavior?

Two of Leadership and Public Service High School’s student mediators, Tuson Irvin and Annika James.

SEPT. 7, 2016- nytimes.com

In December 2013, Colleen Walsh, a social-studies teacher at Leadership and Public Service High School in Manhattan's Financial District, called one of the school's four deans in charge of discipline. She had just had a short, heated dispute in the hallway with a 17-year-old student who had his cellphone out, a violation of school rules. Walsh, then 27, was an energetic teacher, entertaining and assertive, but something about the way she spoke to the young man, who was not her student, infuriated him. A junior who could be exceptionally charming but also combative, he started yelling at Walsh, at which point she contacted a dean in the hope that he could calm him so they could all discuss what had happened.

Leadership is housed in a tall, narrow building originally intended as office space, with revolving doors at the entrance and an echoing lobby. That day in December, the student had already taken the elevator down to the lobby after the confrontation when he encountered the dean, who, misunderstanding Walsh's intent, imposed a punishment instead. He told the young man, who was on the school's basketball team, that he could not play in that evening's game and that he would also be suspended, because this infraction came on the heels of several others. The student (who declined to comment for this article), now even more irate, took the elevator back to the ninth floor. He burst through the door of Walsh's classroom, where three students had lingered after class, and faced her, yelling, cursing, accusing her of lying, ignoring Walsh's repeated requests that he leave the room. Friends tried to pull him toward the door, but he broke away, then hurled over one of the classroom's chair-desks. They finally succeeded in pulling him out of the classroom, at which point a dean arrived.

Some kind of consequence was clearly in order, the deans and the principal, Phil Santos, agreed. The question was: What would it be?For the past two decades, how to discipline students has been as hotly contested a subject as how to educate them. For much of that time, many public-school systems, including New York City's, have enforced zero-tolerancepolicies that require mandatory suspensions for certain offenses. Originally generated in response to fears about weapons in schools, zero-tolerance policies, especially in New York, where Rudolph W. Giuliani's "broken windows" theory had taken hold, signaled to educators that crackdowns on unruliness of all kinds were in order. Between 1999 and 2009, the number of student suspensions in New York nearly doubled, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union, reaching about 450,000 suspensions over the course of the decade. In that era, infractions that once might have merited a call home, like shoving another student or cursing, were increasingly common grounds for suspension.

The broad implementation of punitive suspension policies gave researchers ample data, the analysis of which has yielded a body of work suggesting the failure of this experiment in discipline. Suspensions do not deter bad behavior, numerous studies have found, and most likely feed it by alienating students from the school community. Other studies show that suspensions are not just ineffective but inequitable, as students of color are more likely than white ones to be suspended for the same behaviors. In New York City, black students made up only 30 percent of all students from 1999 to 2009 but accounted for 50 percent of the suspensions, according to a N.Y.C.L.U. report. Additional studies show that a student who has been suspended is more likely to eventually drop out of school or end up in the criminal-justice system. (In New York, the heavy presence of school safety officers employed by the Police Department has also been linked to higher numbers of student arrests.)

As unfavorable statistics piled up, progressive educators found increasing support for their efforts to dismantle what had become known as the school-to-prison pipeline. In 2014, federal guidelines on discipline explicitly noted the harm zero-tolerance policies had done, urging districts to rethink them. By 2015, in New York City, repeat low-level infractions — cursing, for example — no longer qualified for suspensions. In order to suspend a student for "defying or disobeying the lawful authority" of school staff, the kind of catchall violation that was disproportionately applied to students of color, a principal had to obtain approval from the Education Department. Between July 2015 and that December, the number of suspensions in New York dropped by 32 percent, compared with the same period a year earlier.

The federal guidelines suggested that educators consider, among other alternatives, an approach called restorative justice, which differs radically from zero tolerance. Restorative justice is built on values like community, empathy and responsibility; in its specifics, it asks students and teachers to strengthen connections and heal rifts by sitting on chairs in circles and allowing each participant to speak about how a given incident affected him or her.

It could easily be dismissed as an impossibly amorphous process for overworked teachers and volatile students were it not for its success so far, in programs in Denver and Oakland that started in the mid-2000s. Schools employing restorative justice, or restorative practices, as it's sometimes called, experienced such significant results — lowered suspension rates, higher graduation rates, improved school atmosphere — that both cities, as well as San Francisco, now offer restorative-practices training for all educators. New York's Education Department is investing in training its own faculty, and Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña has expressed her enthusiasm for the approach.
Chancellor Carmen Farina

Leadership and Public Service High School first started experimenting with restorative practices in 2011, when Phil Santos became principal. Since then, every year, he has requested more resources and training for his teachers, making him, within New York City, a relatively early adopter. 

As committed as he remains, making the shift to this new approach has been, as Santos describes it, "exhausting" and "messy"; changes in teacher attitudes and student behavior come slowly. His school's experience is emblematic of the challenges schools face as educators try to replace a discipline policy that removes students from the school with one that aspires to help them become peaceful citizens in society.

As the staff of Leadership tried to apply its new philosophy to the incident involving Walsh and the student, the process would reflect many of the tensions that drove up suspension rates in the first place — issues around race and power that even the most progressive educators struggle to talk about honestly, all the while knowing that doing so is essential to making real change.

Santos grew up in Queens in the '80s, with the kind of childhood that makes it easy for him to empathize with the students in his school, 70 percent of whom qualify for free lunch and 80 percent of whom are students of color. His father was incarcerated for part of his childhood, and his mother, he says, was not stable enough at the time to care for a child. Instead he was raised by his great-grandmother, great-aunt and great-uncle. In high school, Santos became active in his youth church and considered becoming a pastor before switching to education. He is a trim man who carries himself with a brisk, military bearing. He intimately understands, he says, why so many of his male students feel compelled to fight to prove themselves. He was born with one hand and could have been a target. "If I went to a new school, if I didn't fight early on, the rest of my time there would have been harder," he says.

Santos arrived at Leadership, where most incoming students are performing below grade level, wanting to make changes, fast. At times, in his righteousness, he approached his staff as if he were taking on that first fight at a new school. "If you are unwilling to hold our students to high expectations," he wrote in a newsletter to teachers early in his tenure, "provide the necessary support, restore damaged relationships and demonstrate unconditional love, then Leadership and Public Service is not for you."

Leadership had long been the kind of school where many teachers saw their job solely as teaching; managing discipline was the role of deans, whom they would call to the classroom "for anything more than the crumpling of a paper," says Sara Mitchell, a music teacher who started at Leadership two years before Santos. Santos's priority was to shift that habit; he urged teachers to take the time to talk to the student, calmly, outside the classroom, to work on building the relationship — even to take responsibility for possibly inflaming a situation with a harsh tone of voice.

Many teachers decided that the school, under Santos, was not, in fact, for them. Eleven out of 51 left at the end of his first year. Some would have retired or moved anyway, but others were skeptical about his empathy-based approach. ("What are we, going to get in a circle and sing 'Kumbaya'?" one was heard to mutter during a faculty meeting.) Some worried that Santos wanted to cede too much control to students, while others felt he wanted more work from them on their own time than was reasonable. "I think they felt, Are you saying I am not pushing myself enough already?" says Candace Thomas-Rennie, a guidance counselor at Leadership whom Santos hired in his first year as principal. "That's insulting for a veteran who has the results to back up their own practice."

Santos replaced the staff members who left with a diverse group of young teachers and recruited a new dean, Erin Dunlevy, a 32-year-old former Spanish teacher who had been trained in restorative practices. Before the school year even started, she spent a few hours one day introducing the principles of restorative justice to about 20 students who were chosen because they had leadership potential but also were often in conflicts. Dunlevy knew change would take time, but she was still rattled when, within the first month of school, one girl from that group brawled with another girl. Dunlevy, who tried to intervene, ended up in the emergency room with a broken toe, after a fire extinguisher that one girl threw at the other landed on her foot. "There was a lot of heavy lifting to do at that school," Dunlevy says; later that year, a student fired a gun at a bathroom urinal. (That student and the girls who had fought were suspended.)

She continued to work closely with students as well as the other disciplinary deans, teaching them how to conduct circles that would resolve conflicts. The training emphasized each party involved owning up to his or her responsibility and making amends, with an honest conversation or an action (a student who had left a classroom in disarray might help the teacher clean it).

She also coached teachers on how to use language that set a welcoming rather than punitive tone. "As opposed to, 'You're late, sign this late log,' it's, 'Hey, this class is not complete without you — I need you to be here,'" Dunlevy says. But she frequently felt the staff had not yet had enough time to internalize the philosophy. "A teacher would say, 'I need you to restore this kid,'" she says, "as if it was my job to fix this kid, instead of what was supposed to be happening, which was the teacher making an effort to repair the relationship." She recognized that it takes work for teachers to interrupt a classroom lesson to step outside with a troublesome student, or to ramp up the psychological support they offer. 'It's a big ask," she says. "And they're working incredibly hard to begin with. I get it."

Carolina Ibáñez, a Spanish teacher at Leadership, said she always tried to engage with students one on one but acknowledged that if there was a conflict, sometimes she "really did not want to have the conversation." For her, the challenge of restorative justice entailed internalizing that "being a teacher means addressing more than what's in the book. To get to the book, you really have to address the child's emotional state first." Even more challenging, Dunlevy says, the shift requires teachers to rethink the very concept of justice, rejecting a model of punishment in which most were trained and most likely raised.

When the school year ended in 2014, there were 140 total suspensions at Leadership, down from 230 the previous year.

Randy Spotts (left), head dean at Leadership, and Phil Santos, the school's principal.

Colleen Walsh, the teacher whom the student confronted in her classroom, felt prepared to help champion restorative justice. She was one of seven teachers at Leadership who took part in a five-day training in restorative practices during the summer of 2013 provided by the Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility, a nonprofit group that the New York City Department of Education has hired to work with its schools. "I felt passionate about it," says Walsh (who left the school last year to work closer to her home in Queens). "I was like the No. 1 person." Even before Santos and Dunlevy arrived, Leadership had deans to whom students turned for emotional support, including Randy Spotts, who has been at the school since 1995. In 1970, Spotts was one of a few black students who enrolled at a West Virginia elementary school that had desegregated a year earlier. His grandmother frequently reproached his school's administrators for the unequal treatment of black students. When Santos first spoke to Spotts of "the educational violence" experienced by students who are pushed out of schools through suspensions, Spotts immediately understood. For years, one of his primary responsibilities was suspending students. "My personality had always been more restorative," Spotts says, "but my practice, because of the models that I was inducted into, were not."

Despite the similarity of their perspectives, Walsh and Spotts had radically different ideas about the consequences the student who turned over the chair-desk should receive. Walsh felt that at least a three-week suspension would be appropriate. Several other teachers (most of them white, Spotts noted), who had had their own run-ins with the student, felt that the incident merited a 90-day suspension. Initially, Santos was sympathetic to that sentiment. "I know my staff needs to feel safe in order to function," he says. He ultimately decided to ask the D.O.E. for a 30-day suspension.

Spotts, who was also the coach of the student's basketball team, was shocked by Santos's decision. A three-day in-school suspension, he thought, was all that was in order, especially given the restorative-practices training he had received under Santos. "It wasn't as if he had thrown the chair at her, or near her," he says. No one had been hurt or even touched.

As the issue was being debated among the faculty, Santos received a text from a white teacher that stunned both Santos and Spotts, when he learned about it. "If a black male student hurts a white female teacher," Santos recalls it saying, "this school is going to have problems." The text reinforced Spotts's thinking: that the school's response to the incident would have been different had the aggrieved teacher been black, or had the student, who is black, been white. He and Santos had an intense argument about the decision Santos had made, with Spotts suggesting that Santos needed to examine his own perspective on race.

"I had never realized just how deeply race penetrated all of our actions, whether we are conscious of it or not," Santos, who is of Puerto Rican, Filipino and Cherokee descent, says now. "It made me, as a Latino man, re-examine my own practice, to think about my own internal biases." The Department of Education ultimately granted a 10-day suspension for the student. (Santos now thinks that his 30-day request was too harsh.) When Santos took Walsh aside and told her, he also asked her for her help. Santos wanted her and the student to take part in a restorative circle, to smooth his re-entry after his suspension.

Walsh's first impulse was to refuse. "I was disrespected in a threatening manner," she says, "and I felt, in a way, like, 'What do I owe anybody?'" Even she was surprised by how powerfully she resisted the idea, given her training. She knew other teachers thought she would be crazy to consider sitting down with the student. "But I was trained in it, I was all about it," she says. "Now I had to live up to it."

The day the student returned to school, he headed to Santos's office, a converted classroom on the 12th floor, for a restorative circle. A dean at the school, Melissa Ramos, sat on one side of Walsh, as her chosen advocate, and Santos sat on the other; Spotts, the student's advocate, sat beside him, along with a guidance counselor who served as the circle's facilitator. Each person took a turn holding a "talking piece"— in this case, a squishy ball — that designated whose turn it was to speak, free of interruption.

Santos recalls Walsh's acknowledging that she "sort of came at the student," meaning her tone was more aggressive than necessary, although she remembers making no such admission. But she knows she had the chance to express how she felt when the student burst into the room. The student, those who were present recall, did not say much in the circle — but he listened. Walsh does remember his trying to explain why missing the basketball game upset him. And she keeps locked in her memory the moment near the circle's close when he apologized. "With a low, sad manner, he said, 'I'm sorry, Miss Walsh,'" she recalls.

In that moment, Walsh says, she was able to see him as a young, vulnerable person; she could once again see why he might be angry. "It's not to say we can let kids get away with disrespecting teachers," she says, "but there's always a reason. And if you can remember that, it helps you stay calm."

Even after the circle, she dreaded the idea of seeing the student in the building's elevators, but the next time they crossed paths, he seemed happy to see her. "How are you, Miss Walsh?" he wanted to know. She was, at that moment, "knocked off my feet," she says. "It was such a relief. I could focus on my kids and my lessons, and not be thinking about this kid — we were cool." The following year, she worked with the student after school, helping him prepare for his history Regents exam.

That student, for the remainder of his time at the school, continued to reflect what Santos considers the sometimes quixotic reality of restorative practices: Despite circle after circle, the student remained volatile, testing teachers' patience for an approach that seemed to yield, in his case at least, few results. But he graduated — with the aid of Walsh, one more person helping him move forward toward adulthood.

One morning this past June, as the school year drew to a close, Melissa Ramos sat patiently at a desk, one of about 20 in a circle, waiting for students to finish filing into the room. She was teaching a class in restorative justice, which trained students in how to facilitate and be members of circles and also addressed students' emotions. "As you know, we don't let the late birds stop us from doing what we need to do," Ramos said to get the class going. Her words were neutral, but she spoke with enough authority that you could sense the late birds would know how she felt when they did arrive.

Carolina Ibáñez, a Spanish teacher at Leadership. Ibanez was
one of the first teachers to be trained in the school’s restorative-
practices model.

The class was a mix of students, some who never got in trouble and others who had had their share of suspensions. Each student was handed a slip of paper with a topic on it, and each took a turn holding a soft, small globe, discussing what he or she had learned about the topic.
Tuson Irvin, 17, then a junior, looked down at his topic and smiled: conflict. It was a subject he knew a lot about. “What I have learned in this class is that when someone is speaking loudly at you, rather than responding with the same tone,” Irvin said, “all you have to do is be quiet. Because to be mature about a situation and walk away or sit there and talk low — I have seen that, hey, it works. Not only does it enrage the other person, it is satisfying — like, Hey, I kept my composure. And the other person is thinking, I guess I have to find another way to come at this person rather than yelling at them.”

Irvin had earlier received additional training as a student leader in restorative justice — someone who stepped in to help other students resolve conflicts, or served as an advocate for them in their own circles. Irvin, who has a strong, booming voice and a firm handshake, can seem like the kind of student whom administrators trot out to tout their pet policies, on message and polite. But during his freshman year he was suspended numerous times (among other reasons, he refused to take off his beloved Mitchell & Ness baseball cap). Since then, he had built a relationship with Santos, who called him into his office in his sophomore year to talk to him about the problems they were having. He even apologized to Irvin for having spoken harshly to him, which Irvin said “left a big impression on me. What I saw was, Hey, this guy doesn’t want me to sit here and be a pain all day. He is trying to help me improve.”
In Ramos’s restorative-justice class, a student tossed the ball to a junior named Annika James. A tall young woman with her hair in braids, James spoke quickly and quietly, her shyness belying a history of fighting with other girls. Her topic: “anger management.” “I feel like I have my anger managed,” James said. “I learned to choose my battles.” Now she, like Irvin, was a restorative-justice team leader. Santos had also been pleased to see her college bound, taking A.P. classes. “I really think Annika is one of those kids we would have lost without restorative practice,” he says.

Only a small portion of the school could take Ramos’s class, but last year, for the first time, every student at Leadership attended a weekly class that was conducted in a circle, with a curriculum focused on building the psychic muscles that restorative justice demands: how to cope with stress, listen, empathize. Santos thinks that program, which made every student at the school familiar with circles, helped solidify the previous years’ efforts. “Students started coming to us, asking for circles,” he says, trying to head off confrontations before they happened.

As the staff and student body were forming close connections among themselves, Santos decided that the school was ready to tackle an issue that restorative justice is also intended to address: race. In New York City, as the number of suspensions has dropped, the racial disparity in how punishment is applied has persisted. Santos was aware of studies finding that white, and to a lesser degree, black teachers have lower academic expectations for black students than they do for white students. And he had seen, through his own experience, how race can complicate seemingly straightforward matters of discipline. To try to address those issues, last fall he instituted a weekly facultywide circle that met after school over the course of the school year. To guide the discussions, he used a book called “Courageous Conversations About Race,” by Glenn E. Singleton. The book asks participants to dig deep into their own uncomfortable feelings about race, and to consider how that range of reactions might affect the educational experience of students of color. It asks participants to answer questions designed to make people push past politeness and self-protection. One example: “Can you recall a time when race was the topic of conversation and you became silent and/or shared something that was less than your truest feeling in fear of what others’ response might be?”

Many teachers didn’t want to take part in the program. Once the conversations began, Santos received texts from teachers who told him they worried the project was causing racial tensions where there had been none before. One teacher told Santos that his student saw him carrying “Courageous Conversations” and said, “Oh, that’s that book that all the teachers hate.”
Marcellus Waller, a white 33-year-old social-studies teacher, often found himself uncomfortable in the smaller breakout discussions, when topics like white privilege arose. “For me, a white male in America, some of those conversations were hard,” he says. “I feel bad for just being me.” Some educators of color felt insulted by the suggestion they, too, might be biased. “They want to know, as a black or Latino teacher, why is this even an issue?” Santos says. “And we’re trying to get them to see maybe it is or it isn’t, but race is something we have to talk about, because we live in America, and race is an issue in education.”

Thomas-Rennie, the school’s guidance counselor, who is black, felt strongly that the conversations were important, but worried that they were so uncomfortable that they set the faculty back, at a time when it had just been trying to cohere around restorative practices. 

“For people to understand how race impacts how we function as a school was a difficult thing to connect with,” she says. Restorative practices, high academic expectations — those were relatively straightforward concepts; tackling head-on how race affected those issues was more challenging. “There was emotional pushback,” she says. “And even for a black woman, myself, the issues of race and the complexities and the deep roots — it can be exhausting. But race is like the never-ending song of our work. I recognize that if we are not willing to face this other piece, we are only going to go so far.”

Thomas-Rennie had opened up, in one discussion, about the self-hatred she felt as a young girl, wishing her skin were lighter. Later, a Dominican-American teacher approached her to say she felt the same way as a girl. Because that teacher was so light-skinned, “I wouldn’t have assumed we could connect around something like that,” Thomas-Rennie says. She felt closer to that teacher, and generally enlightened. “These conversations give the staff a chance to be more authentic with each other,” Thomas-Rennie says. “And if we are more authentic with each other, that will automatically translate to how we communicate with the students.”

Last year, suspensions at the school fell to 64, a 60 percent drop from the year before and one of the city’s most significant changes. Suspension rates dropped citywide, which would be expected, given the change in the discipline rules; but the Morningside Center found that the rates dropped even more in those schools where teachers were trained in restorative practices and had follow-up coaching. Ideally, teachers at these schools were not just finding alternatives to suspension but seeing fewer conflicts.

Santos is far from ready to consider his tenure a success; much of his staff still hasn’t been trained. “Sixty-four suspensions, that’s still a lot,” he says. The school still labored under chronic absenteeism rates that were higher than the citywide average and college-readiness rates that lingered below the average. While studies have shown that restorative practices curb suspensions, research on their influence on test scores and grades is inconclusive.
Santos remains committed to restorative practices, though he rarely discussed them without acknowledging how trying they could be. “Let’s say you met with a group of students for an hour, and you think there’s been major progress — but then one of the kids gets on social media and just destroys everything you’ve attempted to do,” he says. “And then you have to circle again. Because what are you going to do, let them fight? Suspend everybody? You need to circle, and keep circling, because what’s the alternative?”

Randy Spotts, the 21-year veteran dean, has seen all too much of the alternative, first in the South Bronx, where he worked in the ’80s and watched countless students end up in prison or dead, and then at Leadership. He has thought a lot, over the years, about a student he personally suspended over and over again, then ran into on the subway several years later. “You know, Mr. Spotts, I could never get going, because you just kept suspending me,” the young man told his former dean. He wasn’t accusing Spotts; he was just pointing it out, as if it was something they could both feel wistful about now. Spotts often thinks about that student and others he wishes he could have helped more, could have kept in school and off the street. “I think about what I was doing to these kids. And I think to myself: Did we really have to do it that way?”
----------
Susan Dominus is a staff writer for the magazine. She last wrote a Letter of Recommendation for the video game Just Dance.





Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, Too


I didn’t get the University of Chicago welcome letter that made the rounds on the internet earlier this summer. I’m a senior this year, and the message from Jay Ellison, the dean of undergraduate students, was for the incoming class: Don’t expect trigger warnings or safe spaces here. The university, he said, was committed to free expression and would not shield students from ideas they disagreed with or found offensive.
The implication was that students who support trigger warnings and safe spaces are narrow-minded, oversensitive and opposed to dialogue. The letter betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what the terms “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” mean, and came across as an embarrassing attempt to deflect attention from serious issues on campus.
A trigger warning is pretty simple: It consists of a professor’s saying in class, “The reading for this week includes a graphic description of sexual assault,” or a note on a syllabus that reads, “This course deals with sensitive material that may be difficult for some students.”
A safe space is an area on campus where students — especially but not limited to those who have endured trauma or feel marginalized — can feel comfortable talking about their experiences. This might be the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs or it could be Hillel House, but in essence, it’s a place for support and community.
This spring, I was in a seminar that dealt with gender, sexuality and disability. Some of the course reading touched on disturbing subjects, including sexual violence and child abuse. The instructor told us that we could reach out to her if we had difficulty with the class materials, and that she’d do everything she could to make it easier for us to participate. She included a statement to this effect on the syllabus and repeated it briefly at the beginning of each class. Nobody sought to “retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” as Dean Ellison put it in the letter, nor did these measures hinder discussion or disagreement, both of which were abundant.
Of course, not every class calls out for trigger warnings — I’ve never heard of them for an economics course. Likewise, plenty of students will never need to visit a safe space. But for those who do, support systems can be a lifeline in the tumultuous environment of college, and are important precisely because they encourage a free exchange of ideas.
A little heads-up can help students engage with uncomfortable and complex topics, and a little sensitivity to others, at the most basic level, isn’t coddling. Civic discourse in this country has become pretty ugly, so maybe it’s not surprising that students are trying to create ways to have compassionate, civil dialogue.
The really strange thing about the Ellison letter, though, is that it positioned itself in opposition to resources the University of Chicago has already built: Instructors already choose whether to use trigger warnings in their classes, and there are many safe spaces on campus. Dean Ellison is even listed as a “safe space ally” on the website of one program run by the Office of L.G.B.T.Q. Student Life.
If, as a university spokesman says, no program or policy is set to change, why release this condemnation at all?
The administration wants to appear as an intellectual force beating back destabilizing waves of political correctness that have rocked college campuses. But the focus of student protests hasn’t been the lack of trigger warnings and safe spaces.Instead, many protesters want the university to evaluate how it invests its money, improve access for students with mental illnesses and disabilities, support low-income and first-generation students, and pay its employees fair wages. They have been pushing for more transparency in the school’s private police force, which has resisted making most of its policies public in the face of complaints. The university is also under federal investigation over its handling of sexual assault cases.
Yet, the administration has refused to meet with student groups who have asked to discuss these issues, and it has threatened to discipline students who staged a sit-in protest. The university even hired a provost who specializes in corporate crisis management and dealing with “activist pressure.” While the university accuses students of silencing opposing voices, it continues to insulate itself against difficult questions.
In this context, it’s hard to see the dean’s letter as anything other than a public relations maneuver. While students are being depicted as coddled and fragile, the administration is stacking bricks in its institutional wall to avoid engaging with their real concerns.
It’s too bad, because there are certainly legitimate debates to be had over speech in academic settings. The Ellison letter, for example, included a denunciation of attempts by students to disrupt university-sponsored events featuring controversial speakers. But that has little to do with trigger warnings and safe spaces.
Regardless of the posturing of academic administrations, in trigger warnings and safe spaces, students have carved out ways to help, accommodate and listen to those around them. Campus advocacy groups will not be deterred by a letter, as their goals have nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with holding universities accountable to the communities they are supposed to foster.
This is the first in a series of dispatches by college students, professors and administrators on higher education and university life, at nytimes.com/oncampus.

Sophie Downes is a student at the University of Chicago. 

PS 24 AP Manny Verdi Sued Melodie Mashel, Superintendent of District 10; Mashel Quits

$
0
0




EXCLUSIVE: Bronx superintendent quits amid accusations 
of racist conspiracy at Riverdale school
NY Daily News, Ben Chapman, September 15, 2016

A Bronx school superintendent at the center of an alleged effort to keep black and Hispanic kids out of a Riverdale elementary school has resigned, the Daily News has learned.

Melodie Mashel, the superintendent of District 10, has resigned and will retire on Oct. 1, officials confirmed Thursday.

She is being sued by Public School 24 Assistant Principal Manny Verdi, who claims she tried to
drive him out after he complained that a staffer for state Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz was 
allowed to screen kindergarten applications in the spring. Verdi says the screening was to keep minority and low-income students out of the upscale neighborhood’s school.

School officials said Thursday an investigation determined that Mashel allowed non-school 
personnel inside the school during student registration. She was not disciplined for the infraction. Officials wouldn’t say whether the investigation was related to Verdi’s suit.

Verdi claims Mashel — at Dinowitz’s bidding — tried to get him fired earlier this year after he complained about the lawmaker’s chief of staff handling private info about applications.



Verdi is suing the city Education Department for $14.2 million and plans to sue Dinowitz for $5 million.

“This is the person who should have been out from the beginning,” Ezra Glaser, Verdi’s attorney,
said of Mashel. “It’s highly suspicious she would resign when she is part of a lawsuit in federal court.”

Mashel could not immediately be reached for comment.

According to the lawsuit, she was “on a quest” to remove Verdi from the school “based on the insistence of certain local elected officials, including Assemblyman Dinowitz himself.”



Verdi pointed to a 2009 conversation in which Dinowitz allegedly said he knew many students
at P.S. 24 were not from Riverdale “by the way they walk, talk and wear their pants.”

Verdi complained that Dinowitz’s chief of staff was in the school in March and April reviewing kindergarten applications in an effort to weed-out “outsiders” — violating laws protecting the 
privacy of students’ medical and other records.

Dinowitz dismissed the lawsuit as “frivolous” and said Verdi’s claims were “not true.”

“People file lawsuits for many different reasons — to get publicity, to get a windfall,” Dinowitz told The News on Thursday. “I can’t speculate on why this particular lawsuit was filed.”

PS 24 assistant principal sues DOE
Spuyten Duyvil School (P.S. 24) students leave a special annex at the Whitehall building in fall 2015.
The Spuyten Duyvil School’s (P.S. 24) Assistant Principal Manny Verdi says northwest Bronx Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz is seeking to keep minority and lower-income students out of the school, one of several bombshell allegations in a suit he filed on Tuesday against the Department of Education (DOE), Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña and District 10 Superintendent Melodie Mashel.
Mr. Verdi alleges that Mr. Dinowitz’s Chief of Staff Randi Martos reviewed applications for prospective kindergarten students on school grounds from March 25 to April 1 with an eye to preventing minorities and lower-income children from enrolling. Further, Mr. Verdi claims that since he filed a complaint with the New York City Special Commissioner of Investigation last month, Ms. Mashel intends to fire, demote or otherwise punish him — the latest in a series of alleged efforts by the superintendent to remove the assistant principal.
Mr. Verdi referred press inquiries to his lawyer Ezra Glaser.
“Do parents know that some political hack is going through kids’ records, has access to their records?” he said. “It’s a phony racist political football that they’ve created. There’s never been any proof whatsover that people who aren’t from the district are coming in.”
[Find out about Mr. Dinowitz and Mr. Glaser's history at this link.]
Mr. Dinowitz confirmed that Ms. Martos went to P.S. 24 to help review prospective kindergartners’ applications, but strongly denied any intent to prevent minority and lower-income students from enrolling. Mr. Verdi claims that Ms. Martos’ presence violated the Civil Rights Act, the Family Education Rights & Privacy Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, but Mr. Dinowitz denied that Ms. Martos had access to students’ medical records or anything other than the two proofs of address required to enroll at P.S. 24; Mr. Verdi claimed Ms. Martos was in fact requiring parents to show three proofs of address, which Mr. Glaser described as an intentional extra hurdle.
“In a desperate attempt to create a smokescreen to divert attention from the fact that he’s the main reason for the severe overcrowding crisis at P.S. 24, Manny Verdi has brought a lawsuit containing one lie after another,” Mr. Dinowitz said.
The assistant principal claimed that Ms. Mashel began targeting him after an Oct. 21 parents’ association meeting in which parents were furious to learn that city authorities had failed to renew a lease for an off-site annex for nearly 150 fifth-grade students. At the meeting, a reporter saw a heated exchange between Mr. Verdi and Mr. Dinowitz, with each man seeming to blame the other for failing to prevent the loss of the lease.
“You never miss a photo op, but you did not come into our office to discuss this matter,” Mr. Verdi told Mr. Dinowitz in front of dozens of parents. “This is beyond our scope of doing this.”
Mr. Verdi’s suit said after the meeting, Ms. Mashel and local elected officials conspired to remove Mr. Verdi from P.S. 24. The suit said after then-Principal Donna Connelly refused a request from Ms. Mashel to “write up” Mr. Verdi for “usurping the Principal’s authority,” Ms. Connelly “chose to retire to avoid future confrontations with local officials and the school administration.”
Ms. Connelly recently told The Press she felt bullied in the aftermath of the October parents’ association meeting.
Search suspended
Mr. Verdi’s suit claimed that since Assistant Principal Andrea Feldman became the interim principal in the fall, Ms. Mashel told Ms. Feldman to fire Mr. Verdi if Ms. Feldman wanted to become the permanent principal.
Last week, the DOE announced it was delaying the hiring of a new principal so it could conduct an investigation into the process so far. The department did not specify the cause of the investigation, but it appears Mr. Verdi’s complaints may have been the reason.
On Monday night, Ms. Mashel and other school officials met with about 100 P.S. 24 parents to address a recent letter from the parents’ association calling for the speedy appointment of a new principal and an explanation for why the process was halted, among other demands. People who attended the meeting said Ms. Mashel said it could take months to resolve the investigation, outraging parents.
“To protect the due process of one or two complainants, on the one hand, against the needs of 1,000 students didn’t make any sense to us,” said PA co-president Bob Heisler.
Parents also were worried about the fate of next school year’s fifth-grade students. Since P.S. 24 lost the lease for the annex, the DOE is planning to convert the school’s cold lunchroom and three adjacent rooms into classrooms. Work is expected to begin over the summer.
Mr. Dinowitz blamed the overcrowding at P.S. 24 — a building built for about 500 students that has a population around double that — on Mr. Verdi.
“He alone is responsible for that school not having a principal and this overcrowding crisis would not have happened but for Manny Verdi,” the assemblyman said. “For whatever reasons, he thought it advisable to enroll more and more students at that school. If the school had empty seats, I would welcome them. But when the school is overcrowded, you can’t do that.”
Mr. Verdi’s suit claims that Mr. Dinowitz’s intent to keep minority and lower-income students out of P.S. 24 was evident from remarks in two meetings. Mr. Verdi claimed that in one, in 2009,  Mr. Dinowitz said “he knows who the children are that are not from Riverdale ‘by the way they walk, talk and wear their pants.’” The assemblyman has denied making any such remarks.
Mr. Dinowitz said that when Ms. Martos sought to help P.S. 24 process kindergarten applications in the spring, most families were approved. Asked how many families she may have found lacking adequate proof of residency, he did not know. He also did not know their ethnic background.
The student body at P.S. 24 was 45.7 percent white, 37.6 percent Latino, 7.1 percent Asian or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and 7.1 percent black in the 2013-14 school year, according to DOE stats.
Key meeting
The DOE referred an inquiry about Mr. Verdi’s suit to the city’s Law Department, which provided a short statement saying, “We will review the complaint.”
The suit said Ms. Mashel was scheduled to meet with Mr. Verdi on Wednesday, May 4. While the document said the assistant principal originally expected punitive action to take place at that meeting, on Tuesday, Mr. Glaser said he did not know what will happen. The suit said Mr. Verdi wants damages for interference with his contract and violations of his rights as a whistleblower, but Mr. Glaser indicated it was still possible for the situation to be resolved out of court.
“I want to see what plays out in terms of what happens from May 4 and what kind of retribution they might take against my client,” he said.
Due to a typo, a previous version of this story incorrectly said the student body at P.S. 24 was 3.6 percent Latino in the 2013-14 school year
Linkedin Bio (misspelling of words in the original - Ed.)

Melodie Mashel

Superintendent at NYC Department of Education
Education
College of New Rochelle


Experience


Superintendent
NYC Department of Education
October 2012 – Present (4 years)District Ten, Bronx, New York

Part- time Instructional Coach
Network 104
September 2010 – Present (6 years 1 month)

In addition to functioning as a full time principal at a kindergarten - 5 Elememnatry School of excellence, also support Network 104 as an instructional coach. Work closely with principals in supporting and growing implemetation of Common Core Learning Standards as well as providing assistance to principals through the NYCDOE Quality Review Process.

Principal
P.S.81x
April 2003 – Present (13 years 6 months)

Assistant Principal
PS 81
April 1996 – April 2003 (7 years 1 month)5550 Riverdale Ave

All aspects of administrayion and supervision including curriculum design and implementation.


PS 9x
NYC Department of Education
April 1993 – May 1996 (3 years 2 months)

Staff Development, teacher & parent workshops. Responsible for fedral/state/city compliance around ESL & bilingual education.


PS 261x
NYC Department of Education
September 1976 – June 1987 (10 years 10 months)

Teacher of advanced students, Bilingual teacher, grade leader, professional development

The New York City Department of Education Blog

$
0
0
No, it's not mine. The New York City Department of Education has their own blog:

The Morning Bell


Some information may be useful - some may not.

But, as the Department is well-known for altering or hiding data, an agency or rule is only as good as its implementation. Everything looks good until you try to use the information or locate someone to help you deal with your own circumstances.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials


Every child has one shot at an excellent education. It’s up to us to make sure they get it. Let’s shape the next generation of New York’s voices and minds. Let’s transform dreamers to doers. Let’s empower students in every neighborhood on their path to success. Because we believe in every child’s future.
  There are three key areas of our work to advance Equity and Excellence for All:
1.     Academic Excellence: means striving to ensure every student is college- and career ready. We work to meet students’ diverse needs with a variety of in-school and afterschool programs and support front-line educators and leadership with opportunities for professional development and collaboration.
2.     Student & Community Support: celebrates supporting the whole child, as well as their family, on their social and emotional journey inside and outside of the classroom. We collaborate with community partners—from elected officials to public advocates—and engage parents and families to reflect the needs of local communities.
3.     Innovation: allows us to experiment with new programming and initiatives. We aim to provide schools and educators the flexibility and resources they need to meet students and families where they are. 
The full Equity and Excellence for All agenda includes a range of policy initiatives organized across three key areas. A sampling of the initiatives is below:
Academic Excellence
Student & Community Support
Innovation

GOALS:
1.     By 2026, 80% of our students will graduate high school on time
2.     Two-thirds of our students will be college ready
To reach these goals, we must:
1.     Start early.
2.     Support strong teachers and a strong curriculum in every school.
3.     Meet communities where they are.



Universal Literacy
 
What is the goal? 
Striving to ensure every student is college- and career ready, we must start early and ensure all students are reading on grade level by the end of 2nd grade. Every elementary school will receive support from a dedicated reading coach.

What will we see this school year?
 
103 reading coaches were hired during spring of 2016 and received intensive training over the summer. Schools also began preparatory work this past spring.
 

Back to Top 




What is the goal? 
All students will complete algebra no later than 9th grade, enabling them to reach more advanced math courses in high school and better preparing them for college and careers. By 2022, all students will have access to an algebra course in 8th grade, and to academic supports in elementary and middle school to ensure greater algebra readiness. 

What will we see this school year? 
Over
 400 teachers from 5th to 10th grade will return to their classrooms across the city this September with expanded expertise in math instruction and strategies. 67 elementary schools are departmentalizing to ensure a specialized math teacher is helping students toward the goal of algebra for all.
 
 
Back to Top 



What is the goal? 
Every high school student will have access to Advanced Placement courses. New AP courses and preparatory courses will start in fall 2016, with 75 percent of students offered at least five AP classes by fall 2018. By fall 2021, students at all high schools will have access to a full slate of at least five AP classes, thereby increasing college and career readiness for all students. 

What will we see this school year?
 
There will be new AP courses at
 63 schools, including 35 that did not offer any last year. Teachers at these schools are also receiving rigorous, subject-specific training for all AP teachers. 

Back to Top 



What is the goal? 
Through an unprecedented public-private partnership with lead partners NYC Foundation for Computer Science Education (CSNYC) and Robin Hood, by 2025, all NYC public school students will receive high quality Computer Science (CS) education at each school level: elementary, middle, and high school. Over the next 10 years, the DOE will train nearly 5,000 teachers who will bring CS education to the City’s ~1.1 million public school students.

What will we see this school year? 
246 elementary, middle, and schools are participating in Computer Science for All this year, including 98 offering full-year or multi-year sequences. This includes AP Computer Science Principles, the Software Engineering Program (SEP), and SEP Jr., which are full-year or multi-year sequences, and the STEM Institute, an intensive training for teachers to implement Computer Science lessons and units in their schools. Across these schools, 457 teachers are receiving rigorous professional development and support to implement these programs.

Back to Top 




What is the goal? 
Empowering students on their path to success means ensuring every middle school student will be exposed to a college-going culture and will have the opportunity to visit a college campus. The campus visit will be embedded in a broader set of student and parent workshops focused on planning for high school and college.
 

What will we see this school year?
 
For the 2016-17 school year, College Access for All will be implemented in
 over 160 middle schools in 10 districts: 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 18, 19, 27, 29, and 31. Schools in other districts are also encouraged to continue and expand upon existing efforts to create a college going culture for all students.

Back to Top 




What is the goal? 
Every high school student will have access to a true “college-ready” culture. By the 2018-19 school year, every student will graduate from high school with an individual college and career plan and have access to resources that will support them in pursuing that plan.
 

What will we see this school year? 
100 high schools are receiving new training and funding to build a school-wide college and career culture. In addition to school-based programs, we will continue to expand on citywide supports for building college awareness and readiness. 

Back to Top 



Single Shepherd
 
What is the goal? 
Every student in grades 6-12 in Districts 7 and 23 will have support that focuses on the whole child, as well as their family on their journey inside and outside of the classroom. Each child will have a dedicated counselor or social worker who will support them through graduation and college enrollment. This initiative will be rigorously evaluated may be expanded to other high-needs districts based on evidence.

What will we see this school year?
 
We have hired approximately 120 shepherds for all middle and high schools in Districts 7 and 23; 16,000 students across 51 schools. The shepherds, who have received rigorous training, will each support approximately 100 students, and will provide academic, social, and emotional supports to ensure students are on a path to success.

Back to Top 




What is the goal? 
As we continue innovating, district and charter schools will be paired r with the flexibility and resources they need to meet students where they are.

What will we see this school year? 
108 district and charter schools have partnered to share best practices. This includes 11 co-located schools building campus community and sharing practices; 19 schools in District 16 in Brooklyn participating in a district-wide district-charter partnership; and 78 schools in Districts 18, 19, and 23 in Brooklyn engaged in the DOE Uncommon Schools-Impact Partnership. An additional 28 schools will be identified for new collaborative learning partnerships this fall.

Principal Leadership Is Key Factor in Teachers’ Satisfaction with Evaluation Systems

$
0
0


Good leadership leads to good everything else. This is not rocket science.

What is good leadership?
*Teamwork
*Respect for all
*Communication
*Immediate attention To wrong-doing/mistakes/data errors
*Resolving differences/misconduct fairly
*Never discriminating, lying, hurting someone, cheating
*Never deliberately abusing someone
* Putting a positive outlook first

Those are some of my picks.

Betsy Combier

Principal Leadership Is Key Factor in Teachers’ Satisfaction with Evaluation Systems

Posted by Jessica Bailey on July 21, 2016
As an educator, researcher, or someone interested in the field of education, have you ever wondered whether teachers are satisfied with their evaluation process? How they perceive their school’s professional climate? Are the two are related?
To further advance the research agenda of the Northeast Educator Effectiveness Research Alliance at REL Northeast & Islands, several core planning group members wanted to understand how new teacher evaluation systems are related to school professional climate. A 2015 REL Northeast & Islands study of eight New Hampshire districts found that elements of a strong school professional climate—such as principal leadership, teacher influence, and trust—are positively related to teacher support for a new evaluation system and that teacher influence, in particular, is related to the fidelity of implementation of the new system.
To further examine the relationship between teachers’ self-reported views of their school’s professional climate and their satisfaction with their formal evaluation process, REL researchers Natalie Lacireno-PaquetCandice Bocala, and I analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics 2011/12 Schools and Staffing Survey and the 2012/13 Teacher Follow-up Survey. These surveys include questionson two factors that are related to school climate: principal leadership and teacher influence over school policy and decision making.
The Institute of Education Sciences published our analysis in the May 2016 report “Relationship Between School Professional Climate and Teachers’ Satisfaction with the Evaluation Process.”
We found that:
  • Teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ leadership was associated with their satisfaction with the evaluation system and that, specifically, the more positively teachers rated their principals’ leadership, the more likely they were to report satisfaction with their evaluation process.
  • The rating that teachers received on their evaluation was also associated with their satisfaction with their evaluation process. Those rated satisfactory or higher were more likely to be satisfied than those rated at levels below satisfactory.
  • There was no association between teachers’ views of their influence in the school and their satisfaction with the evaluation system.
  • Teachers whose evaluation process included student test score outcomes were 2.5 times less likelyto be satisfied with that process than teachers whose evaluations did not include student test scores.
While state and district requirements continue to change during this transformative period of accountability reform, some form of educator evaluation is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Therefore, states and districts may want to consider how to increase teacher satisfaction with the evaluation process. To support this observation, we know from our research that teachers are more satisfied with the process when they have a principal who establishes a positive school professional climate and specifically emulates strong leadership. Further research is needed, however, to determine whether this relationship is causal. We also know from our research that teachers typically prefer not to have student test scores included in their evaluations, which is another topic worthy of further study.
Related media links:

Relationship Between School Professional Climate and Teachers’ Satisfaction with the Evaluation Process
Principal Investigator: Natalie Lacireno-Paquet

LINK

OverviewThis study, conducted in collaboration with the Northeast Educator Effectiveness Research Alliance, reports on the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of school professional climate and their satisfaction with their formal evaluation process using the responses of a nationally representative sample of teachers from the Schools and Staffing Surveys.
Specifically, the study used logistic regression analysis to examine whether teachers’ satisfaction with their evaluation was associated with two measures of school professional climate (principal leadership and teacher influence), teacher and school characteristics, and the inclusion of student test scores in the evaluation system.
The results indicate that teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ leadership was associated with their satisfaction with the evaluation system—the more positively teachers rated their principal’s leadership, the more likely they were to report satisfaction with their evaluation process. The rating teachers received on their evaluation was also associated with their satisfaction, with those rated satisfactory or higher more likely to be satisfied. Teachers whose evaluation process included student test score outcomes were less likely to be satisfied with that process than teachers whose evaluations did not include student test scores.
The findings reinforce current literature about the importance of the school principal in establishing positive school professional climate. The report recommends additional research related to the implementation of new educatorevaluation systems. 
View the full report.



Class Action Lawsuit Claims a Constitutional Right to Literacy

$
0
0

In a Case with Blockbuster Potential, Detroit School Children Assert a Federal Constitutional Right to Literacy

, Justia VERDICT

LINK

Why this case is important, says the author:

 " The Complaint also lays out an ambitious legal theory, effectively asking the federal court to apply “heightened scrutiny” to what is going on in Detroit, and urging it not to apply the deference ordinarily given to state and local school officials concerning their administration of public education.  The Complaint identifies two related but distinct grounds for judicial skepticism. One is a familiar equal protection concern for disempowered groups—the Complaint describes the plaintiffs as a “discrete class,” almost all of whom are “low income children of color.”



Columns on this website that examine judicial rulings tend to focus on the very last stage of litigation—a U.S. Supreme Court decision. In the space below, however, I want to discuss a potentially significant case that is in its earliest stages. Last week, a class action lawsuit entitled Gary B. v. Snyder was filed in federal district court in Detroit on behalf of children who attend some of the most dilapidated and lowest-performing Detroit public schools. The defendants are the Governor and various other state officials, who plaintiffs allege are violating the constitutional rights of Detroit children by depriving students of their “fundamental right” to literacy under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.
The Snyder Complaint—crafted by a high-powered team of litigators that includes Mark Rosenbaum from Public Counsel, famed Supreme Court specialist Carter Phillips from the Sidley Austin law firm, as well as two prominent law school deans (one sitting and one former)—recites in heart-wrenching detail (its allegations span 129 pages) the physical, curricular, and human resource shortcomings of the schools attended by the plaintiffs. The Complaint also carefully documents the woeful underperformance of the students at these schools, as compared to other schools in the state and also to the state’s competency baselines established for various grade levels. It is hard to believe the conditions laid out in the Complaint exist in 21st Century America; at times the allegations seem more like the setting of a Dickens novel.
But the case is noteworthy not just for the factual light it might shed on Detroit school conditions and performance. The Complaint also lays out an ambitious legal theory, effectively asking the federal court to apply “heightened scrutiny” to what is going on in Detroit, and urging it not to apply the deference ordinarily given to state and local school officials concerning their administration of public education.  The Complaint identifies two related but distinct grounds for judicial skepticism. One is a familiar equal protection concern for disempowered groups—the Complaint describes the plaintiffs as a “discrete class,” almost all of whom are “low income children of color.”
Putting aside the racial and socioeconomic makeup of the victims, the Complaint also asserts that heightened judicial oversight is warranted because in the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause there is a “fundamental right of access to literacy,” which presupposes better facilities, better instructional materials, and better teacher training than exist in Detroit. In asserting a federal “fundamental right” to literacy under the so-called “substantive due process doctrine” of the Fourteenth Amendment, the lawsuit is path-breaking, and perhaps ultimately destined for the Supreme Court.
How likely is the lawsuit to succeed? That is hard to say. Certainly relevant is that the Supreme Court in 1973 (in the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez case) explicitly declined to find education to be a “fundamental” right or interest that would justify heightened scrutiny in the context of a challenge to Texas laws that resulted in differential financing and administration of public education within the state. But perhaps equally important is how the Court in Rodriguez did highlight the importance of education to the exercise of the constitutional rights of expression and political participation, and what the Court said in holding open the possibility that if a state deprived a student the opportunity for a “basic” minimal education essential for someone to operate in American democracy, heightened scrutiny might be appropriate. The Court explained, in language that has since been repeated by the Justices, that:
[w]hatever merit appellees’ argument might have if a State’s . . . system occasioned an absolute denial of educational opportunities to any of its children, that argument provides no basis for finding an interference with fundamental rights where . . . no charge fairly could be made that the system fails to provide each child with an opportunity to acquire the basic minimal skills necessary for the enjoyment of the rights of speech and of full participation in the political process.
In asserting that many Detroit public school children lack any realistic chance at literacy (defined in the Complaint in various ways but focused on the ability “to use language to engage with the world—to understand, analyze, synthesize, reflect and critique”), the Complaint seeks to locate the conditions in Detroit precisely within the contours of the question the Court held open inRodriguez. Indeed, the Complaint at various points links its concept of literacy directly to expressive and political rights (including military service), saying that literacy is essential not only to success in the workplace and higher education, but also (importantly) to “be[ing] an informed citizen capable of participating in democracy.”
This emphasis on political rights is relevant not just to the “fundamental rights” argument plaintiffs make; it also informs their claims of racial inequality under the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court ordinarily employs some form of strict scrutiny under equal protection for racial discrimination only when government explicitly classifies people on racial lines, or subjectively favors some races over others. A law that is neither overtly based on race nor motivated by a racially unequal mindset, but which has a “disparate impact” (or differential effect) along racial lines, is subject only to “rationality review,” under which courts defer a great deal to whatever a legislature has decided to do.
It is usually very hard to prove that racial favoritism lies behind facially neutral government actions that generate racially disparate impacts, but the one area where the Court has tended to infer impermissible intent from unequal racial effect is the political rights realm. In the voting rights and jury contexts, for example, the intent requirement of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments has been watered down such that the Court has been much more willing to accept a disparate impact theory than in other areas of equal protection law. To me, this makes some sense, insofar as the deference the Court generally affords the legislature with respect to laws that create disparate racial effects is itself implicitly premised on a fair and legitimate political process that is producing the laws to which deference is owed. But if certain racial groups are excluded in fact from political participation, then deference to the outcomes of the political process seems less warranted. For that reason, in the political rights realm, the Court has tended to care about whether traditionally disempowered groups are afforded actual—and not just hypothetical—inclusion in the political processes of voting and jury service (and perhaps also military service).
And the Court’s jurisprudence concerning racial fairness in education—from Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 (which struck down school segregation) through Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 (which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s race-based affirmative action program)—consistently links education to political participation. For example, in reaching its result, the Court’s majority opinion in Grutter stressed that access to law school determines opportunities not only for good jobs, but also for political power. For the Grutter Court, it was important that law schools are places that train political leaders—congresspersons, Senators, federal judges, and military top brass—in addition to corporate executives. And the Snyder Complaint seeks to build on that relationship between education and self-governance.
So the legal theories the Snyder plaintiffs assert are not foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent, and in some ways find support in it. Yet there are still major hurdles to clear. One, in connection with the fundamental rights tack, is explaining why literacy via education should be considered a fundamental right when other things that are, in practical terms, also essential to political participation and expression—such as housing and health care—are not. The Rodriguez Court was very mindful of not wanting to extend the list of unenumerated fundamental rights (which already includes things like voting, marriage, interstate travel, and procreative and sexual autonomy) in a way that pulls the Court down a slippery slope. So convincing the federal courts that education is distinctively valuable (perhaps more so than a minimum income, shelter, and healthcare) is an important and formidable task.
A related hurdle also identified by the Court in Rodriguez is that a fundamental right to a minimally adequate education is different than other fundamental rights the Court has already recognized, insofar as assertion of a right to a minimal education is an affirmative claim that government must extend support farther than it is currently doing, rather than an argument that government must simply refrain from interfering with private conduct. I think this argument was overstated in Rodriguez. Some of the areas in which the Court has talked about fundamental rights—such as interstate travel or access to contraception—may involve situations in which the courts are telling government simply to stop regulating or interfering with consensual private conduct. But when we call voting or marriage a fundamental right that triggers strict scrutiny, we may have strayed across the negative/affirmative rights line; elections and civil marriages don’t take place without the government affirmatively facilitating them. In any event, as the SnyderComplaint repeatedly points out, the State of Michigan (like other states) has made attendance in some kind of state-approved school compulsory, so the State is already interfering with private choices in this realm, and in ways that allegedly make it nigh impossible for Detroit children to attain literacy.
But the affirmative/negative rights line does implicitly bring up probably the biggest hurdle for the plaintiffsthe practical and logistical concerns about appropriate remedies that might disincline federal courts to get deeply involved in decisions about school facilities, curricula, teacher training, and the like. Most of the other settings in which the Court has recognized a fundamental right do not involve the remedial complexity the Snyder case implicates. And as the Court cautioned in Rodriguez, at a time when the federal judiciary was in the midst of a mixed experience of federal judicial oversight over busing, pupil reassignment, and other aspects of the federal judicial effort to eliminate the vestiges of racial school segregation:
We stand on familiar ground when we continue to acknowledge that the Justices of this Court lack both the expertise and the familiarity with local problems so necessary to the making of wise decisions with respect to the raising and disposition of public revenues. . . . In addition to matters of fiscal policy, this case also involves the most persistent and difficult questions of educational policy, another area in which this Court’s lack of specialized knowledge and experience counsels against premature interference with the informed judgments made at the state and local levels. Education, perhaps even more than welfare assistance, presents a myriad of ‘intractable economic, social, and even philosophical problems.’ The very complexity of the problems of financing and managing a . . . public school system suggests that ‘there will be more than one constitutionally permissible method of solving them,’ and that, within the limits of rationality, ‘the legislature’s efforts to tackle the problems’ should be entitled to respect.
At the end of the day, as daunting as these remedial obstacles are, the time may be ripe for the filing of a lawsuit like Snyder. As I noted in an earlier column, last year’s same-sex marriage case has breathed new life into the doctrine of substantive due process (as distinguished from equal protection) and has shown that the Court is willing to recognize new liberties that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Depending on the presidential and Senate elections, soon the Court may, for the first time since late spring of 1969 (before Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon), have a majority of Justices appointed by Democrat presidents. Moreover, the state law challenges to educational attainment that have been filed in many state courts have met with only limited success (in part because of state law barriers to justiciability). Add to all this the fact that the conditions and attainment in Detroit are so bad, and it is reasonable to conclude there is much to possibly gain and quite little to lose in taking a shot under the federal Constitution. Even as to the remedial complexity, federal courts have learned much over the last 40 years (since Rodriguez was decided) so that they may feel more confident about providing meaningful relief in ways that avoid some of the glitches they experienced during the first phase of desegregation. At a minimum, perhaps federal judges would be open to declaring a constitutional violation even if they feel unable to craft detailed remedies, in a way that will put more pressure on state legislative and executive authorities to do something big. Anything to increase political attention to these issues would be to the good.


Viewing all 1018 articles
Browse latest View live