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

Zero Tolerance Public School Discipline Negatively Affects African American Students

September 25, 2016, 12:03 pm
$
0
0
One of the most harmful policies put into the public school system is, I believe "zero tolerance" of .......

Whatever the zero tolerance is, it means that someone can use his/her own intolerance as a weapon.

For instance, lets say your child has problems with his/her hands, and needs a certain kind of scissor to cut paper. Let's say that a teacher tells the students that the class will be creating a mural and will be making shapes from colored paper. So you, as a mom who cares, sends your child with his/her special scissors and a note as to why you are doing this.

A school with a zero tolerance policy in place may suspend your child for bringing in a weapon. Another example is this:

For 9 years I offered parents my service as a representative for their children who were suspended and sent to a Suspension Hearing. At the West 125th street Suspension Hearing site in the 9 years I worked there volunteering to assist parents, guess how many white faces I saw? One besides mine - a first-year law school student taking on suspension hearings for extra credit. 95-98% of the kids, ranging from 1st grade through high school, were all Special Education children and African American or Hispanic.

See? We must throw out zero tolerance and examine the circumstances of each incident.

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


Study Finds That School Zero-Tolerance Discipline Policies Do More Harm Than Good
Filed in Research & Studies on September 12, 2016


A new study by F. Chris Curran, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, finds that zero-tolerance public school disciplinary policies may produce racial disparities in school suspensions and expulsions which could hinder the academic success rates of African American students. Furthermore, the study finds that these policies have had little effect on improving school safety.
Dr. Curran writes in the article that “the study showed that state laws requiring schools to have zero tolerance policies increased suspension rates for all students. Second, suspension rates increased at a higher rate for African-American students, potentially contributing to racial disparities in discipline. Finally, principals reported few decreases in problem behaviors in schools, suggesting that the laws did not improve the safety and order of schools.”
The suggests that state zero tolerance laws may be resulting in more students, particularly students of color, being excluded from the learning environment while failing to improve the school setting for those students who remain. “Principals report few decreases in problem behaviors such as fighting, drug use, or disrespect as a result of these laws,” says Dr. Curran.
The study, “Estimating the Effect of State Zero Tolerance Laws on Exclusionary Discipline, Racial Discipline Gaps, and Student Behavior,” was published on the website of the journal Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. It may be accessed here.
↧
Search

Terrell Williams, Charged With Trying To Find A Date By Asking His Students, Wins His Petition and Gets His Job Back At the DOE

September 29, 2016, 10:44 pm
$
0
0
Lisa Brogan

Arbitrator Lisa Brogan terminated Terrell Williams at his 3020-a. The New York State Supreme Court Judge affirmed this decision. The First Department disagreed.





Ms. Brogan, without question, did not look at all the circumstances surrounding Mr. Williams' charges. His lawyer at the 3020-a was NYSUT Attorney Antonio Cavallaro. But in the end, Terrell got a new decision, and will have a new arbitrator look at his evidence. Congratulations Terrell!!!

But why do people have to be put through years of extreme distress and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the right answer?

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

Teacher on the prowl for hot moms did nothing wrong: court

NY POST, September 28, 2016

LINK
A married Brooklyn teacher skipped Tinder and instead pestered his students to help him land dates with their sisters and moms — but that’s hardly anything to get hot and bothered about, a court ruled Tuesday.
Terrell Williams, an eighth-grade gym instructor with two kids, did “not violate any specific rule or regulation,” the appellate panel said in overturning his firing.
Williams was booted from PS/MS 282 in Park Slope in 2013 after five female students testified that he repeatedly approached them before volleyball practice and asked “whether they had older sisters, how old they were, what they looked like, and whether he could have their phone number,” according to court papers.
Williams also inquired about aunts and mothers and whether the female relatives had boyfriends, according to evidence presented at a city Department of Education hearing.
The questioning made the students feel “uncomfortable,’’ and one mother filed a complaint when Williams texted her daughter, according to court papers.
After he was canned from his $80,000-a-year job, Williams sued. He claimed that the preteen students were the ones who tried to set him up on dates.
He also claimed moms routinely asked him out for drinks.
He lost the case in 2014 before a judge in a lower court.
But in a split appellate decision, the majority found that Williams had an unblemished 13-year teaching record and his behavior did not warrant firing.
They recommended a lesser penalty.
Dissenting Judge Peter Tom disagreed, saying Williams “irreversibly abused his position as a teacher by transforming the high school where he teaches into a dating forum using his young ­female students to search out candidates for his illicit romantic escapades.”
Parents at PS/MS 282 were shocked Tuesday to hear of the court ruling. “I don’t feel like he should be allowed to teach again,” said Corey Settles.
Another mom, Natalie, who did not reveal her last name, agreed.
“He shouldn’t be allowed back. You shouldn’t ask students if they have attractive moms. It’s inappropriate,” said the mother of three.
But at least two of Williams’ former colleagues welcomed his return, saying on the condition of anonymity that the incidents were “blown out of proportion.”
Williams referred questions to his lawyer, who did not return messages seeking comment.
A city Law Department spokesman said, “We obviously agree with the dissenting opinion that this termination was justified.”
Additional reporting by Gabrielle Bass

Matter of Williams v City of New York
2016 NY Slip Op 06184
Decided on September 27, 2016
Appellate Division, First 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 September 27, 2016 
Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Gesmer, JJ.

899 653954/13 

[*1]In re Terrell Williams, Petitioner-Appellant, 

v

City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered August 12, 2014, denying the petition to vacate the part of the arbitration award that terminated petitioner's employment as a tenured school teacher, and dismissing the proceeding, reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and the matter remanded to respondents for imposition of a lesser penalty.
The evidence presented at the arbitration hearing establishes that petitioner, while an eighth-grade physical education teacher, initiated conversations with at least two of his female students asking them if they had older sisters, and, if so, how old they were, whether they had boyfriends, and whether they had photographs of them,[FN1] and accepted the phone number of one student's 23 year old sister. Petitioner also told a student that her mother had called him "handsome" while passing him on the street. One student testified that petitioner's conduct made her feel "uncomfortable," and another said that his conduct "aggravated" her. Of the 12 specifications with which he was charged, the Hearing Officer dismissed five, including charges that he had engaged in similar behaviors in the 2010-2011 school year, that he actually contacted the sister whose telephone number he received, and that he told the students, "[M]y wife said I can look but I can't touch."[FN2]
The Hearing Officer found petitioner to be insufficiently remorseful, that his actions revealed "moral failings," and that, although termination might be "too severe," it was the only penalty that could "jolt" petitioner into an understanding of the seriousness of his misconduct.
Based on all the circumstances of the case, including the lack of any prior allegations of misconduct against petitioner during 13 years of service and the fact that the misconduct does not violate any specific rule or regulation, we find the penalty of termination sufficiently disproportionate to the offenses to shock the conscience (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or "Board"] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 569 [1st Dept 2008]).
Moreover, petitioner had never been warned or reprimanded regarding the conduct at issue, and, contrary to the conclusion of the Hearing Officer, there is no evidence that a warning or reprimand or other penalty short of termination would not have caused petitioner to cease the objectionable conduct immediately (see Matter of Polayes v City of New York, 118 AD3d 425 [*2][1st Dept 2014]).
While we share some of our dissenting colleague's concern regarding petitioner's behavior and his failure to express any deeper understanding of the inappropriate nature of his actions, we do not agree that the law supports petitioner's termination at this time. This is in part because we do not agree that petitioner's communication with his students, while inappropriate, can be fairly characterized as "romantic/sexual in nature," or as being for the purpose of "solicit[ing] female companions for his sexual gratification," as the dissent puts it. The Hearing Officer herself found only that petitioner made "inappropriate inquiries of his 8th grade female students regarding their female relatives, in furtherance of a personal agenda having nothing to do with school or his responsibilities as a teacher." She did not find that petitioner actually intended to, or did, have any "romantic/sexual" interactions with anyone. Rather, she concluded that petitioner's questions about the students' sisters "in sum and substance... amount[] to expressing an interest in meeting" their sisters, and she made clear that no one testified to his using "those precise words." There is no evidence that he made any sexual comments to his students.
In contrast, the teachers in each of the cases cited by the dissent engaged in conduct that constituted a violation of a specific law, rule or regulation, and that was far more outrageous than petitioner's in this case. In Matter of Villada v City of New York (126 AD3d 598 [1st Dept 2015]), Mr. Villada repeatedly sexually harassed a colleague, including by forcibly tongue kissing her. In Matter of Ajeleye v New York City Dept. Of Educ. (112 AD3d 425 [1st Dept 2013]), Mr. Ajeleye was found guilty of verbal abuse of students, insubordination, neglect of duty, and unbecoming conduct (id.). The teacher in Matter of Binghamton City School Dist. (Peacock) was found to have committed insubordination, neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming a teacher because he had "engaged in an improper, intimate and clandestine relationship with a minor female student... [for which he] showed no remorse..., disobeyed administrative direction to cease his relationship with the student and not transport her in his car, and continued to contact her even after disciplinary charges were brought against him" (33 AD3d 1074, 1077 [3d Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 840 [2007]). The teacher in Lackow (51 AD3d 563) discussed bestiality, necrophelia and his own ejaculations with students, and, while teaching class with a model of reproductive organs, told a student he should "enjoy" looking at a vagina (51 AD3d at 565). Moreover, Mr. Lackow had received at least three written warnings to stop such conduct. His termination was the result of his failure to do so (51 AD3d at 568-569). Similarly, the teacher in Matter of Rogers v Sherburne-Earlville Cent. School Dist. (17 AD3d 823, 824-825 [3d Dept 2005]) had received warnings before being terminated for falsifying time records, abusing leave time by, for example, using sick leave to go hunting, and taking excessive leave time. The dissent also cites Matter of Chaplin v New York City Dept. Of Educ. (48 AD3d 226 [1st Dept 2008]) for the proposition that even employees with good work histories are appropriately terminated for "[a]cts of moral turpitude" (id. at 227). That case does not discuss the specific behavior which triggered the employee's termination. However, in both Chaplin and the Court of Appeals case to which it cites, Matter of Kelly v Safir (96 NY2d 32 at 37, 39 [2001]), the petitioners' acts constituted crimes, which is certainly not the case here.
Here, petitioner showed very poor judgment, but he has not been shown to have violated any law, or even any rule or regulation of the Department of Education. Our decision today does not excuse petitioner's behavior, but directs a less serious punishment. Should it continue, termination may well be in order in the future.
All concur except Tom, J. who dissents
in a memorandum as follows:

TOM, J.P. (dissenting)
In this article 75 proceeding, petitioner seeks to vacate the arbitration award of a Hearing Officer, dated October 29, 2013, which terminated his employment as a tenured physical education and health teacher. Due to the egregious nature of the misconduct at issue, and the Hearing Officer's conclusion that petitioner did not display any remorse or an appreciation for the seriousness of his actions or the effect his actions had on the young female students, I would find that the penalty of termination was appropriate (see Matter of Villada v City of New York, 126 AD3d 598 [1st Dept 2015]; Lackow v Department of Educ. (or "Board") of City of N.Y, 51 AD3d 563 [1st Dept 2008]).
The evidence presented at the arbitration hearing establishes that petitioner, while an eighth-grade physical education teacher, repeatedly engaged in inappropriate conversations with his female students. Specifically, these conversations were romantic/sexual in nature and involved petitioner asking multiple female students in 7th and 8th grade about their older sisters and female relatives, including what their sisters, mothers and aunts looked like, whether they had boyfriends, and soliciting contact information and photographs for his own personal gratification and use. Five former female students testified at the hearing that during the downtime before physical education class started or during girls' volleyball practice in the mornings, petitioner asked on multiple occasions whether they had older sisters, how old they were, what they looked like, and whether he could have their phone number. Some of these conversations took place when the girls' volleyball team was formed for practice in the morning before school began. Although respondent was not one of the coaches for the volleyball team, he would arrive early to school to join the girls' practice. It was in these various settings that conversations which formed the basis of the charges against respondent took place. In one instance petitioner learned that the student had a 23-year-old sister, he asked more than once, and finally obtained the number. The students testified that petitioner's conduct made them feel "uncomfortable" and "aggravated." In addition, one of the student's mothers had come to the school upset and filed a complaint after learning petitioner had asked her daughter if she had any cute sisters and later was told by the student's older sister that petitioner had "texted" her phone. This was the testimony of one of the students.
These inappropriate conversations with different female students spanned the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, and, by petitioners's own admission, he had at least 20 such conversations in the 2011-2012 school year [FN3]. Petitioner also testified that he had engaged in these types of conversations several times before, including at another school.
According to petitioner, all of the inappropriate conversations were initiated by the students who would frequently talk about their female relatives and try to interest him by showing him pictures or offering phone numbers. He similarly claimed that parents would approach him directly and ask him to go out for a drink or "hang out." He claimed that his questions about student's sisters were made "jokingly," and that he would brush off students' entreaties about their female relatives by smiling and sometimes saying, "I love my wife." Petitioner also explained that he did not tell his students to stop these conversations - even though he thought the students were serious when they made the comments - because at his prior school, where the same situation had occurred, he told a student to stop and got a bad reaction from the student, who became angry at the suggestion that petitioner thought he was too good for her mother.
The Hearing Officer sustained the majority of the charges against petitioner and made clear that the case turned on the credibility of the witnesses. In particular, the Hearing Officer found petitioner's claims incredible and rejected his version of events while crediting the testimony of the students. The Hearing Officer did not believe that five eighth-grade students [*3]would conspire to lie under oath about their former teacher, and found no evidence to support such a conspiracy. In this regard, the Hearing Officer could not accept petitioner's claims that the students instigated these conversations or actively solicited their own family members into a relationship with a married man. Nor did she credit petitioner's testimony that during different years and at different schools eighth-grade students could not contain themselves in trying to bring petitioner into their families in a romantic way or that parents were throwing themselves at petitioner. The Hearing Officer also rejected any contention that these conversations were made entirely in jest.
In sustaining the various charges, the Hearing Officer stressed that the behavior at issue was not isolated and included numerous conversations with multiple female students at this school (and at a prior school) during which he discussed their relatives' phone numbers and viewed their photographs. She also remarked that petitioner had attempted to paint himself as a victim who could not "contain a constant onslaught of female attention, even when it involves his students."
The Hearing Officer ultimately found that termination was the appropriate penalty because petitioner did not understand the seriousness of his conduct, continued to deny wrongdoing and place blame on his young students, and "did not consider the
possibility, even in his version of this story, that the appropriate response is to address his students with discipline and/or moral teaching." The Hearing Officer went on to note that "[c]ontrary to his own misguided understanding, [petitioner]is a role model for his students, and he is expected to model appropriate behavior." Further, she did not believe a fine or suspension would make him understand the seriousness of his behavior or "right the moral judgment which is so horribly askew." Nor did she think a lesser penalty would be appropriate because she did not "believe such a penalty would be effective, . . . nor adequately address[] the harm done here."
Petitioner continues to minimize his conduct in this proceeding, referring to it as "harmless banter" and claiming it to be a "minor lapse in judgment" unlikely to recur despite his own admissions that he spoke to numerous students this way at two different schools over different years. In sum, he insists that his behavior had no "ill effects" on the students at issue.
Petitioner's continued failure to comprehend the nature and seriousness of his actions, blaming the young students for his misconduct and showing no remorse for his actions, supports the Hearing Officer's point and her conclusion that the penalty of termination was appropriate. Initially, petitioner's lack of prior disciplinary history was considered by the Hearing Officer and is no basis to reduce the penalty (see Matter of Ajeleye v New York City Dept. of Educ., 112 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2013]). In any event, the record shows petitioner received an unsatisfactory rating for the school year previous to those at issue, and the absence of prior charges does not necessarily prove his behavior was beyond reproach.
Nor is even worse behavior such as physical assault a prerequisite to termination (see e.g. Lackow, 51 AD3d at 569 [continuing in a pattern of conduct that was clearly irresponsible and inappropriate within the classroom setting]; Ajeleye, 112 AD3d at 425 [insubordination, neglect of duty, conduct unbecoming his position, and using language that constituted verbal abuse of his students]). Termination for offenses has been found appropriate where, as here, a teacher has displayed no remorse or an appreciation for the seriousness of his actions (see Villada, 126 AD3d at 599). Termination of a teacher who merely engaged in a pattern of excessive leave time usage has been upheld as not shocking to the conscience (Matter ofRogers v Sherburne-Earlville Cent. School Dist., 17 AD3d 823 [3d Dept 2005]). Moreover, we have held that "[a]cts of moral turpitude committed in the course of public employment are an appropriate ground for termination of even long-standing employees with good work histories" (Matter of Chaplin v New York City Dept. of Educ., 48 AD3d 226, 227 [1st Dept 2016 2008]).
The majority's efforts to distinguish the foregoing cases do not support a finding that the penalty in this case shocks the conscience. While the actions in those cases were egregious, they do not make petitioner's behavior appropriate or acceptable or somehow make him fit to remain a teacher. Further, the purpose of citing a case such as Lackow was not because the facts are identical but rather to demonstrate that neither physical abuse nor sexual assault are the standard required for a teacher to be terminated, and because the teacher in Lackow similarly "continued [*4]in a pattern of conduct that was clearly irresponsible and inappropriate within the classroom setting" which "reflect[ed] an inability to understand the necessary separation between a teacher and his students" (51 AD3d at 569).
The majority also notes that petitioner's misconduct does not violate any specific rule or regulation. However, the Education Law has a general prohibition on "conduct unbecoming a teacher" (see Denhoff v Mamaroneck Union Free School Dist, 29 Misc 3d 1207[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51742[u] [Sup Ct, Westchester County 2010], affd 101 AD3d 997 [2d Dept 2012]; see also Matter of Douglas v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 87 AD3d 856 [1st Dept 2011] [upholding penalty of termination where the petitioner was charged with conduct unbecoming a teacher]; Matter of Mazur [Genesee Val. BOCES], 34 AD3d 1240 [4th Dept 2006] [upholding penalty of termination where evidence, inter alia, supported the Hearing Officer's determination that the petitioner engaged in conduct that was unbecoming an administrator]). There is no question that the evidence in this case established that petitioner engaged in conduct that was unbecoming a teacher.
Matter of Polayes v City of New York (118 AD3d 425 [1st Dept 2014]) bears no relation to this case. In Polayes, the teacher engaged in one objectively innocuous conversation with a group of high school senior students during which he suggested one student was "the type to party with" or "you want to go to school to party" after that student expressed interest in attending a college that was widely reported to be a "party school." The students who testified were not offended by these comments. In contrast, petitioner, during the course of different school years and at different schools, engaged in numerous inappropriate romantic/sexual in nature conversations with multiple young female students during which he discussed his potential romantic interest and possibly to form an intimate relationship with his students' female relatives who he objectified.
The evidence in this case clearly showed that petitioner fails to understand the seriousness of his actions, that he was a role model for his students, and that his conduct undoubtedly had ill effects on his students and made him unworthy of a position of trust and authority over impressionable students. Rather than providing his students moral guidance about boundaries and appropriate conversations to have with teachers or modeling correct behavior for them, petitioner illustrated for them repeatedly that he finds it acceptable to discuss his potential romantic or sexual interest in any and all of their female relatives, to ogle over photographs of those relatives, and to view them as appropriate targets for conquest [FN4]. What, indeed, does this teach adolescent girls about their worth in the world? Petitioner's conduct is demeaning to women. It can only serve to reinforce a wrongheaded sense that their value is solely in their physical appearance and as objects of desire, that their older female relatives, and soon they, will be objects pursued even by those who are in positions of authority over them, who are tasked with molding them from children into adults. Moreover, the fact that petitioner, an authoritative figure and supposed role model, is openly a married man with children seeking out young female companions can give the wrong impression to the female students that spousal cheating is proper and acceptable.
Although he refuses to acknowledge his responsibility to his students, his duties included [*5]supplying a safe learning environment and fostering trust and respect in authority figures. Instead, by repeatedly engaging in inappropriate romantic/sexual conversations, petitioner horribly miseducated his young students about student-teacher boundaries, proper and decent behavior, good moral conduct and about how they should view themselves and their female relatives. Petitioner has irreversibly abused his position as a teacher by transforming the high school where he teaches into a dating forum using his young female students to search out candidates for his illicit romantic escapades. This behavior harmed his students, even if they did not fully realize it.
Accordingly, petitioner's conduct over years involving multiple students and schools, and his continued failure to show remorse or understanding of either his actions or responsibility as a teacher, demonstrates that he is not fit to be a teacher, and thus the penalty of termination does not shock the conscience.
Notably, in City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham (17 NY3d 917 [2011]), the Court of Appeals cautioned that "[c]ourts will only intervene in the arbitration process in those cases in which public policy considerations, embodied in statute or decisional law, prohibit, in an absolute sense, particular matters being decided or certain relief being granted by an arbitrator" (17 NY3d at 919 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Thus, as the Court emphasized, "That reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for vacating the arbitral award or refashioning the penalty" (id. at 920). Here, too, that the majority might have issued a lesser penalty had they been in the position of the Hearing Officer, does not provide a basis for vacating the arbitral award.
Oddly, the majority does not agree with my characterization of petitioner's communications as "romantic/sexual in nature" or for being for the purpose of "soliciting female companions for his sexual gratification." Yet, the Hearing Officer specifically stated that the "conversations generally involved whether [petitioner] might have a romantic interest in some of the students' older female relatives." The testimony of multiple students included examples of petitioner asking them about what their relatives looked like, whether they were cute, whether those relatives were in a relationship, and whether he could see photographs of them and be given their phone numbers. Surely, petitioner was not seeking intellectual stimuli from these potentially young, "cute" companions. As succinctly stated by the Hearing Officer, a "test of common sense" can only lead to a conclusion that petitioner intended to form a romantic and possibly an intimate relationship with his young students' older siblings. As further stated by the Hearing Officer, "I am urged not to throw common sense out the window."
Petitioner's testimony also made clear that these were romantic conversations. His own testimony was that his students solicited his romantic interest in their relatives to, as the Hearing Officer put it, bring him "into their families in a romantic way" and that parents "threw themselves at him."
The Hearing Officer, whose credibility and factual findings are entitled to deference (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]), ultimately determined that petitioner initiated conversations with students about their female relatives for "inappropriate, personal purposes." Given the foregoing testimony and findings it is astounding that the majority would conclude that petitioner's communications with his students were not found to be romantic/sexual in nature. What other purpose petitioner could have had in seeking photographs and phone numbers of students' young female relatives, while also querying if they were in a relationship, is truly a mystery.
The majority urges that "petitioner had never been warned or reprimanded regarding the conduct at issue" and that "a warning" could cause petitioner to cease the conduct. The majority's position is irrational in that a high school teacher should not even have to be warned not to use his students to solicit female companions for his sexual gratification. It is also wishful thinking that petitioner can right his moral shortcomings with a warning. The majority should recognize that petitioner has solicited female companions at work on multiple occasions at different school years and at different schools, and this is not an isolated incident. In any event, the disciplinary process does not require waiting until worse harm befalls a student at the hands of a teacher.
Further, the fact that petitioner had not received prior warnings about his behavior is no basis for vacating the penalty. Indeed, "no reasonable person concerned about education — could plausibly believe that the conduct in which [petitioner] was found to have engaged was not unbecoming of a teacher and subversive of the educational process" (Denhoff, 29 Misc 3d 1207[A], * 10). Stated another way, "It is incredible that any adult — let alone a teacher — would not know that the conduct is and was improper" (Nreu v New York City Dept. of Educ., 25 Misc 3d 1209[A] *5, 2009 NY Slip Op 2007[u] [Sup Ct, New York County 2009]).
Given New York's "explicit and compelling public policy to protect children from the harmful conduct of adults" (Matter of Binghamton City School Dist. (Peacock), 33 AD3d 1074, 1076 [3d Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 840 [2007]), the Hearing Officer rationally concluded that petitioner, who was placed in a position of authority over children, betrayed that trust and his responsibility and posed a continued danger to those students because he failed to understand appropriate boundaries or his role in educating his students, that the evidence supported a finding that he would engage in similar behavior again and that termination was appropriate.
For these reasons, I would affirm Supreme Court's order denying the petition to vacate the arbitration award and dismissing the proceeding.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
CLERK
Footnotes



Footnote 1:The dissent claims that petitioner "ogle[d]" photographs of his student's sisters. However, there is no support in the record for this claim, and the Hearing Officer did not so find.

Footnote 2:The dissent claims that petitioner sent a text to the student's sister. However, there was no proof that he did so, as the hearing officer specifically found, and that specification was dismissed.

Footnote 3:Although the Hearing Officer dismissed the charges relating to the 2010-11 school year, she did not find the testimony relating to those charges to be unreliable and, in fact, took into account that the record supported that petitioner made certain comments in that school year.

Footnote 4:The majority notes that the Hearing Officer did not specifically determine whether petitioner "ogled" photographs of his students' female relatives. On the other hand, she did not determine he had not done so. In any event, one would be hard pressed to find a more appropriate word for petitioner repeatedly asking his students what their sisters, mothers and aunts looked like, and then soliciting and viewing their photographs for his own personal gratification. Indeed, when asked how many students had presented him with photographs, petitioner responded he would have to "sift through" the photographs he received. 
↧
↧

UFT Retired Teacher Talk: New Facebook Page For Retired Teachers

October 2, 2016, 1:31 pm
$
0
0
What to do if you are retired from the job of teaching?

Finally there is a page on Facebook that will start the conversation going:

UFT Retired Teacher's Talk

UFT Retired Teacher Talk was started by my good friend Laurie Luft, whose disdain for any kind of demeaning, libelous statements without reason is well known.

Join now!!! Find out where, who, what, when and why you can get the benefits you deserve.

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
↧

Zero Tolerance School Discipline: Did We Go Too Far?

October 2, 2016, 8:35 pm
$
0
0
Zero tolerance does not work. Period.

Zero Tolerance Public School Discipline Negatively Affects African American Students


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
 
Video Report on Discipline Policies 

The Unintended Consequences of Taking a Hard Line on School Discipline

Retro Report
By CLYDE HABERMAN 
It did not take long for school safety agents in New York to find their first gun of the new school year. Day 1 had barely begun at a Brooklyn high school last month when the officers stopped a 15-year-old student who had stowed a loaded .22-caliber pistol in his backpack and thought he could pass it through a metal scanner.
In short order, the boy was led away by the police. Also in short order, the city’s Department of Education issued a statement invoking a two-word phrase that has virtually been holy writ in classrooms around the country for the past quarter of a century: “There is zero tolerance for weapons of any kind in schools.”
It is hard to imagine many law-abiding citizens disagreeing that the acceptance level for students carrying guns, knives, drugs or other harmful items should be nonexistent. But the concept of zero tolerance has come to encompass such a broad range of disruptive actions that roughly three million schoolchildren are suspended each year, and several hundred thousand are arrested or given criminal citations. Many students are hauled off to police station houses for antisocial behavior that, a generation or two ago, would have sent them no farther than the principal’s office.
Have get-tough policies gone too far? Predictably, opinions are divided. Nonetheless, as the accompanying video shows, the pendulum in some jurisdictions is swinging away from hard-nosed book-’em certitudes toward softer let’s-try-to-reason-with-’em approaches.
It is a shift that was encouraged by Eric H. Holder Jr. toward the end of his tenure as attorney general. He figures prominently in a new offering fromRetro Report, a series of video documentaries examining major news stories of the past and their lasting consequences. This report was prepared in collaboration with the Center for Public Integrity, an investigative news organization based in Washington that has written a series of articles on harsh school discipline.
A central figure in the video is Joe Clark, who built a national reputation in the 1980s as the no-nonsense principal of violence-plagued Eastside High School in Paterson, N.J. (Some people may know him better for having been played by Morgan Freeman in the 1989 film “Lean on Me.”) Patrolling the hallways with bullhorn and baseball bat in hand, Mr. Clark cast himself as the scourge of troublemakers, a Rambo making classrooms safe for pursuits like the works of Rimbaud.
In 1982, his first year, he expelled a reported 300 failing students, some of them well beyond normal school age, and went on to ban dozens more whom he described as “leeches, miscreants and hoodlums.”
 On his watch, test scores did improve. The gains were hardly breathtaking, though. Mr. Clark also ran afoul of the school board, which accused him of usurping its authority over expulsions. But many defended Mr. Clark for getting rid of disruptive students, among them a veteran teacher at Eastside who says in the video that “you can’t educate unless you have order in your school.”
As the 1980s yielded to the high-crime early ’90s, “zero tolerance” became a mantra in school districts across the United States. “There was a real concern,” Mr. Holder acknowledged to Retro Report, “that we were just losing control as a society.”
It was an era of near-panic over violence by young people. Fears gave rise to the notion of a generation of “superpredators,” a word that has resurfaced in the current political season, including last week’s presidential debate. It was invoked in the ’90s by, among others, Hillary Clinton, who now renounces its use.
And so, back then, suspensions and arrests began to soar. Local authorities were emboldened by the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, a federal law that required states receiving federal education money to expel for at least a year any student found bringing a weapon to class.
But the zero-tolerance net came to be thrown ever wider, ensnaring far more than gun toters, knife wielders and drug dealers. Infractions once deemed the province of school disciplinarians — tardiness, say, or mouthing off to a teacher — often made their way to police blotters. There were eyebrow-arching moments like the arrest of a 12-year-old girl for doodling on her desk with a green marker, of an autistic child who had kicked a trash can, of teenagers who got into fistfights (as teenagers have done probably since Neanderthal days).
To some degree, school administrators were like generals who go to battle relying on tactics from the last war. Zero tolerance kicked into high gear, and stayed there, after youth violence had already entered what would become a steep decline. Homicides involving juvenile offenders, for instance, peaked in 1994, Justice Department figures show. By 2014, their numbers had fallen by two-thirds. Even occasional mass murders in schools, horrifying as they are, have not materially altered the overall pattern of reduced mayhem.
It is not lost on researchers that students expelled, suspended or arrested on charges like disorderly conduct are disproportionately black and Latino, or disabled mentally or physically. In kindergarten to 12th grade, blacks were 3.8 times as likely as whites to receive out-of-school suspensions, according to the United States Department of Education. Youngsters in those grades with disabilities were more than twice as likely as others to be suspended.
Researchers talk about a “school-to-prison pipeline” that runs like this: Young people are suspended from classes for long stretches, or are handed over to the police. As a result, they become prime candidates for quitting school entirely. Dropping out, in turn, makes them less likely to find jobs and more likely to become part of the criminal class.
Perhaps not surprisingly, a sense that school systems and police departments went overboard has begun to take root. An outspoken critic is Steven C. Teske, the chief judge of juvenile court in Clayton County, Ga., just south of Atlanta. Teenagers, Judge Teske has cautioned, will be teenagers.
“Zero tolerance as a philosophy and approach is contrary to the nature of adolescent cognition,” he told a Senate subcommittee in 2012. For all the arrests, suspensions and expulsions that he had observed, “school safety did not improve,” he said. If anything, “the juvenile crime rate in the community significantly increased.”
“These kids lost one of the greatest protective buffers against delinquency — school connectedness,” the judge said.
To foster that connectedness, some schools are shunning harsh punishment in favor of talking things through with rule breakers. They are places like Furr High School in Houston. Its principal, Bertie Simmons, prefers consequences that are “academic,” as with two students who forged a permission slip. Rather than being suspended or put on detention, they were required to write a paper about their offense.
“If you just treat people with kindness, it’s far better than being so punitive,” Ms. Simmons told Retro Report.
No public school system in the country is bigger than New York City’s, with 1.1 million students. It, too, has moved away from harsh discipline as an automatic response. Suspensions in the second half of 2015 were down by one-third from the same period the year before.
At the same time, safety improved. Major crimes — like rape, felony assault, burglary and robbery — were reported at their lowest level since the police started tracking them in 1998.
For many months, the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio has even raised the possibility of removing metal detectors from some of the scores of school buildings where they are fixtures. Many students regard them as “intrusive and denigrating,” a mayoral panel concluded last year.
WRITE A COMMENT
But transforming talk into action has been slow. An episode like that of the boy caught trying to slip a gun into school last month is unlikely to dissuade school safety agents and others who insist that the scanners save lives.
Notwithstanding the need for continued vigilance against that sort of lawbreaking, Mr. Holder contends that broad changes are essential. “We have a connection between our school system and the criminal justice system that did not exist before and that I don’t think should exist now,” he said.
The video with this article is part of a documentary series presented by The New York Times. The video project was started with a grant from Christopher Buck. Retro Report has a staff of 13 journalists and 10 contributors led by Kyra Darnton. It is a nonprofit video news organization that aims to provide a thoughtful counterweight to today’s 24/7 news cycle. Previous episodes are at nytimes.com/retroreport. To suggest ideas for future reports, email retroreport@nytimes.com.
For breaking news and in-depth reporting, follow @NYTNational on Twitter.


↧

Preet Bharara Sued The NYC Department of Education in June 2016 For Discriminating Against Black Teachers At Pan American International High School

October 4, 2016, 9:24 pm
$
0
0
From the Complaint:

"In August 2012, Superintendent Mendez selected Minerva Zanca as Pan American’s new principal. During the 2012-2013 school year, Pan American employed 27 teachers, three of whom were black. Throughout that school year, Principal Zanca purposely targeted John Flanagan and Heather Hightower, two untenured black teachers, for unsatisfactory lesson ratings. According to Assistant Principal Anthony Riccardo, Principal Zanca decided to give Mr. Flanagan and Ms. Hightower unsatisfactory ratings before she had seen the lesson she was supposed to evaluate."

Good work, Mr. Bharara!

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
Principal Minerva Zanca

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Sues New York City Department Of Education For Discrimination And Retaliation At Pan American International High School

LINK

Lawsuit Alleges That the Department Discriminated Against Black Teachers Who Worked at the School and Retaliated Against an Assistant Principal Who Spoke Out Against the Discrimination

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that the United States has filed a lawsuit against the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (the “DOE”) for engaging in a pattern and practice of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. The Government alleges that during the 2012-2013 school year, the DOE permitted Principal Minerva Zanca and Superintendent Juan Mendezto discriminate against every black teacher at Pan American International High School (“Pan American”) and retaliate against an assistant principal who spoke out against the discrimination.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “It is nearly unthinkable that, in this day and age, one of the largest and most diverse school districts in the United States would allow racial discrimination and retaliation to flourish. Yet that is what we allege happened at Pan American International High School. Federal civil rights laws prohibit this misconduct. This suit seeks to remedy the violations that occurred at Pan American and ensure that the New York City Department of Education protects its employees’ civil rights in the future.”

As alleged in the Complaint filed in Manhattan federal court:

In August 2012, Superintendent Mendez selected Minerva Zanca as Pan American’s new principal. During the 2012-2013 school year, Pan American employed 27 teachers, three of whom were black. Throughout that school year, Principal Zanca purposely targeted John Flanagan and Heather Hightower, two untenured black teachers, for unsatisfactory lesson ratings. According to Assistant Principal Anthony Riccardo, Principal Zanca decided to give Mr. Flanagan and Ms. Hightower unsatisfactory ratings before she had seen the lesson she was supposed to evaluate.

In connection with her reviews of Mr. Flanagan and Ms. Hightower, Principal Zanca made derogatory racial comments to Assistant Principal Riccardo. Specifically, Principal Zanca stated that Hightower “looked like a gorilla in a sweater,” asked whether Assistant Principal Riccardo had seen Flanagan’s “big lips quivering” during a meeting, complained that she could “never” have “fucking nappy hair” like Hightower, and stated that she had difficulty not laughing at Flanagan because he reminded her of a Tropicana commercial where a black man “with those same lips” danced down a supermarket aisle.

Principal Zanca also discriminated against Lisa-Erika James, a tenured black teacher, by cutting the highly successful theater program Ms. James oversaw. On multiple occasions during the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Zanca attempted to cancel student productions. First, she refused to pay for expenses associated with a production. When money for the production was obtained from other sources, Principal Zanca then claimed that the school could not pay overtime wages for more than five hours of rehearsal per week. Pan American in fact had sufficient money to pay for more rehearsal, and Principal Zanca simply reallocated that money to other projects. Ultimately, the second student production of the 2012-2013 school year was cancelled.

During the spring of 2013, when Assistant Principal Riccardo refused to give an unsatisfactory rating to a lesson taught by Ms. Hightower, Principal Zanca yelled at Assistant Principal Riccardo, accused him of “sabotaging her plan,” and called school security to have him removed from the building. Subsequently, Principal Zanca initiated two complaints against Assistant Principal Riccardo with the DOE’s internal investigatory offices. Those offices determined that Principal Zanca’s allegations did not warrant any charges against Assistant Principal Riccardo. In June of 2013, Principal Zanca gave Assistant Principal Riccardo, Mr. Flanagan, and Ms. Hightower annual performance ratings of “unsatisfactory.”

The allegations that Principal Zanca engaged in discrimination and retaliation were brought to the attention of Superintendent Mendez, but the DOE did not take any disciplinary action against Principal Zanca. Even after the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found reasonable cause to believe that the DOE had discriminated and retaliated against James, Riccardo, and Hightower, Principal Zanca was allowed to remain in charge of Pan American. Neither Ms. Hightower, Mr. Flanagan, Ms. James, nor Mr. Riccardo worked at Pan American after the 2012-2013 school year.

Title VII authorizes the Department of Justice to commence an action in the United States District Court against the DOE to remedy discrimination and retaliation for opposing discrimination. The Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages on behalf of Mr. Flanagan, Ms. James, Ms. Hightower, and Assistant Principal Riccardo.

In October of 2013, Mr. Flanagan filed a lawsuit against the DOE, Principal Zanca, Superintendent Mendez, and others. That suit was docketed as Flanagan v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ. et al., No. 13 Civ. 8456. On August 21, 2015, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV recommended the denial of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Mr. Flanagan’s Title VII claims for discrimination and retaliation. The DOE has not objected to Judge Francis’s recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has expired. The United States anticipates moving to intervene in Flanagan and to consolidate that case with its own.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Rights Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Caleb Hayes-Deats is in charge of the case.

Complaint:

PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: CALEB HAYES-DEATS
Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-2699
Fax: (212) 637-2686
caleb.hayes-deats@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

16 Civ. 4291

Complaint

Plaintiff the United States of America (the “United States”), by and through its attorney, Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, alleges upon information and belief as follows:
INTRODUCTION

1. The United States brings this civil action to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended (“Title VII”). As set forth more fully below, the United States alleges in this action that Defendant the New York City Department of Education has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and retaliation based on race in the hiring, retention, and employment conditions of teachers at Pan American International High School (“Pan American”).

JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1345.
3. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the Southern District of New York is the proper venue for this matter because Defendant is located in this District.
PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is the United States of America.

5. Defendant the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a), and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e(b).

PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF DISCRIMINATION

6. The DOE oversees approximately 1,800 schools and 1.1 million students, making it one of the largest school districts in the United States.
7. The DOE has nearly 135,000 full-time employees.
8. Pan American is located at 45-10 94th Street, Queens, NY 11373, and serves between 300 and 400 students.
9. Defendant is responsible for establishing the terms, conditions, and other practices that bear upon the employment of teachers at Pan American.
10. During the 2012–2013 school year, Pan American employed approximately twenty-seven teachers, eight of whom were untenured.
11. Three of Pan American’s twenty-seven teachers were black. Two of those teachers, John Flanagan and Heather Hightower, were untenured. The third, Lisa-Erika James, was tenured.
12. Anthony Riccardo was the Assistant Principal at Pan American during the 2011– 2012 and 2012–2013 school years.
13. Prior to the 2012–2013 school year, James, Flanagan, Hightower, and Riccardo had consistently received satisfactory performance reviews at Pan American and other schools where they had taught.
14. Following the 2011–2012 school year, Pan American’s principal moved to another position within the DOE.
15. In August of 2012, Minerva Zanca became Pan American’s principal.
16. Juan Mendez, the superintendent of high schools for District 28, selected Ms. Zanca for that position.
17. Under DOE policy, if an untenured teacher receives a rating of unsatisfactory for a school year, that teacher may be discontinued from their employment with the DOE.
18. In the fall of 2012, Principal Zanca explained to Assistant Principal Riccardo that the best method for discontinuing a teacher was to give them multiple unsatisfactory ratings following lesson reviews. According to Principal Zanca, teachers cannot grieve unsatisfactory ratings for lessons, and consistently giving them such ratings will create a record that justifies an unsatisfactory rating for the entire school year.
19. During the fall of 2012, Principal Zanca and Assistant Principal Riccardo reviewed several of Flanagan’s and Hightower’s lessons and rated them unsatisfactory. According to Assistant Principal Riccardo, while other teachers also received unsatisfactory lesson ratings, Flanagan’s and Hightower’s reviews were distinguished by the fact that Principal Zanca would inform him that she intended to give an unsatisfactory rating before she had seen the lesson in question.
20. After one lesson review, Principal Zanca, Assistant Principal Riccardo, and Hightower spoke and agreed that, because Assistant Principal Riccardo had previously taught Hightower’s subject, he would meet with her to help her improve future lessons. Following this conversation, Principal Zanca privately told Assistant Principal Riccardo that he had “better not make [Hightower] a better teacher.”
21. Beginning in December of 2012, Principal Zanca began to make derogatory racial comments to Assistant Principal Riccardo about Hightower and Flanagan. Specifically, Principal Zanca (1) stated that Hightower “looked like a gorilla in a sweater,” (2) asked whether Assistant Principal Riccardo had seen Flanagan’s “big lips quivering” during a meeting, (3) complained that she could “never” have “fucking nappy hair” like Hightower, and (4) stated that she had difficulty not laughing at Flanagan because he reminded her of a Tropicana commercial where a black man “with those same lips” danced down a supermarket aisle.
22. Throughout the winter and spring of 2013, Principal Zanca continued to give both Flanagan and Hightower additional unsatisfactory lesson ratings.
23. James taught Pan American’s theater courses. During the 2011–2012 school year, James oversaw two students productions.
24. Pan American scheduled its first student theater production of the 2012–2013 school year for February of 2013. On the day the students were scheduled to perform the production, Principal Zanca’s assistant called James and informed her that Principal Zanca would not pay for certain costs associated with the production and that James needed to cancel the production. When James attempted to speak to Principal Zanca about this decision, Principal Zanca refused. Ultimately, James agreed to pay the costs out of her own pocket, and the production was not cancelled.
25. Subsequently, Principal Zanca informed James that Pan American could not pay the overtime wages required to allow theater students to rehearse for more than five hours per week. As a result of the reduction in rehearsal hours, the second student production of the 2012– 2013 school year was cancelled. Pan American in fact had sufficient money to pay the overtime wages required for more rehearsal time, and Principal Zanca used additional money that had been budgeted for the theater program to buy Smart Boards.
26. Later during the spring of 2013, Assistant Principal Riccardo refused to give an unsatisfactory rating to a lesson of Hightower’s that he had reviewed. Principal Zanca yelled at Assistant Principal Riccardo, accused him of “sabotaging her plan,” and called school security to have him removed from the building.
27. Principal Zanca initiated two complaints against Assistant Principal Riccardo with the DOE’s internal investigatory offices. Those offices determined that Principal Zanca’s allegations did not warrant any charges against Assistant Principal Riccardo.
28. On May 8, 2013, when Assistant Principal Riccardo was absent, Principal Zanca arranged to have Eduardo Medrano, an assistant principal at another high school, review a lesson taught by Flanagan. Assistant Principal Medrano did not review any lesson by any other teacher at Pan American during the 2012–2013 school year. Assistant Principal Medrano rated Flanagan’s May 8, 2013, lesson unsatisfactory.
29. On June 3, 2013, Flanagan filed a complaint regarding Principal Zanca with the DOE’s Office of Equal Opportunity (“OEO”).
30. Later in June of 2013, Principal Zanca gave unsatisfactory ratings to Hightower and Flanagan for the 2012–2013 school year. No other untenured teacher at Pan American received an unsatisfactory rating for the 2012–2013 school year.
31. Also during June of 2013, Principal Zanca refused to offer James a position as a teacher in Pan American’s summer program even though James had a right to such a position as a full-time, tenured teacher at Pan American.
32. On June 24, 2013, Assistant Principal Riccardo issued a written statement recounting Principal Zanca’s mistreatment of Hightower, Flanagan, and James, including the derogatory racial comments Principal Zanca made regarding Hightower and Flanagan.
33. On June 25, 2013, Principal Zanca rated Assistant Principal Riccardo’s performance during the 2012–2013 school year as unsatisfactory.
34. In late June of 2013, James, Hightower, and Riccardo filed complaints regarding Principal Zanca with OEO.
35. On June 26, 2013, Flanagan sent a letter to Superintendent Mendez responding to his unsatisfactory rating for the 2012–2013 school year and alleging that Principal Zanca had discriminated against him based on his race.
36. On July 1, 2013, a DOE employee signed to indicate receipt of Flanagan’s June 26, 2013, letter to Superintendent Mendez.
37. During late June and early July of 2013, various media outlets reported on Principal Zanca’s mistreatment of Hightower, Flanagan, and James.
38. On July 3, 2013, before OEO had opened its investigation, Superintendent Mendez wrote in an email to other high-ranking DOE officials that Assistant Principal Riccardo’s allegations were “unfounded” and that Assistant Principal Riccardo was “attempting to retaliate for receiving an unsatisfactory rating and discontinuance.” According to Superintendent Mendez, Principal Zanca “deserves our support.”
39. On July 8, 2013, while OEO’s investigation was ongoing, Superintendent Mendez wrote an email to OEO’s Executive Director. In that email, Superintendent Mendez stated that the allegations that Principal Zanca engaged in racial discrimination “are manufactured and untrue.” Superintendent Mendez also stated, “If you need further details, feel free to contact me.”
40. On July 17, 2013, Superintendent Mendez discontinued Flanagan’s employment with the DOE without considering Flanagan’s June 26, 2013, letter.
41. In late July or early August of 2013, James, Riccardo, and Hightower filed timely charges against the DOE with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Flanagan filed a timely EEOC charge against the DOE in August or September of 2013.
42. After learning of the EEOC charges filed against the DOE by James, Riccardo, Hightower, and Flanagan, OEO administratively closed its investigation without issuing any findings.
43. In August of 2013, Assistant Principal Riccardo met with Superintendent Mendez and discussed his allegations against Principal Zanca. Superintendent Mendez agreed to change Assistant Principal Riccardo’s performance rating for the 2012–2013 school year to satisfactory on the condition that Assistant Principal Riccardo resign from his position, agree not to seek appointment as a teacher, and waive all claims against the DOE or its employees “arising out of the unique and particular facts of this matter.”
44. In October of 2013, Flanagan filed a lawsuit against the DOE, Principal Zanca, Superintendent Mendez, and others. That suit was docketed as Flanagan v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ. et al., No. 13 Civ. 8456 (LAK) (JCF).
45. On February 4, 2014, the EEOC stopped processing Flanagan’s complaint and issued a right-to-sue letter.
46. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charges filed by James, Riccardo, and Hightower and, on May 9, 2014, found reasonable cause to believe that the DOE had discriminated and retaliated against James, Riccardo, and Hightower. The EEOC attempted unsuccessfully to achieve through conciliation a voluntary resolution of the matters, and subsequently referred the charges to the United States Department of Justice.
47. Neither Hightower, nor Flanagan, nor James, nor Riccardo worked at Pan American after the 2012–2013 school year.
48. Principal Zanca remained in charge of Pan American during the 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 school years. The DOE did not take any disciplinary action against Principal Zanca based on her conduct towards Flanagan, James, Hightower, and Riccardo.
49. Superintendent Mendez remains the superintendent of high schools for District

Conditions Precedent to Suit

50. All conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have been satisfied.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Pattern or Practice of Discrimination)

51. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
52. The acts, omissions, policies, and practices described in paragraphs six through forty-nine above constitute a pattern or practice of employment discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 3(a). This pattern or practice denies black teachers the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII. Unless enjoined by the Court, the DOE will continue to engage in practices that are the
same as or similar to those that are alleged in this Complaint.

VII. Unless enjoined by the Court, the DOE will continue to engage in practices that are the same as or similar to those that are alleged in this Complaint.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Discrimination Against Flanagan)

53. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
54. The DOE violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against Flanagan on the basis of race.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Retaliation Against Flanagan)

55. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
56. The DOE violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by retaliating against Flanagan for engaging in protected action, including but not limited to filing a complaint with the DOE’s OEO on June 3, 2013.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Retaliation Against Riccardo)

57. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
58. The DOE violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by retaliating against Riccardo for engaging in protected action, including but not limited to refusing to give Hightower an unsatisfactory rating in the Spring of 2013 and issuing a written statement on June 24, 2013, that recounted Principal Zanca’s mistreatment of Hightower, Flanagan, and James.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Discrimination Against Hightower)

59. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
60. The DOE violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against Hightower on the basis of race.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Discrimination Against James)

61. The allegations in paragraphs one through fifty are repeated and realleged as though set forth fully herein.
62. The DOE violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against James on the basis of race.
WHEREFORE, the United States demands judgment:

(a) declaring that the DOE engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-3(a);

(b) enjoining the DOE from engaging in discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices in violation of Title VII;
(c) ordering the DOE to take such other steps as may be necessary to prevent and remedy employment discrimination and the patterns or practices of discrimination in employment identified above;
(d) ordering the DOE to provide remedial relief, including but not limited to sufficient damages to compensate Flanagan, Hightower, James, and Riccardo and make them

whole for the losses they have suffered as a result of the discrimination and retaliation alleged in this Complaint; and
(e) granting the United States its costs, disbursements, and such further relief against defendant as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: June 9, 2016
New York, New York

PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Attorney for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Caleb Hayes-Deats
CALEB HAYES-DEATS
Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-2699
Fax: (212) 637-2686
caleb.hayes-deats@usdoj.gov


↧
↧

The Teacher Pension Perk For Those Who Can Get It: Tax Deferred Annuity

October 6, 2016, 9:25 am
$
0
0
What the NYPOST does not say, is that teachers approaching retirement and who have high salaries are being charged with incompetency and/or misconduct for no valid reason.

Was the non-defense of the UFT at grievances and in 3020-a a secret side-deal between the Department of Education and 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
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Teachers are juicing their pensions, and it cost you $1B


UFT President Mike Mulgrew, NYC Mayor Bill deBlasio, Chancellor Carmen Farina


















A little known pension perk available only to New York City teachers cost taxpayers an astonishing 

$1.2 billion last year, a watchdog group reported Wednesday.

The sweet deal guarantees that teachers who sock away money for retirement in a special Tax Deferred Annuity (TDA) receive a 7 percent annual return. In stark contrast, banks currently pay depositors just 1 percent or less on most savings accounts.
And city taxpayers are the de facto guarantors for the high rate of return — on the hook to make up the difference if the annuity falls short of the guarantee.
Knowing a good thing when they see it, increasing numbers of teachers are stashing their cash in the no-lose annuity, the Citizens Budget Commission found.
It said that there are now 137,000 participants in the plan, including 51,000 retirees. But only 3,000 are drawing on their funds.
The rest, according to the commission, are watching their nest eggs grow at a fixed rate available to no other city employee.
And that’s over and above the teachers’ regular pensions.
“You don’t get a guaranteed rate of return with your 401(k). But teachers do” in that special annuity, said CBC research director Charles Brecher.
“It’s a good, positive math lesson for teachers. It’s a bad, negative math lesson for taxpayers. The teachers get this huge taxpayer subsidy. The city should treat the teachers like everyone else.”
Former city labor director James Hanley said the guaranteed 7 percent — which he negotiated down from 8.25 percent in 2009 — is indefensible.
“Nobody else has such a system. This is a little ridiculous. It’s tough to sustain in the long term,” Hanley warned.
The annuity is a voluntary program to supplement traditional government pensions.
Other city employees have them — without the guaranteed 7 percent return.
The sweet deal kicked in when the state Legislature in 1988 allowed teachers to designate all or part of their pension contributions to the fixed-return fund, which at that time was paying 8.25 percent, then close to the return of federal-government bonds.
After the 2008 stock-market crash, the fixed-rate option grew in popularity. In 2007, the annuity fund stood at $7.4 billion. Last year, it held $18.7 billion.
Taxpayer subsidies have also grown, from $238 million in 2007 to $1.2 billion last year.
The CBC urged the city to end the 7 percent guarantee, particularly for new hires.
The CBC pointed out that while government pensions are protected by the state Constitution, the annuity isn’t.
Any changes would require taking on the powerful teachers union.
Mike Mugrew , president of the United Federation of Teachers, argued that taxpayers have actually come out ahead.
“The CBC report neglects to mention that over the last 25 years, the city has actually made a profit from this fund, since its investment returns over that period have exceeded the guaranteed rate of return promised by the TDA,” he said.
Mayor de Blasio’s office had no immediate comment.
↧

State Senator Jeffrey Dinowitz and His Chief of Staff Allegedly Blocked Minority Out-of-Zone Students From Enrolling in Riverdale's PS 24

October 6, 2016, 1:09 pm
$
0
0

Jeffrey Dinowitz
AP Verdi says that Dinowitz wanted to keep black and hispanic kids out.

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


State Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz Is Accused of Blocking Minority Students From Enrolling at PS 24 in Riverdale


Betsy Combier

Racial Bias Claim Looms Over Bronx School as Administrators Exit
PS 24
So far, the turmoil at a public school in the Bronx has cost two principals and a district superintendent their jobs, has sparked a lawsuit and has a local assemblyman defending himself against claims that he is trying to keep minority children out of the school. And it’s not over yet.
At the heart of the dispute at Public School 24, the Spuyten Duyvil School, are assertions by Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz and others that administrators — specifically a former principal, Donna Connelly, and the current assistant principal, Manuele Verdi — have allowed hundreds of students who live outside the school’s zone to enroll, causing overcrowding.
Last spring, Mr. Dinowitz sent his chief of staff to participate in the kindergarten registration process at the school and to scrutinize parents’ proofs of residence, in an effort to block out-of-zone students from enrolling. After an investigation, the city’s Education Department found fault with the superintendent, Melodie Mashel, and the then interim principal, Andrea Feldman, for letting the assemblyman’s chief of staff take part in the process and review parents’ and students’ personal information. In recent weeks, Ms. Mashel resigned, and Ms. Feldman was demoted and removed from the school. Their departures were previously reported by The Daily News.
In the meantime, Mr. Verdi, the assistant principal, has filed a complaint in federal court against the Education Department, claiming that Mr. Dinowitz’s real purpose was to prevent minorities and low-income children from enrolling in the school. P.S. 24 serves the Riverdale and Spuyten Duyvil neighborhoods, which are whiter and wealthier than the immediately adjoining Kingsbridge and Marble Hill neighborhoods.
The complaint does not present evidence that anyone who lives in the school zone has been prevented from enrolling, but it portrays Mr. Dinowitz’s focus on enrollment as tinged with bias.

It cites a meeting in November 2009 between Mr. Dinowitz, Mr. Verdi and Dr. Connelly, the former principal, who had recently arrived at the school. According to the complaint, Mr. Dinowitz said that people were misrepresenting their addresses to get into P.S. 24 and that he could tell which children were not from Riverdale “by the way they walk, talk and wear their pants.”
In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Dinowitz said he “never said anything like that,” and he characterized Mr. Verdi’s complaint as “lie after lie.”
“This is about overcrowding, period,” he said. “That’s it. That’s what this is all about.”
Dr. Connelly, however, said that she recalled Mr. Dinowitz using those words.
“He was referring to kids who were not from the community and kids that were black or Hispanic,” she said.
P.S. 24 enrolls children from kindergarten through fifth grade. The school’s population is 42 percent white, 41 percent Hispanic, 8 percent Asian and 7 percent black. Twenty-seven percent of students receive free or reduced-price lunch. On the most recent round of state tests, 57 percent of third through fifth graders were proficient in reading, while 62 percent were proficient in math, compared with 38 percent and 36 percent citywide.
The elementary schools in nearby Kingsbridge are all largely Hispanic, and the vast percentage of their students receive free or reduced-price lunch. One, P.S. 207, which serves prekindergarten through second grade, is on the state’s list of persistently dangerous schools. While one of the schools, the Milton Fein School, also does well on annual state tests, the other school with children of test-taking age lags.
P.S. 24’s enrollment has increased dramatically in the past decade, rising to 1,030 students this year from 715 students in 2006-7. The department said the building was now at 122 percent capacity.
Dr. Connelly said that the increase, which began before she arrived, was caused by population growth, not a rise in the number of non-zoned students being enrolled.
According to the Education Department, the percentage of non-zoned children enrolled in kindergarten at P.S. 24 fell to about 10 percent in 2015-16 from 13 percent in 2010-11 (not counting the gifted and talented program), while the number of zoned students in kindergarten has grown by 36 percent.
Dr. Connelly said that some non-zoned students were assigned to P.S. 24 by the department. In other cases a parent might come into the school around November, hoping to transfer a child from a low-performing school. If there were seats available in the student’s grade, Dr. Connelly said, she would sometimes let the student in.
She said that accounted for only a small number of children.
“But it was still looked upon as some kind of a threat that I was letting children into the school that don’t belong at P.S. 24,” she said.
Mr. Dinowitz disagreed that population growth could account for the increase in enrollment.
“There has not been a population boom in the neighborhood,” he said.
Mr. Dinowitz’s own two children attended P.S. 24 in the 1990s, even though he lived outside the school zone.
Asked about that, he said it was irrelevant to the present situation, because the school was underused at the time.
“If the school had empty seats, fine, but the school doesn’t have empty seats,” he said.
In the 2015-16 school year, the debate over P.S. 24’s enrollment increase reached a crisis when the school lost its lease on an annex that housed fifth graders. Amid finger-pointing and a dispute about whether Dr. Connelly threw out teachers’ desks, she abruptly announced that she was retiring in October last year.
After her departure, Mr. Dinowitz and others, including the district superintendent, Ms. Mashel, and Ms. Feldman, the interim principal, met at the school in January this year, according to Mr. Verdi’s complaint and a report from the Education Department’s Office of Special Investigations. Mr. Dinowitz again complained about out-of-zone students.
It was then suggested that someone from Mr. Dinowitz’s office could go to the school during the registration process in late March and early April.
Randi Martos, Mr. Dinowitz’s chief of staff, ended up taking part and reviewed families’ documents. Department policy requires parents to provide two documents showing proof of residence, but parents were told they needed three, according to Mr. Verdi’s lawsuit and the Education Department’s investigative report. There is no evidence any zoned families were turned away.
The department’s investigation determined that Ms. Mashel had shown poor judgment and that Ms. Feldman had failed to supervise the registration process and allowed Ms. Martos to review parents’ and students’ personal information. Neither woman responded to a phone call requesting comment.
Despite his concerns about overcrowding, Mr. Dinowitz has opposed calls to build an addition to the school. In the interview, he said the overcrowding problem could be solved simply by enforcing enrollment policies.
The battles have left parents frustrated. Bob Heisler, a former president of the parent association, said he did not believe Mr. Verdi’s charges of racial bias, but he criticized Mr. Dinowitz and other local politicians for showing “no leadership over the years” in dealing with the increased demand for school seats.
“I personally feel that some of the local politicians want to keep Riverdale as they have seen it — the way they remember it from their own childhood — and they’re not open to the changes in the demographics that are going on in that community,” he said.


↧

The Principals'/Supervisors'/APs' Union, CSA, Protects Its' Own - If You Play The Game Right

October 8, 2016, 8:58 pm
$
0
0
The Council for Supervisors and Administrators is a very tight ship when it comes to fighting for their own Executive Board Members. It is very hard to go after a principal on the Executive Board who is scamming the public, committing fraud, perjury, or any other wrong. And, if a principal is charged, the CSA picks the arbitrator best suited to getting this administrator off the hook. Commendable! Not.

If only this defense was the right thing to do. With approval from the UFT and NYSUT, CSA is given the authority to do grievances, U-Rating appeals and 3020-a hearings exactly the way they want:

1. witnesses come in and lie - they say that they "saw" something when they didn't, all part of a script prepared ahead of time to get rid of an employee who is creating a problem;

2. principals may testify by telephone at appeals, however the American Arbitration Association rules require the agreement of both sides for a witness to testify by phone. In NYC Appeals the employee is not given a choice;

3. Principals have the right to pursue budgetary requirements of keeping spending within certain limits (i.e. do not pay too much for a senior teacher), and keeping parents from filing lawsuits by protecting the bully student and charging the teacher with the crime, and, other behaviors such as:


  • Name calling, put-downs, and assorted verbal abuse. 
  • Malicious Re-Assignment to different grade levels or course loads
  • Withholding of needed job information and then holding the teacher accountable for it Isolating the teacher from colleagues by room assignments or by direct requests to colleagues so that colleagues disappear from interaction with the target teacher
  • Giving unachievable amounts of work, over loads of problem cases, or larger class sizes than others with no supports
  • Being shut out of desirable special projects or projects with stipends or status. 
  • Constantly being made to move to a new classroom, work from a cart, or do additional non-teaching duties
  • Being called into ambush meetings where the teacher is caught with no witnesses and berated or threatened.
  • Labelling the teacher as negative for asking any questions in meetings or in emails
  • Overt berating in meetings or in front of colleagues and students. 
  • Undermining with parents by not backing in parent-school interactions
  • Low evaluation scores without actual prescribed observations or reading standards data supplied.
  • Short deadlines for surprise data collection or project assignments.
  • Criticism of evidence based practices in favor of newer or different unproven methods
  • Agressive physical behavior approaching and occasionally including physical attack.

Of course we cannot forget the money incentives to do well. Principals get monetary rewards for getting their schools to "do better" - either honestly, or by scrubbing, cheating, or lying.... Any way they can, getting  Performance Differentials:

Input your File#  and  your Last Name 


  Multi Year Performance Differential to be Paid 6/30/15

   Principals receive an additional $2,500 for winning two consecutive years and an additional $7,500 for winning three consecutive years or three out of five years.  Assistant Principals receive half of those amounts for meeting the same criteria.  If a Principal who has received a multi-year performance increase of $7,500, whether as a result of three consecutive performance increases or three out of five years, and continues to receive a performance increase the following year(s) the Principal continues to receive a $7,500 multi-year performance increase for each consecutive year won.  Similarly, an Assistant Principal meeting the same criteria will continue to receive $3,750.  The Multi Year Performance Differential will be paid on the 6/30/2015 paycheck for active members and on the 7/9/2015 Supplemental Payroll for members that have retired or separated from service.

  Please follow the link below to determine if you are on the list of Multi Year Performance Differential recipients provided to us by DOE.  If you believe you are eligible for the Multi Year Performance Differential and are not on this list please contact Monica McDonald at monica@csa-nyc.org  and provide the following information:

Name, File # and the years that you received the CSA Performance Differential along with the DBN of the school for each year. 

Most importantly, all of the people who you see below are protected from any harm or litigation simply because they are CSA insiders, Executive Board Members.


Rushell White, Principal of MS 226

See Rushell White, for instance, who is pictured above at her school MS 226, and below on the CSA Executive Board. 

I have posted many stories about her already:


MS 226 Principal Rushell White Key Words: Making the School Look Good Through Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment

Why is JHS 226 Principal Rushell White Still in Her Position Despite Documented Wrong-Doing? (March 19, 2016)


CSA Executive Board


Staten Island (below)


↧
Search

Probationary Teachers and Termination Decisions: Matter of Frazier v NYC DOE (1988)

October 10, 2016, 12:06 pm
$
0
0
Probationary teachers are employed at the will of the Chancellor, and can be terminated at any time - except for unlawful reasons (i.e., discrimination, age, gender, religion - check with a lawyer).

The time to appeal a termination is immediately following the Chancellor's original decision, not after a review of the decision.

Don't forfeit your rights to pursue justice because you do not meet a legal deadline! (Called the "Statute of Limitations")

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

MATTER FRASIER v. BD. EDUC.

LINK
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
71 N.Y.2d 763 (1988)
In the Matter of Richard Frasier, Respondent, v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Appellants.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Decided June 7, 1988.
Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Fay S. Ng and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for appellants.
Richard A. Shane and James R. Sandner for respondent.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE and BELLACOSA concur.

[71 N.Y.2d 765]
HANCOCK, JR., J.
Petitioner, a probationary teacher in the New York City school system, was notified by a letter from the Chancellor dated June 28, 1984 that his probationary appointment was terminated as of September 4, 1984. Subsequently — after a review, as afforded by the collective bargaining agreement, under the procedures established in the Board bylaws — the Chancellor reversed his earlier determination and reinstated petitioner to probationary status.
The issue in this appeal by respondent Board of Education is whether the Chancellor's original action terminated petitioner's rights as a probationary appointee under Education Law § 2573 (1) (a) as of September 4, 1984, or whether, as petitioner claims in his CPLR article 78 proceeding, that action was nonfinal and ineffective until completion of the review procedure. The Appellate Division, affirming Supreme Court's judgment in favor of petitioner, held that the Chancellor's original determination was not final and that, therefore, from September 4, 1984 until March 25, 1985, when the review was complete, petitioner was illegally deprived of his position. Accordingly, it directed that petitioner's reinstatement be retroactive with back pay and full benefits from September 4, 1984. We granted leave to appeal and, for reasons which follow, now reverse.
I
Unquestionably, a Board of Education, under Education Law § 2573 (1) (a), has the right to terminate the employment of a probationary teacher at any time and for any reason, unless the teacher establishes that the termination was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, violative of a statute, or done in bad faith (see, Matter of Venes v Community School Bd., 43 N.Y.2d 520, 525; James v Board of Educ., 37 N.Y.2d 891, 892). In the City of New York, the Chancellor, as the Board's designee, may properly make the determination to discontinue a probationer (see, Matter of Brown v Board of Educ., 42 A.D.2d 702 lv denied 34 N.Y.2d 519). A teacher who has been discontinued, however, may ask the Chancellor to review his decision and, in effect, reverse himself pursuant to section 5.3.4 of
[71 N.Y.2d 766]
the Board of Education bylaws.* Under this procedure, a hearing is held before a committee appointed by the Chancellor and selected in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. After the hearing, the committee submits its advisory findings and recommendations to the Chancellor who makes the ultimate decision (see, Matter of Kaufman v Anker, 42 N.Y.2d 835, 837).
It is a basic policy underlying Education Law § 2573 (1) (a) that the responsibility for selecting probationary teachers and evaluating them for appointment on tenure should lie with the Board of Education upon appropriate recommendation of its professional administrators (see, Honeoye Falls-Lima Cent. School Dist. v Honeoye Falls-Lima Educ. Assn., 49 N.Y.2d 732, 734; Matter of Cohoes City School Dist. v Cohoes Teachers Assn., 40 N.Y.2d 774, 777, 778), and that the Board should have broad discretion in making such decisions (see, Matter of Venes v Community School Bd., supra; Bergstein v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 318, 323). From the language of Education Law § 2573 (1) (a), it is evident that a decision not to grant tenure to a probationary teacher, once made, is intended to be final. The statute contains no provision for reconsideration or review or for reinstatement of a discontinued probationary appointee. Except for the requirement that a person who is not being recommended for tenure be notified in writing no later than 60 days before the expiration of the probationary term, the authority of the Board to discontinue the services of a probationer is without temporal limitation. Indeed, the Board is specifically authorized to exercise its power to discontinue "at any time during such probationary period" (Education Law § 2573 [1] [a] [emphasis supplied]).
The question remains, however, whether anything in the review procedure established in the bylaws (see, Education Law § 2590-d [1]; Matter of Lehman v Board of Educ., 82 A.D.2d 832, 833; Matter of Jacobs v Board of Educ., 73 A.D.2d 623, 624) makes the Chancellor's original decision on discontinuance nonfinal. We think not. Section 5.3.4 of the bylaws in no way pertains to the finality of the Chancellor's decision. The section is procedural only, contains no provision concerning reinstatement or back pay, and does not purport to affect the teacher's substantive rights under the statute.
Probationary teachers have no constitutional or statutory right to a review of the Chancellor's decisions to discontinue their services and to deny tenure (see, Matter of Aherns v Board of Educ., 57 A.D.2d 925; Matter of Clausen v Board of Educ., 39 A.D.2d 708). Their right to a review stems solely from the collective bargaining agreement. Section 5.3.4 does no more than establish an optional procedure under which a teacher may ask the Chancellor to reconsider and reverse his initial decision, a decision which is final and which, when made, in all respects terminates the employment of a probationer under Education Law § 2573 (1) (a). To adopt petitioner's position that a section 5.3.4 review postpones the effective date of the Chancellor's action until completion of the review procedure would have anomalous consequences. A probationary teacher could, although validly removed from the teaching rolls by action of the Chancellor under Education Law § 2573 (1) (a) and performing no services for the school system, become entitled to full salary during the review process, regardless of its eventual outcome. To obtain such entitlement, a discontinued teacher would have only to institute review under section 5.3.4. We need not consider the constitutional implications of such a construction, for it was clearly never intended.
II
In this case, petitioner had a probationary appointment as a teacher of English as a second language at the Adlai Stevenson High School. The Chancellor, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of the Bronx High Schools, advised petitioner by letter on June 28, 1984 that his service as a teacher was "terminated as of the close of business on September 4, 1984" and that pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement petitioner was "entitled to the review procedures under Section 5.3.4 of the Bylaws". In a letter to petitioner dated March 25, 1985, the Chancellor stated: "After careful consideration
[71 N.Y.2d 768]
of your case, I have determined to reverse the recommendation to discontinue your probationary service as a Teacher of English as a Second Language which was effective at the close of business September 4, 1984" (emphasis added).
Petitioner does not contend that the Chancellor's initial action in discontinuing his services was unlawful in the sense that the Chancellor lacked authority or that it was in violation of petitioner's constitutional or statutory rights. Matter of Golomb v Board of Educ. (92 A.D.2d 256), relied on by petitioner and the Appellate Division, is, therefore, not on point. In that case, the probationary status of a teacher in the New York City system was improperly terminated by her high school principal rather than, as required, by the Chancellor. Thus, unlike the case at bar, the ouster in Golomb was patently unlawful (id., at 258). Nor does petitioner contend that his discontinuance was procedurally defective (cf., Matter of Pascal v Board of Educ., 100 A.D.2d 622 [probationary teacher not given 60 days' prior notice of discontinuance required by Education Law § 2573 (1) (a)]). There is no question that the Chancellor's June 28, 1984 letter was within the probationary period, that it gave petitioner more than the required 60 days' notice of the effective date of the termination, and that the action was taken on recommendation of the Superintendent (Education Law § 2573 (1) (a); see, Matter of Brown v Board of Educ., 42 AD2d, supra, at 703). Petitioner argues only that the Chancellor's original action, as recited in the June 28, 1984 letter, was incomplete and, for that reason, ineffective. We disagree.
There is nothing tentative or conditional about the letter. The message is simple and direct: that petitioner's "probationary service as a teacher of ESL is terminated as of the close of business on September 4, 1984" (emphasis supplied). The Chancellor's June 28, 1984 letter met all the statutory requirements.
Accordingly, the order should be reversed, with costs, and the proceeding dismissed.
Order reversed, etc.
FootNotes

* Section 5.3.4C pertaining to review of decisions on continuance of services is as follows:Review Committee in Recommendation for Discontinuance of Service 
Any person in the employ of the board of education who is summoned to appear before the chancellor, or a committee designated by the chancellor, in respect of the discontinuance of service during the probationary term, or at the expiration thereof, shall have a review of the matter before a committee which shall be designated in accordance with contractual agreements covering employees or by regulations of the chancellor, as appropriate.After the review, the committee shall forward its advisory recommendation to the community school board or to the chancellor in accordance with contractual agreements.

↧
↧

Chicago Teachers Union and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Reach a Tentative Contract Settlement

October 12, 2016, 7:10 am
$
0
0
Karen Lewis, CTU President

Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago Teachers Union Reach A Tentative Contract Settlement That Averts a Strike
re-posted by Betsy Combier, Editor of Parentadvocates.org and NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Emanuel said the tentative agreement "invested in strengthening the classroom and helped our teachers financially, but actually did it in a way that CPS is on a better sustainable path than every contract preceding." The union got many of the things it wanted, including the continuation of the district paying the bulk of pension contributions for current teachers. CTU Vice President Jesse Sharkey praised the pay raises and job guarantees teachers would see under the tentative agreement.



Summary and Complete Tentative Agreement

Costs of deal with Chicago Teachers Union not yet clear
LINK

Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Teachers Union both declared victory after reaching a tentative contract settlement that averted a strike.

What wasn't immediately clear, however, was the financial cost of the deal that was reached Monday moments before a midnight strike deadline.

To finance the deal for this year alone, Emanuel tapped nearly $90 million in tax increment financing district surplus, even though he had for months dismissed the idea of using TIF money to shore up the school district's shaky finances.

On Tuesday, though, he called using those funds "the right thing to do."

Emanuel said the tentative agreement "invested in strengthening the classroom and helped our teachers financially, but actually did it in a way that CPS is on a better sustainable path than every contract preceding."

The union got many of the things it wanted, including the continuation of the district paying the bulk of pension contributions for current teachers. CTU Vice President Jesse Sharkey praised the pay raises and job guarantees teachers would see under the tentative agreement.

"I think that we achieved really most of our bargaining objectives," Sharkey said Tuesday. "And the things which we didn't achieve largely have to do with not getting some of the things that we aspired to."

Chicago Public Schools officials say the district would save $300 million over the life of the four-year contract. But a spokeswoman could not provide an accounting for that figure.

An eight-page summary of the tentative agreement, which covers July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2019, indicates some uncertain financial consequences of the pending contract.

Veteran union members can qualify for a hefty cash bonus if they resign or retire by next summer. That would allow the district to replace higher-salary employees with younger and less expensive workers. But that provision won't kick in for teachers unless at least 1,500 of them retire.

The retirement bonus option could raise some immediate expenses for the district. Teachers would receive a one-time bonus that pays $1,500 for each year of service. That means a teacher with 25 years experience would see a $37,500 payout that wouldn't affect their pension earnings.

Paraprofessionals with at least a decade of service would be eligible for a similar deal, if at least 600 of them resign by June.

CTU represents nearly 30,000 teachers and educational support personnel.

CTU's current membership will continue to have 7 percentage points of their required pension contributions paid for by the district, but a future generation of teachers — those hired Jan. 1 and after — won't receive the lucrative perk. In return, those new hires will get pay boosts that even out the loss of the pension pickup.

Teachers won't get cost of living raises for the first two years of the contract, with pay hikes of 2 percent and 2.5 percent in the final two years. Raises based on experience and education would be part of the contract's final three years. Members will start paying higher health insurance costs in 2019.

Absent from Monday's agreement is language from a January proposal from the city that barred the district from laying off teachers to save money. A deal on teacher layoffs was one of the last aspects of the contract agreed to on Monday, Sharkey said.

Most tenured teachers who are laid off at the end of a school year would be eligible to fill temporarily vacant positions in 10 month stints. If no such vacancies exist, the teacher would be able to substitute teach for 10 months while earning full pay and benefits.

The district's $5.4 billion operating budget assumed savings of $31 million through renegotiated contracts with unions including the CTU. That budget also assumed it would take in $32.5 million from TIF districts, but that figure would now increase to $87.5 million.

"It does not appear that they are going to get that savings, although the (TIF) surplus that they have declared will help pay for some of it," said Laurence Msall, head of the nonpartisan Civic Federation budget watchdog group.

The mayor agreed to increase the amount taken from those funds, which are used at city discretion to boost economic development — to $175 million from the originally proposed $60 million. About half of the money declared as "surplus" is going to CPS.

That amount is larger than any the mayor has agreed to since taking office in 2011, and it presents a contrast to what Emanuel has been saying in recent weeks when asked if declaring larger TIF surpluses — something the CTU has long sought — could lead to a teachers' contract agreement.

The mayor repeatedly described a larger TIF surplus as a one-time revenue source and not a long-term solution, even though the amount of money going into those funds not dedicated to specific projects grew significantly this year and is expected to remain at higher levels for years to come, barring a severe economic downturn.

On Tuesday, with negotiations complete and his last minute gambit to avoid a strike successful, Emanuel made a different case to the Tribune editorial board. "Every year, I've surplussed," the mayor said, noting his policy of declaring 25 percent of TIF revenue not dedicated to projects as surplus. "So it's not new. It's part of a pattern."

"I don't have a problem with what we've done," Emanuel said. "I know it's the right thing to do."

The union would see one of its biggest victories in negotiations start to take shape in the second semester of the 2016-17 school year. That's when kindergarten through second grade teachers with 32 or more students in their classrooms become eligible to receive an assistant to help with instruction, according to the tentative deal. Sharkey estimated that agreement would cost about $10 million a year.

In the end, CPS might not have to depend on TIF surplus funds as heavily in coming years, said Carole Brown, the city's chief financial officer.

Costs are higher in 2017 under the new contract because of planned buyouts of longtime teachers. Salaries paid to their replacements will be lower, and they will pick up the full cost of their required pension contributions, she said.

Msall said he wanted more details on how the early retirement system would work.

"In this case, definitely, the new teachers who are replacing them are going to be paying more to the pensions," he said. "They are going to see a lesser pension benefit than existing employees, but we have to see the value of the lump sum that is being added before we can make a determination of how much savings or costs are associated."

The union's House of Delegates are set to weigh in on the deal next week, Sharkey said. The contract has to be approved by the delegates and then voted on by full membership before a final deal is signed.

jjperez@chicagotribune.com

hdardick@chicagotribune.com  
↧

Francesco Portelos Makes a Bogus Request For a New Trial on His First Amendment Protected Speech at the IS 49 School Leadership Team

October 13, 2016, 6:21 am
$
0
0
I love reading cases online. I go to PACER, the federal Court system very often, maybe several times a day or week. I'm not a lawyer, but I enjoy reading cases for 3020-a defenses.
Judge LaShann M. DeArcy Hall

I do not understand why Francesco Portelos' Attorney, Bryan Glass is asking Judge DeArcy Hall for a new trial based upon the argument that Francesco's speech in the School Leadership Team meeting  (SLT) was protected by the First Amendment. It's not.

Federal Court Judge George Daniels ruled in 2014, accepting the Magistrate Judge's ruling on the speech/SLT/First Amendment issue that Plaintiff Wazi Ullah's speech at the SLT was not protected. (p. 49) I am not a lawyer, but the Ullah case seems to be similar to the Portelos case, and the same request was made.

So, I don't see the value of Bryan Glass asking for a new trial in the case of Francesco Portelos, to get a jury to give Francesco money damages after speaking at the SLT? I don't get it. What's up, Bryan?

Waiting for your comment, as you must know better than me the case law. Please comment!

Carmen (Farina), please fire this person. In my opinion, he does not belong in public education.

Thank you!

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com

Here is my updated post on Parentadvocates.org:

Francesco Portelos: "A Troublemaking, Combative, and Disgruntled Employee", Loses His Federal Case by Editor Betsy Combier

I stopped by the trial of Francesco Portelos in Federal Court (the Eastern District, 225 Cadman Plaza E, Room 425N; Judge DeArcy 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.



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

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

The City of New York submits a Bill for payment by Francesco Portelos

Francesco Portelos files for a new trial:
Notice
Memorandum of Law - New Trial

New York City Department of Education opposes

A quick review of cases filed in Federal Court against the NYC DOE shows that Judge Daniels already ordered, in 2014, and he agreed with Magistrate Michael H. Dolinger, that anything said at a School Leadership Team (SLT) is not protected by the First Amendment (p. 49)

In our opinion at Parentadvocates.org and ADVOCATZ, Francesco Portelos should pay the penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit and he should be fired from the NYC Department of Education for verbal abuse, harassment.

Betsy Combier
President, ADVOCATZ and The E-Accountability Foundation
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

Francesco Portelos: "A Troublemaking, Combative, and Disgruntled Employee", DOE Dismissed as Defendant
NYC Rubber Room Reporter, Betsy Combier, Editor
betsy.combier@gmail.com

Bad lawyering missed the boat on getting whistleblower status and First Amendment protection for Francesco.

JURY Instructions

Francesco Portelos' Exhibits

Trial Verdict

LINK

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 DeArcy 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. I have heard thatat least three teachers have filed complaints against Mr. Glass as well as his Associate Jordan Harlow with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee.

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."

Another Francesco follower - whom I have never met, Christina Vickers: "you are, in fact, an evil f..king c.nt. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with that statement"

and Lucio Celli told the EEOC to put me, his former attorney Steve Morelli, and PERB ALJ Blassman as Defendants in his EEOC Complaint:
Lucio email May 10 2016

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.

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
AUGUST 4, 2015
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 our teacher 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."
UFTSolidarity.org
Join us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/UFTSolidarity
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mrportelos

Here is the link

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 Ann 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
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.
http://fidgetyteach.blogspot.com/2015/11/francesco-portelos-cultist-behavior.html?m=1
Francesco A. Portelos
Educator
www.EducatorFightsBack.org?
UFT Solidarity Caucus
www.UFTsolidarity.org
www.mrportelos.com
"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:

The Francesco Mob: Who Are They?

The UFT Solidarity Brand is Not What UFT Members Need

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?
November 18, 2015 at 7:26 AM
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.
November 19, 2015 at 6:34 AM

Anonymous said...
Portelos is a very dangerous .
November 19, 2015 at 6:47 AM

Anonymous said...
Why would anyone want Portelos in their school, or any of his gang? Watch out for them.
November 19, 2015 at 6:50 AM

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

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.
↧

DeWitt Clinton High School Principal Santiago ("Santi") Taveras Keeps Going Even As His School Fails

October 15, 2016, 4:28 pm
$
0
0
Carmen Farina has been the Person of Interest in the cases of Santiago Taveras for too long:

Santiago Taveras
Santiago Taveras, public face of DOE, leaving for private sector

Santiago Taveras, a former DOE official, returning as a principal




The (Mis)-Education of Santiago Taveras

The city’s worst high schools for dropouts

Chancellor Farina must be fired, along with Santi..

Betsy Combier
President, ADVOCATZ and The E-Accountability Foundation 
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

Bronx Principal Accused of Changing Grades, Installing Own Office Shower
LINK
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — The principal of a failing Bronx school was under investigation Monday night on allegations of grade fixing – changing scores so more students would pass.
As CBS2 Political Reporter Marcia Kramer reported, the mayor is vowing “serious consequences” for any wrongdoing.

DeWitt Clinton High School
DeWitt Clinton HS at 100 W. Mosholu Pkwy. South in the Bedford Park section of the Bronx, is a struggling school. Low attendance and a graduation rate of just 45 percent put it on the endangered list.
But now, principal Santiago Taveras has come under investigation in the grade-fixing scandal – and it happens that Taveras is a former deputy chancellor in the city Department of Education.
His job was to close failing schools.
The investigations surrounding Taveras now alleges that he changed failing grades to passing grades without teachers’ consent.

For example, a senior who got a “no-show” grade in global history reportedly got it changed to a 75. Another student’s 55 in English was reportedly changed to a 90, and a failing algebra grade of 55 was reportedly changed to a passing 65.
Other grade-fixing scandals, such as that at John Dewey High School in Brooklyn, were reported by teachers. In this case, the city Department of Education discovered the problem itself.

“My Department of Education initiated that investigation,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio, “and that investigation will proceed promptly, and if we find any wrongdoing, there will be very serious consequences for the individual involved.”
Students at Dewitt Clinton, part of the Department of Education renewal program for failing schools, were outraged.
“It makes me upset. It’s going to make us look bad,” said student Kevin Bacchus. “I have 90s and I’m going to be questioned about my 90s.”

“Changing the grades is not going to help anything,” said student Shanice Cerby. “It’s not going to help the students. It’s not going to save the school.”

“We all have to earn our grades,” added student Sarojnie Dhanpat. “At some point, everyone has to earn their same grade.”

The principal reportedly urged teachers to raise their pass rates to 80 percent.
Devora Kaye, a spokeswoman for schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña, said that when Department of Education staffers “identified possible improprieties” at the school, the issues were immediately reported to prosecutors for investigation.


↧

MS 226 Assistant Principal David Possner Wins His Article 78 Lawsuit in Supreme Court, Overturns His U-Rating Given In 2014-2015

October 15, 2016, 11:04 pm
$
0
0
David Possner has been under attack by MS 226 Principal Rushell White. Here are my previous articles about his horrible harassment and abuse:


David Possner


I was brought on board by David to assist stellar Super Lawyer Roger Adler on vacating the U-rating given to him by MS 226 Principal Rushell White. Getting to know Roger was a real treat. He is an amazing legal mind and a very wise person!

He sees the big picture.

Roger, you are the best.

NY State Supreme Court Judge Kathryn Freed overturned David's U-rating for the 
2014-2015 school year, and thus stopped Rushell White's rush to get him terminated at a 3020-a.


David won because Judge Freed saw how Rushell White made up the misconduct because she despised him, and threw truth,  rules and procedures out the window, as people fueled by hate tend to do. But for Rushell White's malice, David would not have received the U-rating on his APPR 2014-2015.

Congratulations David and Roger!

Matter of Possner v New York City Dept. of Educ.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Matter of Possner v New York City Dept. of Educ. 2016 NY Slip Op 51401(U) Decided on September 1, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Freed, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 1, 2016
Supreme Court, New York County

Application of David Possner, Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78

against New York City Department of Education, Respondent.

160819/2015

Roger Bennet Adler, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioner
233 Broadway, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10279
(212) 406-0181

Assistant Corporation Counsel Brian Polivy, Esq.
Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 356-1000

Kathryn E. Freed, J.
RECITATION, AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2219 (a), OF THE PAPERS CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW OF THIS MOTION:

PAPERS/NUMBERED
NOTICE OF PETITION 1 (Exs. A-J)
ANSWER AND WHITE AFFIDAVIT 2 (Exs. 1-11)
MEMO OF LAW 3
REPLY AFFIRMATION 4 (Exs. A-C)
UPON THE FOREGOING CITED PAPERS, THIS DECISION/ORDER ON THE MOTION IS AS FOLLOWS:
In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner David Possner seeks a judgment annulling the unsatisfactory performance rating that he received for the 2014-2015 school year from his employer, the New York City Department of Education (DOE).[FN1] The DOE answers and opposes the petition.

BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Since 2006, petitioner has been working for the DOE as an Assistant Principal at Virgil Grissom Junior High School (JHS 226) in Queens, New York. According to the DOE, for the 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, JHS 226 did not demonstrate yearly progress in mathematics. As it was found to be in need of improvement, JHS 226 was identified as a "focus school" by the New York State Education Department.


During the 2014-2015 school year, petitioner was assigned to the math and science departments of the school. Petitioner's specific assignments included the following:
"The Visionaries Academy for Science and Technology, Math, Science, Math Intervention, 3rd Floor Supervision, Observations, Frequent Cycles of Observations, Graduation, Senior Activities, COSA, Town Hall Academy Assemblies, Yearbook, OSHA, Blood borne pathogens, Chemical Inventory, Staff Development, Book Inventory, Bulletin Boards, Immunization, Trips, Liaison, Busing/Transportation Coordinator, A-501 Promotion, Recycling Coordinator, Data Management, Compliance Deadlines, Coverages, Technology."


Petitioner's exhibit A at 1.
Assistant principals are evaluated based on four goals that they identify, in conjunction with principal Rushell White (White), at the beginning of the school year. White states that, in evaluating these assistant principals, she considers "whether there have been letters documenting issues including poor performance and/or insubordination." White aff, ¶ 4. At the start of the 2014-2015 school year, petitioner and White set four goals for petitioner to achieve by the end of the year.
In Goal A, improving instructional and school programs, in pertinent part, petitioner stated that his expectations are for the students to make an "overall performance increase on the New York State Mathematics Assessment by 3 to 5%, and to capitalize on the 3% gains we made in mathematics from the previous school year according to the data results from NYSED. We are at 16% for our level 3 and level 4s." Petitioner's exhibit A at 1. In Goal B, achieving effectiveness in administration functioning, 40% of the ineffective and developing science and math teachers would "move up 1 HEDI rating." Id.
Goal C, initiating and strengthening activities, included completing observational data and using the "feedback to provide appropriate professional development to teachers in need of development in Danielson's 8 competencies." Id. In Goal D, improving relationships with staff, students, parents and community, the objectives were that, "85% of our parents and guardians agree, or strongly agree that the school communicates how to prepare their children for being career and college ready, according to the school environment survey. By June 2015, I expect that number to be 88 to 90%." Id. at 2.
Petitioner states that he was also responsible for creating all of the PowerPoint presentations for the school video screens and posters for the school hallways.
On February 9, 2015, petitioner received a letter to file summarizing his mid-year evaluation. The letter advised petitioner that he had not been meeting his Goal A, as the "information supplied is inaccurate." DOE's exhibit 2 at 1. The letter continued that petitioner, for his next step, should "[a]nalyze the data to get true numbers[,] devise an action plan that you will implement to help attain your goal for A." Id. The letter continued that petitioner had not been meeting Goal B and instructed him to provide professional learning opportunities for the teachers.
The mid-year evaluation further informed petitioner that he had been meeting the standards for Goal C. For Goal D, the letter states that petitioner had not been meeting the standard. Goal D was reiterated as "increas[ing] parent response to Learning Environmental Survey questions that school communicated with children." Id. at 2. It further stated that the goal "is not being monitored." Id. Petitioner was told that he should "review and monitor [*2]attendance and PTA meetings to determine whether they are receiving communication from the school. Assistant principal will create a survey and survey parents." Id.
The letter concluded by stating the following:
"Please ensure that you monitor the progress of your goals. It is imperative that you implement next steps and modify action plans to meet and exceed your goals. Please note that not meeting standards in any goal may lead to an unsatisfactory rating at the end of the school year and or [sic] charges leading to the termination of your services."


Id.
On June 26, 2015, Petitioner received a U rating for his performance during the 2014-2015 school year. Prior to this year, petitioner states that he received eight satisfactory ratings. The U rating advises petitioner that he failed to provide evidence that he met "several" of his goals. Specifically, although petitioner had now met expectations for Goals B and C, White did not believe that Goals A and D were met. She stated that, for Goal A, "you provided the number of students who met or did not meet promotional criteria, which is different from your goal to increase the number of students earning level 3s and 4s." DOE's exhibit 1 at 2.
With respect to Goal D, White noted that there was a "huge decline" in parent attendance at PTA meetings, which "was one of your goals." White stated that petitioner did not provide any evidence that he developed an action plan to address this decline. White continued that petitioner had not met Goal D "which is dependent on Learning Environment Surveys . . . you did not implement my recommendation." Id.
In addition, the U rating stated that petitioner had missed deadlines and that he did not provide leadership or monitor the staff and students under his domain. White continued that she would be closely monitoring petitioner the following year to gauge his progress.
Several letters were attached to the U rating, including letters reporting missed deadlines. For instance, on December 9, 2014, petitioner received a notice that he still owed outstanding observation reports and other assessments. There was one "walk-through" conducted on January 21, 2015, where the teachers in petitioner's academy were assessed by White. The walk-through noted some issues with the teachers and White indicated that she would return to do another assessment in two weeks.

Petitioner appealed this U rating to the DOE's Office of Appeals and Review (OAR) and his appeal was heard before a designated hearing officer on October 1, 2015.


Petitioner's Testimony
Petitioner advised the hearing officer that he received his U rating on the last day of school and the hearing officer agreed that the rating was not given within the required time period.
Petitioner believed that the U rating was pretextual, and noted that "95% of those things that I do every day, they're never recognized. The 5% that I don't do are, and those things were put in the letter." Petitioner's exhibit B at 15. He further claimed that White would criticize him for litter on the floor or a torn bulletin board while he was moving 450 students from class to class, rather than assist him.
Petitioner refuted the contentions of unsatisfactory performance. With respect to Goal A, for example, he stated that, while citywide, math scores went up by only 1%, his students' test scores reflected a score increase of 2%. He acknowledged that, even though he did fall short in Goal A, he was above the citywide average. With respect to Goal D, petitioner testified that he maintained the school website, which listed the dates and times of PTA meetings and that he set up the phone messages notifying parents of events. Counsel further noted that improving parent attendance at the PTA meetings was not specified as one of the categories in Goal D.


Petitioner's counsel noted that White is required to provide a minimum of two follow-up conferences, including the initial goal setting conference, but there is no record that petitioner received two conferences. During the hearing it was noted that, during her walk-through, White observed four teachers in 30 minutes. And, although White wrote that she would return in two [*3]weeks, this did not occur. In addition, the end-of-the-year review should have included some of petitioner's strongest assets, of which none were noted.


White's Testimony:
During the hearing, White testified that she did not originally intend for the letters regarding missed deadlines to be a part of the file, as she wanted to give the assistant principals the opportunity to correct the behavior.
During the hearing, White testified that petitioner had met Goals B and C, but had not met Goals A and D. In reference to Goal D, White testified that petitioner's goal was to have 85% of the parents state that they were satisfied with the level of communication from the school. White responded that petitioner did not provide her with the information on how he would meet Goal D.
White conceded that, with respect to any requests for outstanding documents, petitioner did submit the documents to her. White explained that she still believes that this is considered a dereliction of duties, even though petitioner did comply and it was not a willful refusal to follow through on an assignment.
White concluded by stating that she stands by the U rating. "[Petitioner] contributed in no way to the progress of this school, and therefore, he should be rated unsatisfactorily, he was, and this rating should be sustained." Petitioner's exhibit B at 17.


Pursuant to a letter dated March 15, 2016, petitioner was notified by the Chancellor's designee that the appeal of his U rating was denied and "the said rating is sustained as a consequence of poor performance." DOE's exhibit 11.
Petitioner then commenced this article 78 proceeding.[FN2]
Petitioner argues that basing a U rating on Goal A, which was improving standardized math test scores, is arbitrary and capricious. First, the results of the scores were not known until six weeks after White gave the U rating, so it would be impossible for White to find out whether petitioner had or had not been meeting his goals for improving test scores. Second, according to petitioner, in December 2015, the State Board of Regents adopted a four-year moratorium barring the use of common core test results in teachers' performance ratings. Petitioner's exhibit I. Petitioner claims that his U rating, "which penalized him for Common Core test results, is contrary to the Regents' ban, and violates Petitioner's rights." Adler amended affirmation, ¶ 15.Petitioner contends that his U rating was arbitrary, as White "cherry picked" a number of criteria to form her opinion and that petitioner's performance of multiple daily tasks was not mentioned in the evaluation. Moreover, according to petitioner, performance reviews should list both positive and negative assets. White's evaluation contained no positive feedback, leading petitioner to believe that it was pretextual and subjective. Petitioner claims that he had received eight satisfactory ratings prior to this U rating and that he should have also received a satisfactory rating for 2014-2015.
Petitioner further argues that the U rating should be annulled because there were procedural deficiencies with the rating process. For example, contrary to the rules set forth in petitioner's handbook, petitioner was given the U rating on the last day of the school year. In addition, the letters to file, allegedly demonstrating petitioner's failure to comply with deadlines, did not meet the criteria for letters to file. As a result, according to petitioner, these letters should not have been included in his personnel file or been provided at the hearing.
Petitioner alleges that, between the mid-year review and the final U rating, he was not informed of any continued deficiencies or provided with any appropriate professional [*4]development to remedy these deficiencies. According to petitioner, White did not provide him with any negative or positive feedback during this time.
The DOE does not address many of petitioner's contentions.[FN3] In support of its answer, the DOE provides an affidavit from White. White states that, "[i]n addition to not meeting two of his four goals, Petitioner failed to meet several key deadlines that he was responsible for, was at times insubordinate, had to constantly be reminded to perform job duties, and in general repeatedly performed tasks hastily and displayed an apathetic attitude as to whether my directives were carried out." White aff, ¶ 16.
White then provides examples of petitioner's deficiencies, including, among others, failing to properly monitor hallways between class periods and ensure that they were clean and failing to make sure bulletin boards had student work posted. She states, "[w]hile I only drafted a few disciplinary letters, I kept copious contemporaneous notes on which this affidavit is based." Id.
White further claims that she met with petitioner 18 times and, during these meetings, provided him with professional development.
The DOE alleges that, in sum, petitioner met Goals B and C, but failed to meet Goals A and D. In addition, petitioner repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and follow through on directives.
The DOE contends that the petition fails to state a cause of action because petitioner "concedes that he failed to follow directives and meet deadlines, but purports that they were unreasonable." DOE's memo of law at 1. For instance, the DOE argues that, even assuming Goal A was impossible to meet because it was based on test scores that came out after the evaluation period was over, it was petitioner who created that goal at the beginning of the year. Therefore, according to the DOE, "if petitioner created a goal which was incapable of being completed, such failure is self-inflicted." Id. at 5.


DISCUSSION


Consistent with judicial reviews of administrative agency determinations, judicial review of the U rating questions whether the U rating was "arbitrary and capricious or made in bad faith." Matter of Gutman v City of New York, 134 AD3d 547, 547 (1st Dept 2015); see also Matter of Rieser v New York City Dept. of Educ., 133 AD3d 465, 466 (1st Dept 2015) (Petitioner failed to show his U rating was arbitrary and capricious); CPLR 7803 (3). An agency's decision is considered arbitrary if it is "without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts." Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 (1974). Once a court finds a rational basis for the agency's determination, its review ends. Matter of Hughes v Doherty, 5 NY3d 100, 107 (2005).
According to the DOE, the U rating is rational because petitioner failed to meet two of his four goals, he failed to complete tasks in a timely manner and he had other documented failures. In Goal A, improving test performance, petitioner was rated as not meeting the standard, even though the test results were not available until after the rating was given. The DOE blames petitioner for setting goals that could not be attained during the year. Nonetheless, the court finds that there is no rational basis for White to issue a U rating based on data that was not yet available.
Goal D, as explained in the facts, related to communications between parents and the school. Petitioner claims that he was supposed to increase communication with the parents and also monitor attendance at the PTA meetings. The parties disagree on petitioner's responsibilities with respect to Goal D and creating an actual survey for the parents. In any event, petitioner was faulted in his end-of-the-year evaluation for the decline in attendance at PTA meetings.
As parental compliance in attending PTA meetings was outside the scope of petitioner's goals, it was not rational for White to include this in the evaluation. Moreover, it is unreasonable to fault petitioner for something that is out of his control.
In addition to not meeting two of his goals, the DOE maintains that petitioner's U rating is supported by documented failures. White states that, for example, petitioner did not ensure that the hallways were properly monitored between class periods. White claims that, although she did not draft any disciplinary letters, she took copious notes, on which she based her affidavit. These incidents, as well as the others provided, are not a part of the record in support of the U rating that was presented to petitioner or the hearing officer. It is well settled that "[j]udicial review of administrative determinations is confined to the facts and record adduced before the agency [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]." Matter of Rizzo v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 6 NY3d 104, 110 (2005). As a result, the court will not consider any allegations by White or the DOE that were not a part of the U rating and record in front of the OAR hearing officer.
As set forth below, inconsistencies in the way petitioner was rated also contribute to the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the rating. At the beginning of the school year, during performance planning, petitioner created four goals to achieve during the year. During the mid-year review, these goals were addressed in relation to petitioner's performance and possible U rating with respect to not meeting these goals. However, at the end of the year, in support of the U rating, among other things, White presented four letters regarding missed deadlines or not following directives. Then, during the hearing, she added an additional criterion that, as petitioner in no way contributed to the progress of the school, he should be rated unsatisfactorily. Finally, in support of the answer, the DOE attempts to justify the U rating based on events not in the record. See e.g. Matter of Beriguete v New York Dept. of Educ., 2016 WL 3963259, *6-*7, 2016 NY Misc LEXIS 2708, *20-21, 2016 NY Slip Op 26229 (Sup Ct, NY County 2016) ("All told, [White's] conduct brings into question the objectivity of [her] ratings and evaluations of petitioner and whether [she] attempted in good faith to put petitioner on notice of his deficiencies and give him a chance to address them").
"It is well settled that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board or body it reviews unless the decision under review is arbitrary and unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]." Matter of Arrocha v Board of Educ. of City of NY, 93 NY2d 361, 363 (1999). Applying the law to the facts of this case, as explained above, the DOE's decision to sustain a U rating based on the record as presented lacks a rational basis and should be annulled.
Although the U rating can be annulled for lacking a rational basis, there are actually additional procedural deficiencies, as explained below. Petitioner claims that he was not provided with any positive or negative feedback between his mid-year and final evaluation. White testified that she gave petitioner regular feedback during meetings throughout the school year. The DOE argues that these alleged meetings provided petitioner with strategies on how to improve his performance, yet petitioner did not implement these strategies.
The record does not support the DOE's contentions. There is no indication that petitioner received formal meetings with White, professional development to address deficiencies, or that she provided written evaluations discussing petitioner's performance. For instance, although petitioner was advised that White would be returning in two weeks from the date of her walk- through to complete another assessment, there is no indication that this was ever done or that he received professional support.
Accordingly, the U rating can also be annulled on the basis that petitioner was not aware that he was in danger of receiving a U rating and that he was not given adequate professional development. As in Matter of Taylor v City of New York (139 AD3d 430, 433 [1st Dept 2016]), "[t]he record demonstrates deficiencies in the performance review process resulting in petitioner's unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for the [2014-2015] school year that were not merely technical but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." The Court in Matter of Taylor found that the U rating should be annulled because there was a lack of remediation after February and a long delay in providing feedback. The Court held, among other things, that the petitioner was "not given an opportunity to remedy the alleged defects and implement the multiple recommendations." Id. at 434; see also Matter of Murray v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of NY, 131 AD3d 861, 865 (1st Dept 2015) (U rating annulled when, among other things, there was "no evidence that petitioner was notified before the end of the school year in June 2011 that her work was considered unsatisfactory").
Petitioner alleges that the letters regarding missed deadlines were incorrectly placed in his file, contrary to DOE policy. In addition, petitioner received the U rating outside the time-frame provided in his handbook. A procedural deficiency is not trivial and may render a U rating arbitrary and capricious. Despite this, the DOE fails to address these claimed irregularities. See e.g. Matter of Applewhite v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of NY, 115 AD3d 427, 427 (1st Dept 2014) (Court annulled a U rating when respondents violated their own rules, procedures and guidelines by placing certain disciplinary letters in petitioner's file).


CONCLUSION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is granted and David Possner's 2014-2015 end-of-year U rating is vacated and annulled; and it is further
ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the New York City Department of Education for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.


Dated: September 1, 2016


ENTER:


________________________


KATHRYN E. FREED, J.S.C.
Footnotes

Footnote 1: Formally, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York.

Footnote 2: Petitioner originally filed this article 78 after the appeal hearing had been held, but prior to the outcome. The DOE cross-moved to dismiss, based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. After the outcome of the administrative appeal, the parties stipulated that petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies and he then filed an amended petition, which is the subject of these proceedings.

Footnote 3: For example, the DOE does not dispute that petitioner received his U rating on June 26, 2015 nor does it address whether or not the letters complied with the criteria set forth in the collective bargaining agreement.

↧
↧

MS 226 Rushell White is the Worst Principal in New York City and a Liability For the NYC Department of Education

October 16, 2016, 9:31 am
$
0
0
ALERT: On Friday October 14, 2016, at about 9:00AM, MS 226 AP of Special Education James Randall asked a teacher in his office, Room 213,  if she felt unusually warm. He walked to the office window to open it, and fell to the floor, unconscious. The teacher called 911 and  the main office.

AT NO TIME did MS 226 Principal Rushell White call a "CODE BLUE" for AP Randall, who is currently in the hospital. See AED/CPR Program

Rushell White's actions in this matter are reprehensible and will be reported to the proper authorities.

Our prayers and get well wishes go to Mr. Randall and his family.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com

Rushell White is also a liability for the Principals' Union CSA, which inexplicably appointed her to their Executive Board in March-April 2015, while being sued and investigated. You will see below that CSA reps never assisted AP David Possner (pictured below) in getting his rights honored by MS 226 Principal Rushell White.

MS 226 AP David Possner
Why oh why, Ernest?

The Principals'/Supervisors'/APs' Union, CSA, Protects Its' Own - If You Play The Game Right


re-posted from Parentadvocates.org:

New York City MS 226 Principal Rushell White is the Worst Principal in The City by Betsy Combier 
Rushell White does not support her staff, she targets people for no reason, changes grades of students to make her school look good to the public, accepts money without being held accountable for where it is being spent, and ignores the safety rules to bully her staff into doing what she says no matter what the consequences for the students and employees. For example, Ms. White ordered her AP to do an observation of a teacher, and during this observation, with a full class of students in the classroom, the fire alarm went off. As the AP was afraid of Ms. White and what White would do if the observation was not finished, the AP would not allow anyone, the teacher or the students, to leave the room, saying it was simply a drill. The teacher frantically sent emails out begging someone to come and help her, all in vain. In fact, it was a real fire alarm and there was a real fire.



Rushell White does not support her staff, she targets people for no reason, changes grades of students to make her school look good to the public, accepts money without being held accountable for where it is being spent, and ignores the safety rules to bully her staff into doing what she says no matter what the consequences for the students and employees. For example, Ms. White ordered her AP to do an observation of a teacher, and during this observation, with a full class of students in the classroom, the fire alarm went off. As the AP was afraid of Ms. White and what White would do if the observation was not finished, the AP would not allow anyone, the teacher or the students, to leave the room, saying it was simply a drill. The teacher frantically sent emails out begging someone to come and help her, all in vain. In fact, it was a real fire alarm and there was a real fire.

We know how this process works/does not work. See the article I wrote about the Rubber Room process and Gotcha Squad, based upon a case I helped teacher David Suker appeal and win in the NY State Supreme Court:

The New York City Rubber Room Anti-Teacher Charging Process Shows How Corrupt the Carmen Farina-Bill De Blasio Department of Education Really Is. by Betsy Combier

However Principal White's harassment of AP David Possner is particularly obscene. But, I was lucky to be hired by David to work with stellar Attorney Roger Adler, and Roger won David's Article 78 lawsuit in which he argued for the overturning of his unsatisfactory rating in 2014-2015.

Judge Freed agreed, and her decision is right on the money.

David's AFFIDAVIT (Federal Court Complaint)

When David recommended that I assist a teacher in his school at her 3020-a arbitration hearing, I agreed, and we used David Possner's information about Rushell White, her statements to her staff and students, to win the case.

MS 226 Principal Rushell White Key Words: Making the School Look Good Through Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment

NYC Rubber Room Reporter, 7/17/16, by Betsy Combier, Editor

Thanks to former and present educators at the school, some of whom must remain nameless for the time being, and all those former staff members at MS 226 - Zev Angelou, Paul March, Claudia Bethea, Francine Davis, and to the two teachers who hired me to be the paralegal for their 3020-a cases, thank you.

I was fortunate enough to have been hired as a paralegal by several teachers as well as the Assistant Principal, David Possner, in their search for justice after Rushell White targeted them without justification.



MS 226 AP David Possner (pictured at left)


I am fascinated by this story because I see deliberate and reckless harassment of the staff and employees at her school, MS 226 in Queens, NY; verbal abuse; unfair labor and employment practices; and just plain unethical behavior by New York City's worst principal, Rushell White. Teachers and Assistant Principals at the school currently or in the past are talking about Ms. White in terms of being a "pathological liar", that she "hates jews", is "vindictive", a "bully", and a person unaccountable to anyone for her actions and knows she can get away with it. In 2015 the Council of Supervisors and Administrators (CSA) shocked NYC educators and policy makers - who were and are aware of her antics - by appointing Rushell White to their Executive Board. This was clearly a politically motivated appointment which screamed inappropriateness, especially since Rushell White has been named in three lawsuits: Jane Seidemann, David Possner, and Mary Harris. There are more to come.

Rushell White is a liability for the New York City Department of Education, and they should immediately suspend her and charge her with discrimination, fraud, and endangering the health, safety and welfare of the teaching staff and children at MS 226. The NYC DOE Office of Legal Affairs then would have a precedent setting case where staff members of MS 226 who have been wrongfully attacked by Rushell White would testify against her. I would like to watch that hearing.

The money

Students have reported seeing her coming out of a building early in the morning with Ruben Wills, a District 28 Council Member - who is married to someone else, his wife Marcia.

MS 226 Principal Rushell White Key Words: Checks From Ruben Wills

Money is flowing into MS226 (District 27) from New York City Councilman Ruben Wills. Where is this money coming from and where is it being used? Councilmember Wills was indicted for grand larceny and fraud in 2014, and has given Rushell more than $1 million for her school.

Why is JHS 226 Principal Rushell White Still in Her Position Despite Documented Wrong-Doing? (March 19, 2016)

I am completely shocked by the arrogance of immunity I have seen from Rushell White and her cloned, dedicated-to-her-dominance APs, minus one, David Possner. David has bravely stood up against her abuseand harassment of staff, and welcomed the media who can, and have published, the acts of abuse of students and discrimination which will, I guarantee, will be the undoing of Rushell White:

MS 226 Principal Rushell White Key Words: Making the School Look Good Through Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment

Queens principal greets visitors with checks from disgraced pol

DOE Investigating Claims of Abuse at JHS 226: Report

The harassment by Rushell White of staff and students, ignoring Student Safety and Welfare

Principal White wants to create the most hostile workplace she can, to teach her opponents a lesson: you could be next if you oppose me in any way.

Former chapter leader Zev Angelou was subpoenaed to testify at the 3020-a of teacher Clairesa Clay (who hired me to be the paralegal at her 3020-a hearing), and he blew away everyone with his credible, strong, and truthful testimony about the "real" Rushell White. His description of her included words such as "bully" and "pathological liar"

MS 226 Principal Rushell White Calls Assistant Principal David Possner a "Bad Jew" (Nov. 8, 2015)

DOE Investigating Claims of Abuse at JHS 226: Report

Rushell White called MS 226 Assistant Principal David Possner "a bad jew". Is this not reason to remove her from the school? Or, to allow David a transfer from the school? No and No, according to CSA and the DOE.

EXCLUSIVE: School painting that shows Queens principal as Hindu goddess sparks outrage

EXCLUSIVE: Queens school staff want principal booted for bias toward older teacher, Hindu goddess portrait

Queens school staffers want principal removed over Hindu goddess mural

Ms. White, we know now, orders her subordinates to observe her teachers and rate them "Developing" or "Ineffective" (basically the same thing) no matter what the teacher does in the classroom. The ratings given for the observations - which are 95% of the 60% of the HEDI - determine your end of year APPR, and under Rushell White's control, all ratings are not truthful and not based on the performance or merits of the teaching. Rushell tells her APs to rate her staff according to whether or not she likes the person or not. And, if you dare to challenge Rushell White, you know that you will pay dearly for the insubordination.

Rushell White has, so far, been "getting away with" many actions against staff and students:

Queens school being investigated for alleged abuse against students


Queens school eyed for cheating on state exams

The fire incident on June 6, 2014.


Outside of a classroom on June 6, 2014, AP David Possner put out a real fire (see picture, above). The entire school was evacuated except for one classroom. The fire department showed up, the fire alarms had gone off, but AP Jennifer Shirley had been told by Rushell White to do an observation, so Ms. Shirley ignored the alarm, and refused to allow the teacher or the children to leave the classroom. Shirley told everyone that she was so afraid of what could happen to her later if Ms. White found out she had not finished the observation, that she forced all the students and the teacher to continue, as if there were no alarms going off. Shirley told everyone to sit back down during the fire drill. She finished the observation after she turned off her walkie-talkie. They all found out later that there had been a real fire. The teacher sent text messages to the staff asking why she was not allowed to leave.

 Notes on Jennifer Shirley sent to me from staff:

Forging Data: I have been informed that Ms. Shirley has not legitimately uploaded data all year and that she requested assistance from Mr. Randall and Mr. Possner in January to help her input false data. In the January faculty Monday meeting, Ms. Shirley handed us all data. This was the first diagnostic data that I could not retrieve on my own.

 Negligence: At the end of the 2013/2014 school year, Ms. Shirley stated to Ms. Mele (ELL teacher) that she was running behind on observations so she had to complete hers immediately. During the 8th period on June 6th, she performed the observation. During the period, there was a fire drill. Ms. Shirley told Ms. Mele and the students that it was not a scheduled fire drill and she needed to complete the observation, so everyone should must sit back down. Ms. Mele informed me that Ms. Shirley proceeded to turn off her radio and she kept them in the classroom for the remainder of the period. The fire alarm was not a drill, it was, in fact, the result of an actual fire on the 4th floor. Ms. Mele received a text message from Ms. Skoros asking her whereabouts during the evacuation. Ms. Mele replied that Ms. Shirley turned off her radio and ordered them to stay in the room. She put the students’ and teacher’s lives in danger. As a mandated reporter, I made a formal complaint to Ms. White, when I learned of this situation. Ms. White, who is also a mandated reporter, acknowledged my “formal complaint” and said, “ok, let’s see what happens.” Once again, the administration chose not to investigate. Ms. Mele has a copy of this observation.

Ms. Mele was a fine teacher at MS 226. She received frequent letters of commendation, was invited to celebratory dinners as an acknowledgment of great work, she worked long hours, raised ELL scores and was complimented by the administration, and she was told by Ms. White that her tenure was “not going to be a problem” (2013/2014 was her tenure year).

After the fire drill observation, Ms. Mele’s paperwork was ironically handed in late and she would have to defer her tenure. She sought union help and emailed Ms. White requesting documentation. Her emails were repeatedly ignored and Ms. White called her to the office and expressed that she was disappointed about the tone of the emails. As per Ms. Mele, Ms. White threatened to discontinue her and she eventually excessed her – all after the fire incident. Such unexplained situations, such as the excessing of a previously adored teacher have frightened the newer teachers. They used this and many examples as to why they don’t report anything. They are afraid for their jobs. One new teacher said, “If they can do that to such an amazing teacher, what would they do to me?”

 Abuse:On 2.11.15, ZW (a special ed. student) was in the cafeteria, which I believe was not his scheduled lunch period. I witnessed Ms. Shirley slam her hand into his chest sending him backwards and then pulling him in, she then proceeded to drag him through the exit doors and through the hallway by room 111 and up that adjoining corridor. Z was saying, “let me go, you can’t do this, let me go, I’m leaving, let me go”. Shirley stated, “I am taking what is mine.” Z replied, “let me go, I am walking with you, you can’t do this”. Shirley repeatedly yelled, “what are you going to do about it?!”

Ms. Shirley refused repeated requests to give subgroup growth data from the previous year to the MOSL Committee. She has been late or absent to every meeting that she arranged, without explanation, wasting our valuable time while we sat and waited for her. As the deadline approached and we were unable to complete the analysis of the data (due to her absences), she advised that we needed to stay late and finish, without pay. I repeatedly expressed concerns that we were making an uneducated decision regarding the subgroup without the previous year’s data.

On one of the above mentioned meeting days that Ms. Shirley missed (which she had scheduled), I asked her if she was able to get the data we needed and she defensively yelled at me, “What were you supposed to remember??” and then she walked out. Ms. Gina Posy and Ms. Melissa Priester overheard this interaction.

When Shirley asked us to stay late in order to work on the data analysis, I went to her office and privately requested that she keep to the meeting time that she planned: 2:30-3:30pm. The members of the committee were becoming frustrated about all of the wasted time, therefore, as their union rep I felt obligated to relay that to her. She agreed with me and left her office. Once again, as we sat and waited, Ms. Shirley arrived to the meeting at 3:10. At 3:40, I began to look at my watch, and she commented in front of the members of the committee, “What kind of a man watches the time like that?!”. I was very embarrassed and left the meeting. I informed Ms. White of the verbal abuse who assured me that she spoke with her and that it will not happen again. I was shocked by the unprofessional behavior of my supervisor and I was surprised that she was not formally investigated and substantiated.

Lateness: Ms. Shirley is frequently late and has evidently not been docked for her time (theft of service?). There are a number of dates and times that can be verified by the school cameras.


Ms. Cohen (Assistant Principal hired by Principal White):

1 On a number of occasions, students and teachers have informed me that Ms. Cohen has been threatening students with EDPs (hospitalizations) when students weren’t listening or were late to class, in addition to calling ACS if their parents didn’t come up to school. I reported this to Ms. White and I was told that students should get to class on time and she laughed, “Whatever it takes”. She did not investigate this verbal abuse against the students.

2 In November 2014, I witnessed Ms. Cohen on the second floor hallway grab and pull Zabedee Williams, a special education student. She yelled, “stop stupid. You better listen to me or I’ll EDP you.” Zabedee told her, “I just want to get to class”. He eventually pulled himself loose. (This is probably on camera)

3 A few weeks after the above incident, I witnessed Ms. Cohen grab and pull this same student. When she saw me, she immediately released him. I have never witnessed violent or disrespectful behavior from this student. His teacher, Ms. Thorn, and his dean, Mr. Batista, confirmed this.

4 At the end of 2014, Mr. Leiberman, Ms. Brach, and Mrs. Reid informed me that Ms. Cohen was yelling at a group of students that were congregating by the gym. As she passed them she threatened, “it’s hospital day, its hospital day!!”

Ms. Julia Adams (Special Education Assistant Principal, head of security and discipline)

I have constantly heard Ms. Adams threaten (most recently during a consultation committee) that she will call the medics to take a student out if he misbehaves. Also she has said to the team (SLT) to send him to her and she will “rope him up. "Threats, such as these are used as discipline in our school, and in some cases carried out. One of my students, Anthony Suhkdeo, was believed to be smoking marijuana and the medics were called to take him to the hospital. This method has been used on other students, most recently Austin P.(Special Ed. student). Ms. Adams called EMS on Austin twice this year. The first time, I witnessed the event. Austin was pacing in the corridor, visibly upset, but not acting any differently than I have seen other students act when upset. He was yelling, “don’t touch me”, but was not being aggressive to anyone, nor was he vandalizing property. He posed no physical threat to himself or the security agents around him. He was just pacing. Suddenly, approximately 4 agents grabbed him and dragged him into an office. They called EMS, who came and walked him to the ambulance, where I was told he was released on his own. Ms. Adams called EMS on Austin again on 2.24.15. I was walking by the 313 office where I saw Austin calmly sitting down. Mr. Steele, Mr. Possner, EMS, and at least two police officers were there as well. I have sadly witnessed an abundance of abuse against a number of students by administrators hired by Ms. White. I was concerned to see they were hospitalizing Austin once again. Mr. Steele was once a vendor and is now the head of the SAVE room, but has no teaching credentials. This is clearly against the Chancellors Regulations which states you need a certified teacher in this capacity. After Austin was taken out of the school, I went back to the office to discuss the situation with Ms. Adams as she was having a discussion with two other students who she claimed had been influencing Austin. She told the students that they should be careful, as they know Austin has psychological issues. It was inappropriate that Ms. Adams was discussing another child’s private information. As Special Education teachers, we are taught never to give that kind of information out, especially not to share personal information with other students.

Ms. Adams used this method of discipline on ZW in October of 2015. I was told by Ms. Bethea that Ms. Adams did not like that Z refused to listen to her and so she called EMS to come get him. Ms. Bethea informed me that the Level 3 agent ( I do not know her name, the head security agent), told her that Ms. Adams informed EMS that she had an out of control student who was throwing chairs and desks. The agent said that Ms. Adams was falsely reporting this information. Z was reportedly never in a classroom and was not throwing chairs and desks. EMS came and refused to take him, which angered Ms. Adams. She argued with the EMS agent, declaring that she knows an out of control child when she sees one. As I stated earlier, I asked Z’s Dean, teacher and safety agents if they ever saw him out of control, and they all said that they have not. I have also never seen Z out of control.

Mr. Possner informed me that Ms. Adams called Z "retarded." He told me that he said, “you probably shouldn’t be calling students retarded” to which she then replied, “if they act retarded, I call them retarded." This is a special ed. student. I sincerely doubt, that DASA promotes this method of dealing with a child with Special needs.

During the second week of school, I was in 313, where I witnessed Ms. Adams call two students into the office. She started yelling at them and when they tried to leave the office she smacked one boy in the side of his head and face as he ran out. The second boy (TW) tried to get by quickly, but she smacked him, too. He fell and she punched him in the forearm and chest approx. 5 times. Ms. Rosado (security) was present. She was hitting him quite hard. I was shocked, and I am ashamed that I did not intervene quicker.

Ms. Brach reported to me that when the students gathered in the auditorium for the trip to Club Getaway, she saw Ms. Adams grab TR by the back of the hood and pull him out of his seat. He was just sitting and did not pose a physical threat.

Ms. Adams, on 12.09.14 was managing the 4th period cafeteria. As I walked through, I witnessed an interaction between her and a student, TatW , a student with special needs, who seemed to be quite upset. As Adams yelled at her via the microphone, telling her to sit down, the girl quietly muttered, “fuck you”. Ms. Adams repeated it back, “fuck you!”. The girl then replied, “your mother.” Ms. Adams answered, into the microphone, “no, fuck your mother.”

I was recently told by Ms.Bethea (parent coordinator) that students have been complaining to her about the abuse by Ms. Adams. Mss. Bethea told me that she reported these complaints to Ms. White who replied giggling, “you don’t really believe that?” Ms. Bethea then replied, "I am reporting what they told me, it’s not for me to believe or not to believe." The following students are some of the ones who Ms. Bethea informed me about (they have been kicked, hit with keys, or thrown into chairs to be seated): TW, BM, ZB, and A.

Ms. Adams illegally sends students home on suspension where they receive no instruction.

A few weeks ago, as I was in the computer lab doorway, I saw Ms. Adams walking towards the exit with a group of students, including DD. As she walked with them, she yelled, “it's ambulance day, it's ambulance day!" I later asked D why she was saying that. He informed me that if a student acts up they will send you to the hospital.

On 2.5.15, I saw a visibly angry TM by the cafeteria doorway. Ms. Adams pushed open the door and started screaming at him, “you got bad breath, you got bad breath!!!”. I overheard TM tell his classmate, “if she was only a man I would punch her in the face."

Principal Ms. Rushell White:

• Although repeatedly informed of verbal and physical abuse by her administrators, Ms. White, who is a mandated reporter, has consistently failed to report or investigate her handpicked administrators.

• Ms. White hides suspensions either by not doing them or by illegally suspending students. She sends them home without instruction and does not record the suspension into ORS.

• Mr. Possner informed me that during a fight outside the building last year, he was attacked and rendered unconscious. He told me there was no investigation and no report conducted into this assault. He also informed me that he never received one phone call by the Administration to see if he was ok.

• Ms. White is making teachers who chose early morning duty, come in early without compensation. This is not only breaking the contract, this is illegal. Early morning duty is routinely given preference to senior staff who wish to come in early and be compensated with early dismissal. I brought this up to Ms. White at our Consultation Committee and she replied, “we expect more". She wanted to know who was complaining, but I told her I could not tell her. I gave her the option to start paying them or begin giving time compensation. She said if someone comes to her with an emergency she will consider it, but that she wasn’t going to reschedule programs this late into the year.

• Last year, MS 226 was once again in the news during Ms. White’s tenure here. This particular time, it was because she hired Mr. Avron Pierre, a substitute, to monitor the SAVE room in the trailer outside. She had Assistant Principal Adams bring 40-60 students a day to the trailer (all at the same time), despite it only having 12 desks and chairs. This is illegal, as there was no ability to give instruction in that setting, and more frighteningly, it clearly endangered the children, putting them in harm's way. When I returned to the school after an educational sabbatical last year, Mr. Possner and Mr. Randall expressed their distress and concern as to the welfare and safety of those children. Mr. Pierre also told me that they relayed these same feelings previously to him. Sign in sheets are on record showing how many students were brought to the trailer. Mr. Pierre was not given a lunch period nor a prep, although he repeatedly requested them. He was given the answer “we are trying to work it out." When the news came to light on the television, Ms. White charged him with verbal abuse and claimed that he was unable to manage a classroom. As a substitute, he was no longer able to work and earn a living until the charges were cleared, which they eventually were. The victory by Mr. Pierre proves that an inordinate amount of students were placed in an extremely dangerous environment. This situation was only stopped after a student’s father had his son record the chaotic room. Ms. White had knowingly sacrificed the children’s safety and welfare, as she had been to the trailers and witnessed the dangerous conditions. I am curious about the outcome of the findings in the investigation conducted on this matter, assuming that there was one.

• At Mr. Pierre’s hearing, regarding the lack of lunch periods he was given, Mr. Pierre informed me that Ms. White provided a false letter written by Ms. Brach supporting the claim that she took the students to the gym every day, enabling him to have a lunch. He called me after his hearing extremely upset that Ms. Brach would lie for the administration. Ms. Brach informed me she did not write such things, and then gave me the letter she did write. I sent that to Mr. Pierre, he told me that the letter Ms. White had put forward was not the same as the actual letter that Ms. Brach had written.

• Mr. Merganthaler, our last Union Leader suffered under Ms. White, after he reported to the previous Superintendent that Ms. White had attempted to coerce the staff to cheat on the high stakes exams. In addition to the fact that in her first year as Principal, she ran up a large deficit in her budget she owed this money to the different union members in MS 226. Ms. White and Mr. Ruben Wills used their influence to make Mr. Merganthaler the scapegoat using Mr. Wills’ influence on NY1, stating that this was all the making of one “rogue union leader." In fact there were many people calling 311 and making complaints. The “Network” came in and paid the debts, I am wondering if our school had to repay those debts and took additional resources away from our school and our students? She then continued her attack on Mr. Merganthaler by rating him “unsatisfactory” and sending him for a psychological evaluation which was not upheld. She has done this to several staff members, which is another method of putting fear into staff members. This toxic atmosphere has caused our staff, teachers, paras, and administrators to hesitate or to refrain from reporting events that they otherwise knew that needed to be reported. Our children are put in harm’s way and placed in an unsafe environment today Because this was such an obvious act of vengeance and an infraction of the “whistle blower” law, Mr. Merganthaler ended up prevailing and has been placed in another school collecting over a hundred thousand dollars a year for the last three plus years, and all that time being on Ms. White’s budget. I am now becoming a victim of being a “whistleblower” after informing Ms. White of her administrations incorrigible behavior. I have recently been in discussions with several attorneys who have a variety of specialties that I expect to be in need of very shortly.

Hostile Working Environment

Our school is a depressing and scary place to work. Over 90% of the staff would want to transfer if given the chance. This includes almost 100% of the youngest, untenured teachers that Ms. White has personally hired. Over 51 staff members have left in the last five years, with many more failing in their attempts. Some that have been able to obtain employment in the collocated schools in this very building. This has been documented that in a survey that I gave the staff.

• On October 24th, I was on my way to report to a disciplinary hearing for myself with Ms. Jennifer Shirley, in which Mr. Tabeo Decruz was representing me. On my way up, there was a fight that started on the top of the stairwell where I was. I was punched in the back, ribs and head multiple times. One of the boys fled quickly but I saw the other very well. When I arrived to Ms. Shirley’s office I informed her of the incident, explaining that I was hurt. She said she would investigate. I then told her, please get me the names of the boys that did this so I could write a statement. She said she would. After the meeting, since the boy was from the second floor I also informed Ms. Cohen, in addition to Ms. Adams (head of safety and discipline). I also asked them to get me their names so I could write my statement. They both said they would take care of it, which ultimately, they never did. I was never asked for my statement, and never questioned. I found the boy about a month later and he informed me that not only was he not suspended but that a phone call was not even made to his house.

• Ms. Lefkowitz, a first year ICT teacher that has been left on and off without a coteacher, was threatened by Anthony Suhdeo, a student in her class. He threatened her by saying, "if she was ever in her neighborhood she would be shot and that he is going to slap all these white people."

There was never a suspension. Ms. Lefkowitz has informed me she cannot wait to find employment elsewhere.

• Hiding suspensions, not suspending (in order to keep the school appearing to have no disciplinary issues), putting kids in harm’s way when she placed over 40 kids a day into the one room trailer with 12 desks and chairs! Constant fear of reprisal if you are to speak out in defense of the children or yourself. Being forced to work longer hours than contractually obligated without pay or time compensation. Teachers are afraid to report the atrocious behavior by this admin due to the fear and vengeful tactics used against teachers in the past.

Our contract does not include anything on attire, however Ms. White has made it clear that she wants no jeans. Ms. White has also made references to past staff members that they should cover their tattoos. One member who considered this an artistic expression was very offended by this.

On one occasion, Gina Posy and I were standing by the auditorium doors by the building exit and main safety agent desk. Ms. White saw my jeans and stated, "you are in defiance of the administration" and made a motion with her hands that I would be written up.

On another occasion, Ms. White said, "look at you, you're supposed to be a model for the rest of the staff. You're dressed like garbage. Do I have to buy you clothes." This was very insulting and demeaning. I do not have the finances to buy a new wardrobe."

She once bought me a tie, telling me that she has never gone into a mall and purchased something for someone and not for herself. This was a first for her, she said, making me feel even worse. She had asked me to come to her office at the end of the day on a Friday. Unfortunately, by the end of the day I had forgotten. When I returned home I ran into her on the third floor. While Ms.Kellman was present Ms. White leaned from around the 349 complex doors and said, "I am feeling a certain way." At first I didn't understand. She then repeated, "you are making me feel a certain way" while staring at me. It was an extremely uncomfortable moment. The gift was a very nice pink tie.

Today I along with a few other colleagues had been wearing jeans. Mr. Randall had stated that Ms. White sent out a text. I am paraphrasing, but here is what it basically stated:

“To all AP's,

• Did anyone create a memo that it's dress down Friday? It's against our school policy to wear jeans. Please remind your floor staff.

• Sincerely,

Your Rating Officer”

Mr. Possner later told me that I was not appropriately dressed for work. I was wearing black dress shoes, dark jeans, and a maroon button down shirt. Mr. Randall disrupted a lesson too and asked Mrs. Whyte and Ms. Gutwirth to come to the hallway. He said to them that he was very sorry and that he had never done this before in his career; but that he was going to have to report them to the principal for wearing inappropriate attire for work. We are constantly hounded to use bell to bell instruction, so that nothing should interrupt a lesson and we were given an example of how losing 1 minute of a lesson during a school year could the impact a student's growth. We are not allowed to have students pack up even 30 seconds before the final bell, even though there is only 2 minutes for passing. This makes it almost impossible to pack up and get to class on time; in a controlled fashion. Mrs. Whyte and Ms. Gutwirth both thought Mr. Randall was joking, but he clarified that he indeed was serious. He also went to Porche Stevens' room, where he found her sitting behind her desk. He requested she stand to view her lower attire. He then asked if that denim she was wearing was jeans or a skirt? It was a skirt. Porche told me it was extremely embarrassing and uncomfortable.

Antisemitism:

*Toder: While Ms. Toder was Dean of MS 226, I was constantly told of how she was doing a great job by Ms. White. Unfortunately, there was an incident that involved another Dean, Ms. Juanita Grayson. Ms. Grayson was buying food for a few of the staff members and asked what they wanted. When Ms. Bonnie Toder stated that she couldn’t eat fried food, Ms. Grayson blew up at her and yelled “what do you want Kosher?!” Ms. Toder expressed to me her humiliation, and that the other dean, Mr. Edward Merganthaler who was there was also extremely upset. I went to Ms. White and told her what happened and said she would investigate. This was a verbal abuse case, which was never investigated, both Ms. Toder and Mr. Merganthaler were never questioned. Subsequently, Ms. Toder lost her job as the dean the following year.


*Assistant Principal, Mr. David Possner: Mr. Possner was upset one day, that he had received texts by Ms. Shirley and Ms. Adams making fun of him being a Jew and being in temple over the weekend. He was also upset by past comments by Ms. Shirley. For example, when she found out he was Jewish, she stated, “you don’t look like a jew." He received texts referring to him being in temple and answering the phone, “you’re a bad Jew" with others texting into a groups message with “LoL." He told me that he felt very uncomfortable and felt like he was the target of ridicule and that the Principal would do nothing about it. I personally have received repeated taunts by Ms. Adams, for example said to me, “you’re on the wrong side of G’d, you better pray if you want to be saved”. Ms. Adams said this to me once in the presence of Mr. Jose Batista, the school dean. She said this right before she started yelling at a child named KA, saying to him, we are calling ACS on your mother!" This was in reference to her not coming up for a meeting. Constant taunts by Adams, “You are on the wrong side of G’d, you better pray, pray for salvation” and another time “Christ will bless you (it was Dec. 23rd), Merry Christmas”. Obviously with me being Jewish, and on top of the past statements made by this admin towards Jews makes me feel very isolated and uncomfortable. This makes me feel like I work in a very hostile environment. During the most recent SLT meetings, Ms. Adams threw a stack of papers into my face when I asked for a copy that I needed to look over. I was completely embarrassed and struggled to put up a front by laughing it off. So many staff members, paras, teachers, assistant principals, think this administration is like nothing they have ever seen and out of control. But, they are afraid to report anything even stand up for themselves. Under this administration, people are so afraid of the ramifications of reporting incidents that everyone has become derelict in their duties in their very important role as a “mandated reporter." For example, most recently in early Feb. a child had a knife that was over 4” long and threw it. A student thankfully blocked it with his book bag. I have been told there was no documentation into OORS or suspension, which can obviously be verified.

Racial discrimination, hiring practices.


• Ms. White arrived to MS 226 with four Assistant Principals, (Ms. Murphy, Mrs. O’dwyer, Mr. Randall, and Mr. Possner. The second year of Ms. White’s tenure, Ms. Murphy retired. Ms. White replaced her with Ms. Jennifer Shirley (African American female, Jamaican), the next AP MS. O’dwyer had received an “unsatisfactory rating." She was very distressed with how the school was being run and how she was being treated. With an “unsatisfactory rating”, she found a position in another school in far Rockaway and has been receiving Satisfactory ratings ever since. Ms. White replaced her with Ms. Julia Adams (African American female, Jamaican), with Ms. Adams had no prior experience, in addition she told me later that she had to vacate the position due to the fact that her certification and paperwork was not completed. Ms. Adams remained in the school under a newly created un-posted position as a “Special Ed. Coach." At least that was what I was told her title was. She was then replaced by Jordan Barnett as the next Assistant Principal. Ms. Barnett (African American female, Jamaican) not only had no prior experience as an AP, she had not one days experience as a teacher. After being upset with how she was being treated and the fact that she did a summer school job for Ms. White and had to grieve the fact that Ms. White would not pay her, she has also left and is now doing well in another school. Ms. Barnett was then replaced by Ms. Cohen (African American female, Jamaican). Ms. Adams has since resumed her career as an AP in our school now that she has her certifications completed. They held her C30 this year. We have more Assistant Principals in this school than any other school in the district that has only 1000 students. Mr. Randall and Mr. Possner have told many people in the building how unhappy they are. That the others get preferential treatment and that they feel they are being targeted by Ms. White so that she can keep her other three Assistant Principals she has hired. To possibly substantiate that claim, Dr. Thomas a long term sub hired by Ms. White and Ms. Claudia Bethea have informed me that Ms. White told them at different times that she will be going after Mr. Possner. Mr. Possner was a possible candidate for the principal position that Ms. White had filled. They both stated to me that they would be willing to testify to that, and write statements to that effect.

• Since Ms. Toder was no longer the Dean, it seems Ms. White needed a new one, and although we have a very diverse group of teachers, who are more than well qualified for the Dean position, Ms. White felt the need to quietly post the position during the summer; thereby excluding the staff from this opportunity. Instead, she elected to go outside our building and hire Ms. Thomas, (African American Female).

• We had a guidance counselor, Ms. Fawn Greenberg, was also unhappy with how she was being treated. She was excessed and later replaced by Ms. _______, (African American female).

• Ms. White has brought in a Science Coach, (un-posted), Ms. _______, (African American female)

• She has since hired last year and this year, an additional para and secretary. Both (African American females)

• The Social Studies Dept. has 7 teachers, 5 African Americans that have been rated anywhere from Effective to Highly Effective. There are two Caucasian teachers, one being myself that have been rated ineffective by Ms. Jennifer Shirley. 5 of the teachers have DoE laptops for their instructional use. All have smart boards, computers, and printers in their classrooms. In addition, all have either a cart of laptops or IPADS for their students. The two Caucasian teachers have no computers/printers for their rooms, no smart boards for their rooms (even though there was a new delivery this year), no DoE laptops for their use, and no IPADS or A cart of LAPTOPS for their students use. In addition, the 5 African American teachers whom I love and respect and are friends of mine, have also been assigned a language arts specialty coach, Ms. Carol Turoff for the last two years. I have just been assigned Ms. Turoff after complaining to Ms. Shirley about the unconscionable disparity in resources she has given out. Mr. March who has two years of “ineffective” ratings has been given nothing and no guidance from Ms. Turoff. He is on the cusp of losing his job, this being his second year of negative ratings, and Ms. Shirley doesn’t see fit to give him the supplies needed to do his job. Some of the teachers in the dept. also have less seniority than Mr. March and I.

Three years ago, Ms. White told us she received three hundred thousand dollars from Mr. Ruben Wills for a new library. The librarian, who was Caucasian, was very excited. This changed after the library was completed, because soon after Ms. White closed the library and placed Mr. Von Hoppe into Ms. Grayson’s class in order to free her up to become a Dean. Mr. Von Hoppe did not have the certification for this class, a class that desperately needed a veteran experienced certified teacher since there were many low functioning children with behavior issues. He was extremely upset and could not control the class. He was now teaching a full schedule. The next year he found a position elsewhere as a librarian, so Ms. White hired MS. Smalls, an African American woman, who only teaches one class a day inside the library. I believe it would be hard to look at the numbers and say there has not been a deliberate effort to choose African Americans, mostly women to fill key positions since Ms. White has taken over.


MS 226 AP Jennifer Shirley-Brown, Principal Rushell White, Paulette

That's how much fear exists at MS226....enough to harm the children and staff.

Then there is a chapter leader, Zev Angelou, who reported Rushell White for causing sixth grade teachers to cheat on the exam.
That was in the newspaper, and Ms. White was very upset about that. So she started giving Mr. Angelou unsatisfactory ratings and writing him up, and it came to a head with the Union and their making a deal where he would be moved to another relocation, because he had three years left before he could retire. The deal was that he could work the rest of his time at the DOE in another school, but he would remain on Ms. White's payroll. He was being harassed by Ms.White too badly for him to stay at MS 226.

In 2013-2014 Rushell White was putting 40-60 students in the SAVE room on a daily basis. Zev testified that as only a substitute teacher was in the room, no one wanted to go in there, it just was not safe. Zev testified about the discipline policy that does not exist:

And she said
"we've had no fights. And I said, Ms. White, I was punched repeatedly in a hallway. How could you say there were no fights? Me personally that you never reported. That was reported to Ms. White, Ms. Cohen, Ms. Shirley, and Ms. Adams. They never reported it.
That was stated at a meeting when I was with my District rep., when I told her I was just punched five times by a student.
Therefore, that student, I found out later on, wasn't in detention. No one ever called home. We had incidents where I had to report to Ms. White. A child just threw a four and a half inch knife at another student. Blocked it with his bag. And that child was never reprimanded. And not only that, the child that almost was killed, they never called his house. All these things are being squashed. All of them. Fights, repeated fights. Violence. Violence against me. Verbal abuse. None of these things are being reported. How can a teacher conduct a classroom confidently and securely if they're feeling like they're not in a hostile environment when there's nothing being done? Again, I have, again, --
[00:01] environment leads to people having problems in the classroom."

In sum, Rushell White is now a liability for the business, the DOE public school system.

She has allowed her personal views to intercede in the work of the business, and the reports on her abusive actions toward her staff are out in the public eye. CSA and the DOE have to wait until all the outrage about the mural subsides, so that they dont have to be embarrassed by their mistake of recently putting Rushell White on the CSA Executive Board. The DOE hates when any event or person makes them look bad. She must go.

David Possner was subpoenaed by the DOE to come in to the 3020-a for my client, a teacher still teaching her regular full schedule, and he was nervous about speaking about Rushell White and her actions. So we gave him a subpoena to come in for us. Thus, he testified twice.
Ian Nikol, center


Then he talked. He also told me about how the DOE attorney in this case, Gotcha Squad member Ian Nikol, one of the most verbally insulting attorneys I have ever heard during my 13 years in 3020-a hearings, arranged for Ms. White and all the APs - including David Possner - to meet together to go over what they would do at the hearing. Ian described me as a blogger, and I should be totally ignored while in the hearing room. He told the group that I knew all about the DOE and everything they do, so watch out. Thanks Ian!!! I am honored by your compliment. 

Ian left the DOE or was fired during the 3020-a hearing, and we were given a new DOE attorney as his replacement. Good luck on your new assignment at the Department of Corrections. We will miss you (I honestly do not mean that).

Zev Angelou, the former chapter leader, came in to testify looking like Harrison Ford in the movie Indiana Jones. He was magnificent, testifying that Rushell White is "a pathological liar" who forces her APs to rate teachers as ineffective for no reason, or their jobs as APs are on the line. Rushell White makes up things as she goes, and is very vindictive. He transferred to another school. His new school is very lucky to have him, in my opinion.

I spoke at length with Francine Davis, a teacher for almost 49 years and who retired in time to save her pristine, stellar record. She told me that Rushell White was desperate to get into the "Principal's Society" at CSA, and told Fran, and several others that Rushell had paid for them to attend an event put on by the CSA for potential nominees. They went, and were stopped at the door where they were told that the $84.00 per person was not paid, and they had to leave. After this, Fran was accused of stealing state tests. AP Jennifer Shirley was in charge of the testing. Fran was found to be not guilty of the charge, but the damage was done. Fran retired.

Claudia Bethea, the parent coordinator, always took her job seriously. She was there for the kids. She paid for prom clothes, and she told the truth. She was fired by Rushell White who knew that Claudia and Fran were friends. Claudia told me that Ms. White said to her:
"You are worthless...Jamaican people [Rushell White is Jamaican] are better than black people...Jamaican people spell better and speak better than black people". [Claudia Bethea is 'black'].

I usually get between 4-9 witnesses to testify for the Respondent, but several people who initially spoke with me backed out from coming to the 3020-a, despite the fact that they were given subpoenas. So, we asked the Arbitrator, Michael Capone, to please stop Rushell White from retaliating against anyone at MS 226 who testified in our case against her.

Then, a few days after David gave his outstanding information about how Rushell treats her staff, he saw that a mural had been painted and placed onto the wall of Ms 226.

MS 226 Assistant Principal David Possner, who has just been awarded the "A For Accountability Award" by my non-profit, E-Accountability Foundation, sued in State Court asking to transfer out after Rushell White Called him a "bad" Jew. Transferring would have been the solution to everyone's problem, hers because she dislikes people who do not do whatever hurtful thing she orders, and his, because he knew that he was doing an excellent job for the school but nothing mattered, as Rushell White could only see her hatred for him.

If a plane suddenly crashed through the roof of the school Rushell White would blame it on David, that's what she does.

As I wrote in a prior post, Rushell White, a member of the CSA Executive Board, has the support of City Council Member Ruben Wills, and believes she is untouchable by anyone who does not like her for any reason. Ruben Wills has his own demons.

Rampaging teens caught on camera AGAIN flooding Queens neighborhood after school

Local business owners say mobs of out of control teens reek havoc everyday after school.

To understand why the Principal's Union (CSA) and the NYC Department of Education (DOE) allow Rushell White and other principals to "get away" with abusive acts you first have to change the definition of what a "good" principal is.

We no longer can call a principal "good" who is warm and fuzzy, treats staff as colleagues, overlooks errors of judgment if no one is harmed, doesn't sweat the small stuff, and values a school environment which is friendly, where life is in balance with the universe. You love going to work in that place.

Those days are over, at least for now.

What the reality is now, is that every employee, no matter how excellent, is a cog in a wheel, a member of the assembly line to get the widgets finished in a timely fashion, any way possible. If an employee misses a day at work, that's not good, but misses a friday and/or monday? Intolerable. While the UFT Collective Bargaining Agreement permits 10 days for absences a year, most principals will find a way to put a letter into your file for taking those 10 days, even if you are in surgery in a hospital. Eleven days? That's "excessive", and 3020-a charges can be filed. The business, they say, has suffered. (A good defense is: "how?""how much?""what are the numbers?"-ed)

Harmed on the job? You dont need LODI (line of duty) relief, you need a replacement. You are damaged goods, and possibly a liability for the business, supposedly educating students. You must be terminated. This is why so many people are observed the first day back and given a "U" or "Ineffective". The business of education cannot wait for you or anyone to become well.

Bereavement? Two days. Five if you are good at arguing for them. Nevertheless, while you are grieving a loss of a loved one, a plot will be created to get rid of you. You are damaged goods and possibly a liability for the business.

A parent becomes upset because you said/did something horrible to their little angel? Nothing matters except that a parent has complained, and there is no one at any agency who will investigate anything you say. Any facts you have will have to wait for the arbitrator at the 3020-a to which you will be forced into going. The Office of Special Investigations (OSI) does not investigate students, only employees. (I investigate what the facts are, and present at 3020-a! Promise!) . Nonetheless, you should fill out the form to report the incident, but any assaults should also be immediately reported to the police. Do not ask for permission from the principal. Just do it and tell the principal after it is done.

The principals' job is to get rid of the riffraff - anyone on the staff who messes with the business machine driving the profits, or with graduation for students who never appeared in class. Fudging grades works.

School principals continue to do whatever helps the business, because they know that they are supported by the CSA and the DOE no matter what they do, as long as the business rolls along in a profitable way. For example: when a staff member becomes "old" - anyone over 40 years of age - a plot is created for getting these people removed, because senior teachers' salaries are high, and thus a burden on the school budget. Unfortunately due to the prohibition for senior teachers to transfer, the only way to get a teacher out of the building is to charge them with 3020-a charges. If the teacher charged receives any penalty (he/she is not totally exonerated), this person will become an ATR, and will not go back to the school at which he/she was charged.

This automatic "become an ATR" stuff began relatively recently, I asked Attorneys for the DOE doing 3020-a prosecution why this so-called "policy" was absolute. Because, they told me, "that's the way it is". Don't you hate that answer? what does that mean?

Back at MS 226, all is certainly not ok. Good people are gone, but Rushell White stays. How is this fiscally responsible, Chancellor Farina? Has public policy and the health, safety and welfare of children been ignored?

I certainly believe so.

Stay tuned.

Betsy Combier
President, ADVOCATZ and The E-Accountability Foundation
Betsy.combier@gmail.com




The New York City Rubber Room Anti-Teacher Charging Process Shows How Corrupt the Carmen Farina-Bill De Blasio Department of Education Really Is. by Betsy Combier


From the first time that I was invited into the rubber room at 25 Chapel Street in 2003 by David Pakter, I understood that the charging, rubber room placement, and 3020-a hearing process - which I shortened to the "rubber rooms" process - was a massive fraud on the public. The problem stems from the fact that there is no accountability in this process, therefore anyone can charge someone with anything and make him/her guilty without having any repercussions for the charging agent's life or career.


Email from Theresa Europe violating NYC DOE Chancellor's Regulations,
rules for 3020-a arbitration, and the rights of David Suker

David Suker
From the first time that I was invited into the rubber room at 25 Chapel Street in 2003 by David Pakter, I understood that the charging, rubber room placement, and 3020-a hearing process - which I shortened to the "rubber room" process - was a massive fraud on the public. The problem stems from the fact that there is no accountability in this process, therefore anyone can charge someone with anything and make him/her guilty without having any repercussions for the charging agent's life or career (I call these agents "The Gotcha Squad"). See here and here.

The Arbitration for tenured teachers, called "3020-a disciplinary hearings" are not what they seem to be either. See the emails sent from the DOE and UFT to the Arbitrators, to see the chumminess going on.

Speed is all that counts. Rights of the educator, charged with either incompetence or misconduct, are less important or not protected at all. UFT Attorney Carol Gerstl prohibited the 3-member arbitration panel in 2008, for the reason given, this would make the hearing process "faster".

In New York City, an administrator who reassigns a teacher after claiming he/she is guilty of either valid or false charges is given the same rewards: financial, because the person is taken off of the school budget; personal, because the person is no longer in the same building and the "problems" this person supposedly caused are stopped; professional, because there may be some concerns about the principal's actions which the charged teacher could reveal, and now is out of the way, gone from the premises, and far from parents and other staff at the school.

In sum, there are many rewards to putting a tenured teacher in a rubber room, and no consequences for making false charges against him/her. Truth be damned. Did you read Lord of the Flies and don't you see similarities?

When you are not held accountable for your acts, and you dislike someone, then using public funds to hurt that person causes you no sweat.

UNLESS the public or media care enough and post a story about the principal falsely accusing a tenured teacher of doing something wrong when nothing wrong was actually done. This is what happened in David Suker's case.

I have written in several articles posted on this website and on my blog, saying that I was lucky to have been involved in holding the New York City Department of Education accountable for the outrageous attack on tenured teacher David Suker. Since 2003 I have been involved in hundreds of cases where tenured teachers were not allowed, by the Department OR BY THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVE from the UFT or NYSUT, to defend him or herself. This is a terrible system and the NY State legislature should have stepped in years ago, and made accountability part of each step along the way.

None exist.

I cant help but think about the hundreds of thousands of public dollars which have been thrown away on lawyers' fees (1) to the NYC DOE preparing the case against David; (2) to all the lawyers who worked with the Gotcha Squad attorneys Nancy Ryan, Eleanor Glanstein and Theresa Europe, just to name the main players; (3) to all the people who work at the New York City Law Department and participated in opposing David's Article 75 Appeal to the New York State Supreme Court, (4) to all the lawyers who worked on the Appeal by the City to the First Department Appellate Division; (5) for the salary of the second Arbitrator. David won more than $250,000 for his pain in going through this vortex of injustice.

David Suker has conquered New York City's bizarre Department of Education Rubber room process and is now laughing all the way to the bank. I am overjoyed at his outcome, but disgusted that we, the public have to pay for the rubber room process while children go without books, extra-curricular programs, music, and art, etc., etc.

There is a better way.

Betsy Combier

City pays exiled teachers to snooze as ‘rubber rooms’ return
By Susan Edelman NY POST, January 17, 2016
LINK

The city’s infamous rubber rooms have rebounded.

In one of the “reassignment centers,” 16 exiled educators sit in a city Department of Education building in Long Island City, Queens, including a dozen packed into one room — where they do virtually no work.

They listen to music, do crossword puzzles, chat — and as this exclusive Post photo reveals, doze on the taxpayer’s dime.

The rules forbid beach chairs and air mattresses, but not nap time. The teacher sprawled on the floor, pulled a wool hat over his eyes to shut out the fluorescent lights and slept.

Others prop up two chairs to recline or just lay their heads on the table. “It’s gone right back to the way it was in the old days, an old-fashioned rubber room,” one banished teacher said.

Despite the photographic evidence and teacher testimony to the contrary, the city denies the existence of the derided holding pens. “There are no more rubber rooms,” DOE officials told The Post last week, saying reassigned staffers are given “administrative duties.”

In 2010, the DOE and the teachers union trumpeted a major agreement to close the centers holding more than 700 idled educators accused of misconduct or incompetence.

Many teachers settled charges by paying fines and finally returned to classrooms, while those still expelled were scattered across the five boroughs. But the rubber room deal is routinely violated. “No one pays any attention to the agreement,” said Betsy Combier, a veteran paralegal who helps defend teachers.

The DOE refused to say how many removed teachers and other tenured staffers remain in limbo, but sources estimate 200 to 400 get paid while awaiting disciplinary hearings. Their salaries total $15 million to $20 million a year.

The Long Island City castoffs begin their day by reading newspapers, then turn on the radio. They get 45 minutes to leave for lunch. They chat and sometimes exercise to “relieve the stress.”

While the city promised to keep removed educators busy, the Queens exiles say they only occasionally oblige requests to do menial tasks like stuffing folders or making copies. Others refuse to do such work, calling it “demeaning.”

They mainly just kill time to get through a six-hour, 20-minute day.

“I’m so exhausted from being in this place doing nothing,” one said.

Several teachers on the payroll have been benched for up to five years due to a stunning bureaucratic breakdown. The 2010 deal required the independent arbitrators who conduct termination trials to issue a decision 30 days after a hearing, so that vindicated teachers could return to work and bad ones could be axed.

But decisions still come months — or even years — late. The DOE says it can’t enforce the rule.

“They’re just letting me sit here,” said a teacher removed from the classroom nearly five years ago on charges of physically abusing children, which he denies. His trial ended four years ago. He makes about $70,000 a year.

Social Studies teacher David Suker has sat in the rubber room since September 2015, even though a state Supreme Court judge overturned his termination. Suker, an Army vet who taught at-risk kids in The Bronx, was found guilty of failing to immediately report his arrest in the Occupy Wall Street protests but was finally fined just $7,000.

After The Post asked why the DOE had not put Suker back to work, officials on Friday assigned him to a school as a substitute.

Rubber-room bosses thought napping on the job was hilarious: teacher
By Susan Edelman, Priscilla DeGregory and Beckie Strum, NY POST, January 18, 2016

Rubber-room supervisors find it hilarious that teachers are dozing on the taxpayer dime, says social-studies teacher David Suker — and he should know, he’s the instructor shown sleeping “on the job” on the front page of Sunday’s Post.

“They would walk in and would laugh or joke about it,” Suker told The Post.

He sat at one of these so-called Department of Education “reassignment centers” from September until last Friday after a state Supreme Court judge overturned his termination for not immediately reporting to higher-ups his arrest in the Occupy Wall Street protests.

“They clearly knew I was sleeping, and they never told me not to do it,” said Suker, 47, who provided The Post with a picture of himself napping, he said, in order to expose the do-nothing rooms, which the city insists no longer exist.

“People were sleeping every day,” said Suker, who said nap time is a daily routine for most of the city educators hauled up into rubber rooms, meant for teachers accused of incompetence or misconduct. The Department of Education said rubber rooms were discontinued over five years ago.

Most choose to snooze in their chairs or with their heads on the desks, he explained.

“There was also one person that would go to the bathroom and fall asleep on the toilet,” Suker said. “He needed his privacy.”

Suker, an Army vet who taught at-risk kids in The Bronx, says he was one of three who would practice their A-B-Z’s on the grubby carpet.

“I was in the infantry, and that was just how we dealt with the stresses of that lifestyle. You grab some sleep whenever you can get it,” said Suker, who said his preferred nap time was after lunch.

“It’s mentally grueling to be in a room and have nothing to do. You look for any escape you can get. Some of the only ones you can get are going to the bathroom or going to sleep,” said Suker, who likened the rubber room to being in prison.

“But at least in prison you only have one or two roommates,” he said.

He said more than a dozen others are crammed into a tiny room, two or three to a desk, being punished for minor infractions, such as showing up a minute past 8 a.m.
↧

Five NYC Department of Education Former and Current DOE Network Leaders Exposed For Violating P-Card Rules

October 18, 2016, 9:30 pm
$
0
0
Daniel Feigelson
Oh, c'mon, don't you get paid enough from your current positions? Wait - not all of you still work for the NYC DOE. Why do you still have p-cards??

Dan Feigelson? The Dan Feigleson who took over as Principal of PS 6 when Carmen Farina was removed as head of the school for getting herself entangled in missing money for the Annenberg Challenge For The Arts, and having an SLT of 4 people?

The New York City Rubber Room Anti-Teacher Charging Process Shows How Corrupt the Carmen Farina-Bill De Blasio Department of Education Really Is. by Betsy Combier

See also:
OP 26: Laura Kates interviews Adele Schroeder and Daniel Feigelson, Part 2

Betsy Combier
President, ADVOCATZ and The E-Accountability Foundation
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

School Staffers Caught Using City Credit Cards for Starbucks, Red Rooster


In all, five current and former DOE employees acknowledged that they abused their Education Department-issued procurement credit cards— known as P-cards — for personal purchases and agreed to pay fines up to $2,500, according to a settlement announced Monday from the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.
Patrick Fagan
Patrick Fagan, who continues to work for the DOE at a Field Support Center; Sharon Rachelson, who is an administrator in a central office; Matthew Manner, Daniel Feigelson, who left the DOE in 2014 and Derek Jones — who left the DOE in 2012, admitted their wrongdoing after the cases were investigated by the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District. The DOE has since increased their training and oversight of P-cards, officials said.
Sharon Rachelson
srachel@schools.nyc.gov
Cell: 347 463 0276
Office: 718 281 7614
Fax: 718 281-7540
Director of Operations
All five staffers were in high-level positions at the DOE’s networks, which were created under Bloomberg administration to serve as support systems for clusters of schools that opted into them, often based on their instructional needs. The networks were dismantled under Chancellor Carmen Fariña as the DOE returned to a geographic-based chain-of-command under superintendents.
When Patrick Fagan was a deputy cluster leader for a network he spent nearly $500 on personal food and drinks from Starbucks, McDonald’s and La Bagel Delight, between 2011 and 2012, incurring the $2,500 fine.
When Matthew Manner was director of operations for another network, he violated the DOE’s limit on spending no more than $8 per person for food and drink at staff meetings when he used his P-card to pay for a June 2012 end-of-year celebratory dinner at the Red Rooster that cost more than $4,000, including $1,400 for a lecture on jazz and live jazz performance to accompany the meal, according to the board.
The event cost roughly $114 per person.
Manner agreed to pay a $750 fine. His supervisor, Daniel Feigelson, was also fined $1,000, in connection to the event, as he was its planner.

Derek Jones, a former leader of one of the DOE’s networks, admitted to using his P-card on 13 occasions between 2011 and 2012 for nearly $80 worth of personal drinks at places like Starbucks and Hana Japanese.
He also violated the DOE’s limit on spending at staff meetings when he used his P-card for a $3,655 end-of-year dinner at Morton’s Steakhouse in Midtown, which he attended with 27 principals and assistant principals in his network. The meal coast roughly $130 per person.
He agreed to pay a $1,500 fine.
Sharon Rachelson, director of operations for a network, also violated the limit on spending when she used her P-card to pay for a $1,858 meal at the Park Side Restaurant in Corona in May 2010. The meal cost roughly $53 per person.
She agreed to pay a $500 fine.
Starting in 2012 — after all of these incidents occurred — the DOE created a committee including representatives of the Office of Auditor General, Division of Financial Operations, Office of General Counsel, and Office of School Support to ensure more effective P-card oversight.
As a result, the DOE instituted new mandatory trainings in P-card use as well as new, improved instruction, support and oversight of employees  [really? - Ed.] when they receive a P-card, school officials said.
“There are procedures in place so that employees receive the necessary training and oversight to use procurement cards appropriately,” DOE spokesman Will Mantel said. “We continue to strengthen training and oversight, and closely monitor use of all DOE funds.”
↧
Search

Human Rights Law Enhanced

October 21, 2016, 7:32 pm
$
0
0
Mayor de Blasio Signs New Laws Enhancing The New York City Human Rights Law
LINK
by ADMIN on APRIL 27, 2016
On March 28, 2016, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed, into law, Local Laws 35, 36, and 37 of 2016 (“Local Law 35,” “Local Law 36,” and “Local Law 37,” respectively; collectively, the “new Laws”), which, effective immediately, strengthen employees’ rights and remedies under the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. City Admin. Code §§ 8-101 – 8-131 (the “City HumanRights Law” or the “NYCHRL”).
Specifically, these amendments to the City Human Rights Law, among other enhancements of workers’ rights and of available judicial and administrative relief, (i) require that exemptions to and exceptions from the provisions of the NYCHRL be construed narrowly so as to maximize deterrence of discriminatory conduct and (ii) endorse the liberal construction afforded the NYCHRL by a certain decision of the New York Court of Appeals and by two particular decisions of New York’s Appellate Division, First Department.
Moreover, the new Laws (iii) authorize the New York City Commission on Human Rights (the “City Commission on Human Rights,” the “Commission,” or the “NYCCHR”) to award, to complainant employees, attorneys’ fees in proceedings brought before the Commission, and (iv) repeal an antiquated provision of the City Human Rights Law suggesting that the NYCHRL does not shield, from discrimination in employment or housing, individuals who engage in homosexual conduct and that the NYCHRL does not endorse what some traditionalists term the ‘gay lifestyle.’
On March 9, 2016, the New York City Council, by votes of 40-2, 42-0, and 40-2, had approved Local Laws 35, 36, and 37, respectively.
Background
The New York City Human Rights Law prohibits employers with four or more employees fromfiring or refusing to hire an individual, and from discriminating against an individual in compensation or in the terms and conditions of employment, because of the individual’s actual or perceived age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation, alienage, or citizenship status (or, effective May 4, 2016, caregiver status).
The City Human Rights Law authorizes any applicant aggrieved by a discriminatory practice rendered unlawful by NYCHRL to file a civil action in a court of law or to to file an administrative proceeding with the City Commission on Human Rights.  Under the NYCHRL, in either a lawsuit in court or an administrative proceeding before the NYCCHR, not only the employer, but also individual employees or agents of the employer, may be held liable.
Under the NYCHRL, in a civil action in a court of law, punitive damages are unlimited, and a prevailing litigant may recover his or her costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
By contrast, under the NYCHRL, in an administrative proceeding before the NYCCHR, punitive damages are not available, and — until the passage of Local Law 36 — a prevailing employee could not recover his or her costs or attorneys’ fees.
The New Laws
Local Law 35: Local Law 35 amends the City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-130, captioned “Construction,” to provide that “Exceptions to and exemptions from [the NYCHRL] shall be construed narrowly in order to maximize deterrence of discriminatory conduct.”
Further, by addition to the same section of the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-130, Local Law 35 endorses, as “correct,” the judicial decision of Albunio v. City of New York, 16N.Y.3d 472, 947 N.E.2d 135, 922 N.Y.S.2d 244 (N.Y. 2011).  In Albunio, the New York Court of Appeals — the State of New York’s highest court — held that N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(7), the NYCHRL provision barring any employer, supervisor, or co-worker from retaliating or discriminating against an employee because that employee has opposed any practices or acts rendered unlawful by the NYCHRL, “must [be] . . . construe[d] . . . broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible.”
Again, by addition to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-130, Local Law 35 endorses, as correct, the judicial decisions of Williams v. New York City Housing Authority, 61 A.D.3d 62, 872 N.Y.S.2d 27 (1st Dep’t 2009) and Bennett v. Health Management Systems, Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112 (1st Dep’t 2011).
In Williams, New York’s Appellate Division, First Department (the “First Department”) — that branch of the State of New York’s intermediate appellate court with jurisdiction over Manhattan and the Bronx —  held that, under the City Human Rights Law, conduct need not be ” ‘severe’ ” or ” ‘pervasive[]’ ” to constitute hostile work environment harassment.  Instead, held the Williams Court, the conduct’s severity and pervasiveness bear upon “the scope of permissible damages.”
In turn, in Bennett, the First Department — among other employee-friendly constructions of the NYCHRL — held that, in an employment discrimination lawsuit brought under NYCHRL:
On a motion [by the defendant employer] for summary judgment, [the] defendant [employer] bears the burden of showing that, based on the evidence before the court and drawing all reasonable inferences in [the] plaintiff [employee]’s favor, no jury could find [the] defendant [employer] liable under any of the evidentiary routes: under theMcDonnell Douglas [burden-shifting] test, or as one of a number of mixed motives, by direct or circumstantial evidence.
Local Law 36: Local Law 36 amends the City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-120, to provide that, in an administrative proceeding before the City Commission on Human Rights, a prevailing employee may recover his or her reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs.
Under the new Law, the Commission, in determining an award of attorneys’ fees to a victorious employee, may consider, among other enumerated factors, “the hourly rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience litigating similar cases in New York county [that is, Manhattan]” (emphasis added).
So, too, Local Law 36 amends the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502, to make clear that in a civil action in a court of law, the “costs” which a victorious litigant may recover include expert witnesses’ fees.
The new Law further states that, in a NYCHRL lawsuit in which the court elects to factor the lawyer’s hourly rate into an award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party, “[t]he court shall apply the hourly rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience litigating similar cases in New York county [i.e., Manhattan]” (emphasis added).
As the New York City Council’s March 8, 2016 Committee Report on the new Laws (the “New York City Council’s Committee Report” or the “City Council’s Committee Report”) recognizes, Local Law 36’s specification that courts and the NYCCHR, in awarding attorneys’ fees under the NYCHRL, must base those awards on an hourly market rate charged by similarly situated lawyers in Manhattan, is a boon to employees and their lawyers, because the hourly market rates billed by lawyers in Manhattan “are the highest rates in New York City.”
Indeed, the hourly rates charged by lawyers in Manhattan are among the highest anywhere in the U.S.
Local Law 37: Local Law 37 repeals section 8-107(16) of the City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(16).
In the City Council’s Committee Report’s words, Local Law 37 eliminates an “outdated and unnecessary” provision of the City Human Rights Law which had “singled out” gays and lesbians as less worthy of a shield against discrimination than the other classes protected by the NYCHRL.
As the City Council’s Committee Report observes, Section 8-107(16) “was added [to the NYCHRL] in 1986 in the same local law that added protections based on sexual orientation, apparently to address concerns and help gather support for the new sexual orientation protections.”
Section 8-107(16)(d) of the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(16)(d) had provided that nothing in the NYCHRL shall be construed to “[m]ake lawful any act that violates the penal law of the State of New York.”  Similarly, section 8-107(16)(e) of the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(16)(e), had stated that nothing in the NYCHRL shall be construed to “[e]ndorse any particular behavior or way of life.”
As the Council’s Committee Report notes, section 8-107(16)(d) of the City Human Rights Law was an indirect means of stating that the NYCHRL does not shield, from discrimination in employment or housing, individuals who engage in consensual sodomy — an act which, until 2000, was a criminal offense in the State of New York.
In turn, section 8-107(16)(e) of the NYCHRL appears to have been a roundabout pronouncement that the NYCHRL shall not be construed to endorse what some traditionalists term the ‘gay lifestyle.’
As stated, Local Law 37 renders a dead letter these statutory disclaimers about the applicability of the NYCHRL to sexual orientation.
If your company needs assistance or guidance on a labor and employment issue and your company is located in the New York City area, call Attorney David S. Rich at (212) 209-3972.


↧

Annie Seifullah, Sexpot, Sues the New York City Department of Education For Gender Abuse

October 22, 2016, 7:48 pm
$
0
0
Annie Seifullah
re-posted from Parentadvocates.org:

The Story of Sex, Lies, and Photographs: Former Principal Annie Seifullah Still Works at the New York City Department of Education

While Seifullah helmed the school, her ex-lover, the father of a student, accused the married mom of cheating on him with a school security guard and an assistant principal. The dad turned over DOE computers with photos of Seifullah posing in black lingerie and engaged in sex acts and sexually explicit texts on her DOE cellphone.

The story of Annie Schmutz Seifullah is very complicated. She was investigated for sleeping with a former student, the father of a current student, the AP, a teacher at the school, and others who worked in the school building. The list may be a lot longer than is currently known.

While looking into what happened in this case I received a call from a very anxious former para professional who worked at Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology HS. This person told me that she saw Annie Seifullah kissing a boy about 17-18 years old, a student at the school, outside the school early in the morning. She did not want to give the investigators her name, for fear of retaliation.

The PA President, a dad with a son at the school, moved in with Ms. Seifullah for a while. When the relationship fell apart in 2014, the dad, Robert Conte, revealed photos which were on Ms. Seifullah's computer. Ms. Seifullah claimed that the photos on her school computer were planted there.

The investigation was recently concluded:

Office of Special Investigations Seifullah Report (2014-hidden from the public until 2016)

and there's more. She is now suing the Department for her removal, claiming she was removed because she is a woman. Her lawyer claims that she is out on LODI from 2015 to the present.

I think that is baloney.

Ex-principal cleared in school sex probe sues for gender bias

Ex-principal banned for sex scandal back in the classroom

An ex-principal banned from working with students after her involvement in a sex scandal was nonetheless assigned to teach at one of New York City’s worst schools, The Post found.

Annie Schmutz Seifullah, 36, was ?teaching English at ?Automotive HS in Greenpoint, Brooklyn — a long-struggling school with 98 percent boys — despite a Department of Education probe into accusations of misconduct after her alleged affair with a parent.

“It’s like sending a cougar into the cub’s den,” a shocked insider said.

After an inquiry by The Post, DOE officials admitted Seifullah was supposed to be “reassigned away from students” — and that her placement in Automotive HS classrooms this fall “was an error.”

Seifullah “ran out of the building” in distress last Monday when students confronted her about her scandalous history and ??racy photos allegedly found on her DOE computer.

Former Queens Principal Annie Schmutz Seifullah reportedly was found with racy photos of herself on her school computer.
“They were harassing her because they found out about her,” said ninth-grader Muhammad Choudhary. “They searched her up, found her on the Internet and told everybody else.”

The DOE said it is now seeking to fire Seifullah, a year after her ouster as principal from Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology in Long Island City, Queens.

While Seifullah helmed the school, her ex-lover, the father of a student, accused the married mom of cheating on him with a school security guard and an assistant principal. The dad turned over DOE computers with photos of Seifullah posing in black lingerie and engaged in sex acts and sexually explicit texts on her DOE cellphone.

“Her behavior was unacceptable and inappropriate as an employee of the DOE,” said spokeswoman Devora Kaye. A DOE probe found she ?misused DOE “technology” and “committed theft of service.”

On May 1, Seifullah was demoted from principal to teacher, and her salary slashed from $142,890 to $66,326. She has tenure as a teacher but not as a principal.

Kaye did not explain how Seifullah wound up teaching at Automotive HS, which is under the gun to improve this year or face a state takeover. A special hiring committee led by Principal Caterina

Lafergola had to review and approve all teachers brought into the school this year.

Mayor de Blasio held a press conference at Automotive to tout his “Renewal program” to pour hundreds of millions into 94 failing schools.

Renewal executive superintendent Aimee Horowitz had to know about the hiring of Seifullah, an insider charged.

“Principal Lafergola would not go to the bathroom without checking with Aimee Horowitz,” the source said. “This was not an error. This was cronyism pure and simple — at the highest level.”

Students said Seifullah came to Automotive to replace a substitute for a teacher who had moved. It didn’t take long for kids to Google their instructor and discover a Post article and photos published after her ouster.

Seifullah has claimed the accusing dad threatened her after she broke up with him and stopped paying his child-support bills. She referred a reporter to her lawyer, Pete Gleason, who declined to comment.

Second principal booted amid school sex probe
By Susan Edelman, Frank Rosario and Daniel Prendergast May 6, 2014

A Bronx assistant principal has been booted from his post for traveling to a Queens school allegedly to have sex with the principal there — as sexts between the pair surfaced Tuesday.

Dany Velazquez, an assistant principal at PS 5, has been reassigned pending a city Education Department probe into his alleged sexcapades with Annie Schmutz Seifullah, which were first reported by The Post.

Seifullah, principal of the Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology in Long Island City, had already been reassigned amid the shocking allegations that she had sex with two men, including Velazquez, at her school during class hours.

Seifullah’s ex-boyfriend, the dad of a student at her school, described for The Post alleged raunchy texts between Seifullah and Velazquez, including one in which he wrote, “Next time I want to f–k you in the office.”

Seifullah allegedly responded, “First you have to ,” the ex said.

But Seifullah flatly denied the allegations, telling The Post on Tuesday that she never had sex inside the school and is simply the victim of her ex, who used her money and then exposed her kinky hobbies when she quit paying his way.

The Queens principal said her jilted ex-lover was trying to produce a reality show about his life.

“I thought he loved me and that he was protecting me,” Seifullah said in the Manhattan office of lawyer Peter Gleason.

“The reality is that I was played for a fool.”

Seifullah said her ex lied about her having sex at school.

Seifullah said he hacked into her computers and cellphones to stir up drama as part of a $60,000 development deal he supposedly had with Bravo.

But when he allegedly found text messages between Seifullah and Velazquez that suggested they had sex at her school — along with pictures of her engaged in sex acts — she says her ex threatened to expose her.

She wound up giving him $18,000 to pay for rent and child support for his kids, she said.

“I considered going to authorities and lawyers about everything, but I was just so afraid of all the threats he made against me and how it would ruin my life and ruin the life of everyone that I knew if I didn’t keep supporting him,” she said.

Seifullah said when she finally ended the relationship, the scorned ex approached investigators with lewd photos and text messages he allegedly found on Seif­ullah’s Department of Education-issued cellphones and laptops, claiming she got down and dirty at the school.

The ex also turned over audio and video in which a woman, identified as Seifullah, allegedly admitted to engaging in oral sex with an NYPD school safety agent and Velazquez in a book storage room during school hours.

She said she was forced to say those things, which she claimed never really happened.

Seifullah is estranged from her husband. She said Velazquez isn’t married.

Principal removed after sex-in-school probe
By Susan Edelman, NY POST, May 4, 2014

A Queens principal was yanked from her school amid shocking allegations she had sex with a guard, an assistant principal and a parent, had trysts in school while classes were in session, and had photos of her sexcapades on department laptops.

Annie Schmutz Seifullah, 35, principal of the 7th- to 12th-grade Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology, in Long Island City, was escorted from the school Thursday as investigators seized computers and other electronics from her office and home, The Post has learned.

“We are appalled by these disturbing allegations and acted swiftly to remove the principal while the matter is under investigation,” a Department of Education spokesman said. “This type of alleged behavior is completely unacceptable for any DOE employee.”

Her sudden removal comes after a romance-gone-bad with a student’s dad. The angry ex turned over three DOE laptops he obtained while living with Seifullah, including MacBooks containing photos of herself in racy lingerie and in various sex acts, including a threesome, he told The Post.

He also gave investigators a video and audio tape in which a woman he identified as Seifullah acknowledged engaging in oral sex with an NYPD school-safety agent in the school security office, and with a visiting assistant principal in a book-storage room during school hours.

“I don’t know what I was thinking. I don’t know why I thought it was OK,” she tells the furious dad in the taped conversation, after he accuses her of cheating on him.

“You gave him (expletive deleted) while my child was in the building,” he roars at one point.

The dad, a 40-something entrepreneur, also gave excerpts from a letter he says Seifullah wrote, admitting she hooked up twice with an “old lover.”

“The second (time) was a visit to my school that led to a sexual encounter which included brief oral sex in a hidden location,” the letter states.

The dad, whose name is being withheld to protect his child’s privacy, said he came forward because Seifullah — the mom of a toddler son — “played me for a fool.”

“Ms. Seifullah clearly used her power and position as principal to .?.?. seek several sexual partners at her school,” he charged.

The principal helped the dad financially, once giving him $10,000, plus $500 and $300 money orders, records show. Her salary is $136,959.

On April 11, 2013, she testified in Queens Family Court as a character witness for the dad in his custody fight. She spoke as both his child’s principal and as “his girlfriend.”

“So far our relationship has been discreet and people don’t know about it,” she testified, insisting that his child would get no special treatment.

City policy does not forbid educators from dating colleagues or the parents of students. However, if favoritism or mistreatment occurs, the employee could be cited for a conflict of interest. Having sex inside a school or placing sexual images on school equipment could lead to misconduct charges.

An insider said it was “highly unusual” for a principal to be removed pending a probe, and indicates allegations of “extreme misconduct.”

But on Facebook last July, she posted a photo of herself with the father, naming him and declaring with a heart icon: “A single dad walked in the office of my school and swept me off my feet.”

Seifullah took down her Facebook page after The Post called to ask about the scandal. “I can’t talk without permission,” she said.

Seifullah filed for divorce last summer and moved in with the student’s father. They split up in March and her divorce is pending.

The NYC Department of Education violated the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) by never giving me the OSI report, requested in my November 2015 FOIL request. Please note that the date of the OSI Report is December, 2014.

RE: F11,306

Betsy Combier, Editor / Reporter
NYC RUBBER ROOM REPORTER
betsy.combier@gmail.com
November 23, 2015

Mr. Joseph A. Baranello
Central Records Access Officer
Office of the General Counsel
New York City Department of Education
52 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007

JBaranello3@schools.nyc.gov
FOIL@schools.nyc.gov

Dear Mr. Baranello:

Under the provisions of the New York Freedom of Information Law, Article 6 of the Public Officers Law, I hereby request to receive E-mail copies of:

1) any and all documents, letters, emails, videos, tapes, or pictures relating to the investigation of Principal Annie Schmutz Seifullah of Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology in Long Island City.

2) The complete investigation with all notes and recommendations that relate to OSI case #14-03690X, or any other OSI or SCI case which mentions Annie Schmutz Seifullah and Dany Velasquez, or any parent or student, including any mention of Robert Conte or his son.

3) Any and all disciplinary decisions, comments or other documents with the name "Annie Seifullah" mentioned in any way.

If the records have been removed from their original locations, please cause a diligent search to be conducted of all appropriate file rooms and storage facilities.

If any record has been redacted, please identify which categories of information have been redacted, and cite the relevant statutory exemption(s).

If you have any questions relating to the specific record(s) or portion(s) being sought, please phone me at 212-794-8902 so that we may discuss them.

RELEVANT ADVISORY OPINIONS

www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/ftext/f13952.htm

www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/ftext/f14287.htm

RELEVANT LOCAL LAW

As you know, the Freedom of Information Law requires that an agency respond to a request within five business days of receipt of a request. Therefore, I would appreciate a response as soon as possible and look forward to hearing from you shortly. If for any reason any portion of my request is denied, please inform me of the reasons for the denial in writing and provide the name and address of the person or body to whom an appeal should be directed.

Sincerely,

Betsy Combier
F11,837 Acknowledgement
F11,837 update
F11,837 update
F11,837 update
F11,837 update
F11,837 update
F11,837 update
F11,837 update
F11,837 update
F11,837 update

Mr. Baranello - REALLY?

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
↧
↧

Retired Teacher Michael Thomas Wins His Lawsuit to Make School Leadership Teams Open To The Public

October 25, 2016, 7:32 pm
$
0
0
School Leadership Teams are now open to the public! Call the nearest school to you, and go to the next meeting!!!!

Congratulations Michael Thomas! Your win helps all of us.

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


Matter of Thomas v New York City Dept. of Educ.
2016 NY Slip Op 06989
Decided on October 25, 2016
Appellate Division, First Department
Kapnick, J., J.
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 October 25, 2016 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department 
John W. Sweeny, Jr., J.P. 
Dianne T. Renwick 
Sallie Manzanet-Daniels 
Barbara R. Kapnick,JJ.

100538/14 203 

[*1]In re Michael P. Thomas, Petitioner-Respondent, Letitia James, etc., et al., Petitioners-Intervenors-Respondents, 
v
New York City Department of Education, et al., Respondents-Appellants. The Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, Amicus Curiae.

Respondents appeal from the order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered April 23, 2015, which granted the petition seeking, inter alia, a determination that respondents violated the Open Meetings Law by denying the general public (petitioner) access to meetings of a New York City public schools School Leadership Team.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon, Cecelia Chang and Richard Dearing of counsel), for appellants.
Michael P. Thomas, respondent pro se.
New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, New York (Mark Ladov of counsel) and Advocates for Justice, New York (Laura D. [*2]Barbieri of counsel), for Letitia James and Class Size Matters, respondents.
David N. Grandwetter and Marvin Pope, New York, for the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, amicus curiae.

KAPNICK, J.
In this article 78 proceeding, petitioner sought, inter alia, a declaration that School Leadership Teams (SLTs) at New York City public schools are “public bodies” whose meetings must be open to the general public pursuant to the Open Meetings Law.[FN1]

Background

The Education Law requires each New York City public school to have a “school-based management team” (SBMT) (Education Law §§ 2590-h[15][b], [b-1]). By regulation, respondent New York City Department of Education (DOE) has implemented this mandate through the establishment of SLTs in every school (see Mulgrew v Board of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of N.Y., 75 AD3d 412, 413 [1st Dept 2010]; NYC Chancellor’s Regulations [CR] A-655). SLTs have between 10 and 17 members, made up of school parents, teachers, staff, and administrators, and may also include “representatives of Community Based Organizations” (CR A-655 §§ III[A],[B],[C][2]). The school principal, president of the parent association, and chapter leader of the teachers’ union must be members. At least two student members are also required for each high school (id. at [C][2]). SLTs must meet at least once a month “at a time that is convenient for the parent representatives” (Education Law § 2590-h[15][b-1][ii]). Notice of this meeting must be provided in a manner “consistent with the open meetings law” (Education Law § 2590-h[15][b-1][iii]).

The SLT helps formulate “school-based educational policies” and ensure that “resources are aligned to implement those policies” (CR A-655 § I; see Education Law § 2590-h[15][b-1][i]). The SLT’s primary responsibility is to develop the school’s annual comprehensive education plan (CEP), which sets the school’s needs, goals, and instructional strategies (see Education Law § 2590-h[15][b-1][i]; CR A-655 § II). In this regard, the SLT “must use consensus based decision-making and must seek assistance” from the “District Leadership Team” or the district superintendent “if it is unable to reach consensus on the CEP” (CR A-655 § II[A][4]). If the SLT is “still not able to reach consensus,” then the superintendent “shall make the determination on developing the CEP” (id.).

SLTs also “consult on the school-based budget pursuant to” Education Law § 2590-r. That section, in turn, provides for “the principal to propose a school-based budget, after consulting with members of the” SLT (Education Law § 2590-r[b][i]). Consistent with these statutory provisions, DOE regulations make clear that the principal “is responsible for” and “makes the final determination concerning the school-based budget,” albeit only after “consult[ing] with the SLT during this development process so that the budget will be aligned with the CEP” (CR A-655 § II[A][2]).
Petitioner is a retired DOE mathematics teacher. On March 17, 2014, petitioner asked the Chair (Victoria Trombetta) and three mandatory members (Linda Hill, Principal; Laura Cavalerri, [*3]PTA President; and Francesco Portelos, UFT Chapter Leader) of the SLT for IS 49, a Staten Island middle school, for permission to attend the SLT’s next meeting. By email dated March 18, 2014, Trombetta invited petitioner to attend the SLT’s April 1 meeting.
On March 19, 2014, Trombetta rescinded the invitation. Trombetta explained that she had “reviewed the SLT Bylaws” and “realized” that “only” “school community members” are “permitted to attend” SLT meetings. Since petitioner was “not a member of the school community,” he could not attend a meeting. Petitioner agreed with Trombetta that the SLT’s “bylaws are consistent with DOE policy,” but explained that he wanted to “challenge that policy in court” and needed to be “denied entrance onsite” in order to “have standing.'” Petitioner informed Trombetta that he would attempt to gain entrance to the meeting. On April 1, 2014, petitioner presented himself to security at IS 49’s front entrance, and was denied admittance to the SLT meeting.
Thereafter, petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding by notice and petition verified May 17, 2014. Petitioner contended that the SLT was a “public body,” such that its refusal to permit him to attend the meeting violated the Open Meetings Law. DOE served an answer verified August 19, 2014, denying the petition’s material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Petitioner served a reply verified August 26, 2014, responding to the answer.[FN2]

Supreme Court granted the petition and found that “SLT meetings entail a public body performing governmental functions,” and are thus “subject to the Open Meetings Law.” Relying on Matter of Perez v City Univ. of N.Y. (5 NY3d 522 [2005]) and Matter of Smith v City Univ. of N.Y. (92 NY2d 707 [1999]), the court reasoned:
“First, SLTs are established pursuant to the Education Law, which gives them a role in school governance. DOE’s own by-laws specify that SLTs are part of the governance structure’ of New York City’s Schools. The public’s interest in SLT meetings is demonstrated by the fact that announcement of such meetings must be made in accordance with the Open Meetings Law.
“Second, . . . SLTs play a crucial iterative role in developing CEPs and ensuring that CEPs are aligned with the school’s budget. A principal must consult with her school’s SLT in developing a CEP. If the principal and her SLT cannot agree on the contours of the annual CEP, then the District Superintendent may resolve the difference. However, the SLT must have input into the CEP’s development. In December 2007 the DOE issued a prior version of Regulation A-655 which gave principals in New York City final decision making authority over the CEP. The State Education Commissioner ruled that the regulation was in derogation of Education Law § 2590-h(15)(b-1), because it stripped the SLTs of [*4]their basic, statutorily mandated authority to develop the CEP.’
“The CEP is an important blueprint at each school. It describes annual goals concerning student achievement, teacher training, parent involvement, and compliance with federal law including Title I. The CEP also includes action plans’ to achieve those goals. . . . [T]he role of an SLT in formulating its school’s CEP is one of decision maker. In fulfilling this role the SLT acts in conjunction with, and not subordinate to, the school’s principal. If it is fulfilling its statutory role, a school’s SLT is not a mere advisor to the principal. SLTs are also stakeholders and participants in school closings. These SLT activities touch on the core functions of a public school. The proper functioning of public schools is a public concern, not a private concern limited to the families who attend a given public school” (citations and footnotes omitted).
Accordingly, the court held that DOE’s “failure to open School Leadership Team Meetings to the general public pursuant to the Open Meetings Law is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.”[FN3]

Promulgated in 1976 following the Watergate scandal, the Open Meetings Law “was intended — as its very name suggests — to open the decision-making process of elected officials to the public while at the same time protecting the ability of the government to carry out its responsibilities,” and its provisions are “to be liberally construed in accordance with the statute’s purposes” (Matter of Gordon v Village of Monticello, 87 NY2d 124, 126-127 [1995]). In enacting the law, “the Legislature sought to ensure that public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy'” (Matter of Perez v City Univ. of N.Y., 5 NY3d at 528; Public Officers Law § 100).

The Open Meetings Law provides generally that “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a]). The statute defines “public body” as “any entity, for which a quorum is required in order to conduct public business and which consists of two or more members, performing a governmental function for the state or for an agency or department thereof” (Public Officers Law § 102[2]). A “meeting” is “the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business” (Public Officers Law § 102[1]).
Whether an entity is a public body turns on various criteria, including “the authority under which the entity was created, the power distribution or sharing model under which it exists, the nature of its role, the power it possesses and under which it purports to act, and a realistic appraisal of its functional relationship to affected parties and constituencies” (Matter of Smith v City Univ. of N.Y., 92 NY2d at 713).

The “mere giving of advice, even about governmental matters, is not itself a governmental function” (Goodson Todman Enters. v Town Bd. of Milan, 151 AD2d 642, 643 [2d Dept 1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 614 [1989]). It has thus been held that an entity which is “advisory in nature” and “d[oes] not perform governmental functions” will not be deemed to be a “public body” for purposes of the Open Meetings Law (Matter of Jae v Board of Educ. of Pelham Union Free School Dist., 22 AD3d 581, 584 [2d Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]; see also Smith, 92 NY2d at 714 [“It may be that an entity exercising only an advisory function would not qualify as a public body within the purview of the Open Meetings Law”]). By contrast, “a formally chartered entity with officially delegated duties and organizational attributes of a substantive nature . . . should be deemed a public body that is performing a governmental function” (Smith, 92 NY2d at 714).

If a court “determines that a public body failed to comply with [the Open Meetings Law], the court shall have the power, in its discretion, upon good cause shown, to declare that the public body violated [the Open Meetings Law] and/or declare the action taken . . . void” (Public Officers Law § 107[1]).
DOE argues that the SLTs do not perform “governmental functions” characteristic of public bodies under the Open Meetings Law, but rather merely “serve a collaborative, advisory function.” Amicus curiae Council of School Supervisors and Administrators supports DOE’s arguments and emphasizes that opening SLT meetings to the public would frustrate SLTs’ collaborative goals by permitting outsiders to “attend for their own personal agendas or satisfaction in open or veiled dissonance from” the SLT’s purpose.
Petitioner, along with intervenors Letitia James and Class Size Matters, argue that the trial court properly analyzed the question of whether SLTs are public bodies because they were created under the authority of state law as a mandatory and necessary part of the governing structure of the New York City public school system.
As the IAS court properly found, under the factors set forth in Smith and Perez, SLTs qualify as a public body performing governmental functions, and, therefore, are subject to the Open Meetings Law.

It cannot be disputed that SLTs are established pursuant to state law and are a part of DOE’s “governance structure.” It also cannot be disputed that SLTs have decision making authority to set educational and academic goals for a school through the CEP. The notion that SLTs merely serve an advisory role is not supported by the regulatory history. As the IAS court pointed out in its decision, in December 2007, the DOE issued a prior version of Regulation A-655 in an effort to give principals the final decision making authority over CEPs. However, the revised regulation was overruled by the State Education Commissioner because it violated the Education Law’s mandate that SLTs have a “basic, statutorily mandated authority” to develop the CEP.
Although principals do have the final approval over a school’s budget, principals must consult with SLTs, so that the budget and the CEP can be aligned. The fact that the SLT and principal must collaborate with each other does not, in and of itself, disqualify the SLT from being considered a public body performing governmental functions (see Perez, 5 NY3d at 530).

Moreover, state law requires that an SLT hold monthly meetings during the school year and that notice of the meetings be provided in accordance with the Open Meetings Law. This is a clear indication of the public concern over the functioning of SLTs and public schools in general.
Accordingly, the order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered April 23, 2015, granting the petition seeking, inter alia, a determination that respondents violated the Open Meetings Law by denying the general public (petitioner) access to a meeting of a New York City public school’s SLT, should be affirmed, [*5]without costs.
All concur.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered April 23, 2015, affirmed, without costs.
Opinion by Kapnick, J. All concur.
Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, JJ.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: OCTOBER 25, 2016
CLERK
Footnotes


Footnote 1: The parties and the IAS court, however, treated this proceeding as a pure article 78 proceeding and not a hybrid article 78/declaratory judgment action. Thus, the court reviewed respondents’ determination to deny petitioner access to the meeting under the arbitrary and capricious standard and made no declaration. 

Footnote 2: By order to show cause dated January 12, 2015, Letitia James, the New York City Public Advocate, and Class Size Matters, a New York-based nonprofit organization dedicated to achieving smaller class sizes across the country, moved to intervene as petitioners. The intervenors served a proposed petition generally echoing the main petition. The intervenors’ application was granted as part of the order on appeal herein. 

Footnote 3: By order entered October 15, 2015, this Court ruled that an automatic stay of the order is in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5519(a)(1). By order entered December 29, 2015, this Court granted the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators leave to appear as amicus curiae. 


↧

Code Blue And Rushell White's Almost Fatal Mistake

October 29, 2016, 7:10 pm
$
0
0
Assistant Principal James Randall had an emergency event happen to him on Friday morning October 14, 2016 at around 9:00AM while at his school, MS 226. That much we know:

MS 226 Rushell White is the Worst Principal in New York City and a Liability For the NYC Department of Education


We also know that a teacher in the room at the time called 911 when Mr. Randall fell to the floor, unconscious, and we know that MS 226 Principal Rushell White did not call a CODE BLUE on Randall. This is her almost fatal mistake in the matter concerning Jim Randall, but we are all hoping that she gets fired for this. There has been too many errors of judgment.

Rushell White went with AP Randall in the ambulance to the hospital. Ruben Wills visited the hospital soon after, and several times after that. Did Rushell White send him to find out the damages? No one knows why he was there.

APs Michelle Cohen, Juliet Adams, David Possner, Principal Rushell White,
APs Jennifer Shirley-Brown and James Randall
Sign the petition
Petition calls for principal’s removal
Rushell White allegedly failed to follow protocol during health crisis
LINK 
by Anthony O’Reilly, Associate Editor | 0 comments
Rushell White, principal of JHS 226 in South Ozone Park, is no stranger to controversy but her latest troubles have sparked calls for her removal.



An online petition with a little more than 100 signatures calls for White to be fired after she allegedly failed to follow proper protocol as one of her teachers suffered a massive heart attack.
“Ms. White’s negligence nearly killed this man and for that, she needs to be removed as Principal of 226,” the petition reads.
A secretary at the school, located at 121-10 Rockaway Blvd., said White did not wish to provide a comment for this story.
According to a source close to the school, teacher James Randall suffered a heart attack while on the job.
The source alleges the principal, despite knowing of the Randall’s condition, did not call for a Code Blue or alert an employee trained in CPR for 10 minutes, during which time the teacher went without oxygen.
The source said Randall is at Jamaica Hospital Medical Center in critical condition.
The petition alleges that the teacher and White were “at odds about the direction the school was taking,” but did not specify what the two were clashing over.
Those who have signed onto the petition blasted White for not helping Randall.
“Forget about merely being fired ... this person should be brought up on criminal charges,” a signee named Brian Roberts wrote.
“As a former staff member at MS 226 I am horrified that this has happened to someone I respected and worked with for 17 years,” Susan Sgambati wrote. “There is No Excuse for not calling a Code Blue. To say that the atmosphere in that building is frightening is an understatement. Prayers for James Randall.”
The Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers did not respond to requests for comment on the petition at press time.
White has been under fire many times before, including earlier this year for having students paint her as a Hindu goddess.
The mural was removed after Hindu activists ordered Mayor de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña to apologize for the insensitive painting.
The mural was also the subject of controversy as it seemed to depict Assistant Principal David Possner as the “bad boy in the corner.”
Possner has been at odds with the school’s administration, having revealed many of the alleged problems within the building including cheating on state tests, led by White, and cover-ups.
White gave Possner an unsatisfactory rating for the 2014-15 school year, shortly after he began to reveal the alleged problems at the school.
Possner sued the DOE to have the rating vacated and a court sided with him on Sept. 1, saying it lacked “rational basis” and that proper procedure was not followed in giving it to the assistant principal.
White is also accused of covering up verbal and physical abuse committed by her administrators.

re-posted from Parentadvocates.org:

CODE BLUE and NYC Principal Rushell White's Almost Fatal Mistake 

Rushell White
CODE BLUE and NYC Principal Rushell White's Almost Fatal Mistake
by Betsy Combier, Editor, Parentadvocates.org
October 28, 2016

From Editor Betsy Combier:

All New York City public schools must have defibrillators and an employee trained to use this equipment in an emergency, since 2002. On October 14, 2016, at Queens middle school MS 226, Assistant Principal James Randall fell to the floor, unconscious, in his office. A teacher in the office immediately called 911 and the main office. Principal Rushell White, who we have called the worst principal in New York City because of her harassment and abusive actions toward AP David Possner and others, did not call a CODE BLUE to get help to Mr. Randall. The MS 226 defibrillator is on the 1st floor, behind the security desk. However, no one at MS 226, ran to Randall with a defibrillator so that he would not be without oxygen reaching his brain for any length of time. The damage Randall suffered by Rushell White's neglect is unknown at this time.

David Possner

Randall was revived by the EMTs, but remains in Jamaica hospital in the Intensive Care Unit. But clearly, by her neglect and/or incompetence, Rushell White is a liability to the New York City Department of Education and must be fired. Unfortunately and shockingly, Ernest Logan, the President of the CSA, appointed Rushell White to the CSA Executive Board in the spring of 2016. Why, no one knows, but he will put his political power behind his decision or he will look like a fool. Ernest Logan should resign as CSA President if he does not charge White with 3020-a.

Asked by reporters why she did not call a CODE BLUE, Rushell White's answer was that she was not in the school at the time. But my sources say that many people saw her in the main office at 9:00AM. Indeed, at around 8:25 AM, the loud speaker at the school announced that there was a car erroneously parked in the parking lot of the school in Rushell White's spot, and this car must be moved. So we know the loud speakers worked.


Why didn't Ms White issue CODE BLUE? Did she not know the law, or deliberately ignored it? Did she ignore the law because she did not know who was trained to use the defibrillator, or did she not give the training at MS 226?


Her negligence is still a mystery, but in my opinion, her dislike for her staff and her students is clouding her professional judgment. The mural that she commissioned from Rush Philanthropic is an example.

Shockingly, the mural was approved by her, and pictures of her with six arms enraged Hindu leaders. AP David Possner is in the far right corner:

MS 226 mural commisioned by Rushell White
The New York City Department of Education has a history of not complying with laws and rules, including the State Law to have a working defibrillator in every school:


State Laws on Cardiac Arrest and Defibrillators 

Public Access Defibrillation

AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR (AED) PROGRAM CHECKLIST, 

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

New York State AED Law

AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS (AEDS) IN SCHOOLS

New York Education Law Section 917

Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs)

AED/CPR Program

Most NYC Schools Still Have No Defibrillators (2003)

"Most NYC Schools Still Without Defibrillators
By Art McFarland
(New York-WABC, January 7, 2004) -

They are required by law, yet many schools in New York City are still not equipped with life-saving defibrillators. The devices were to be placed in schools a year ago, but Eyewitness News has learned the majority of schools has yet to comply.

There are several school-based defibrillators at Stuyvesant High School, which was among the first of 275 city high schools now equipped with the devices.

Martha Singer, Assistant Principal: "I think it's very important to have any new technology available to save lives."

But nearly 1,000 city schools are not yet equipped with the life-saving devices, in spite of a state law, passed a year and a half ago, requiring all schools to have them.

Rachel Moyer, Defibrillator Advocate: "How many kids have to die before you realize that there's a law that says that you're supposed to have a defibrillator in all public schools?"

Rachel Moyer became an advocate for the devices, after her own son died at an upstate school with no defibrillator.

Rachel Moyer: "Well I sent my child off to basketball game, and he was a healthy kid. And he died."

The city Department of Education has purchased more defibrillators, but they are in storage at a warehouse in Queens. There are said to be hundreds of defibrillators inside, many of which have been storage for months.

James Oddo, (R) NYC City Council: "It borders on negligent that 18 months after the state has passed a law, we still have the Department of Education not complying with that law."

The Department of Education says the seven hours of training required for the machines have stalled their being deployed to all schools; and that there is no designated state funds for that training. And the Department of Education says it expects every school to have one by the end of this school year."

In 2005, I published an article on this website about a boy who lost his life because there was no defibrillator at his school:

Mom Sues NYC DOE For the Death of Her Son While At School; There was No Defibrillator

I also wrote about how in 2003 Deputy Chancellor Anthony Shorris testified at New York City Council against buying defibrillators for every school, saying he did not see any need to spend the money:

New York City's Political Mess: Hide the Skeletons, Deny, Deny, Deny...This is How it Works

NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has a cloudy record as far as money and transparency is concerned, and so did Mayor Bloomberg.

Rushell White, at right
There are City-wide Cut-backs for Education, But Raises for Mayor Bloomberg's Pals and Deputy Mayors



(I own the trademark of the "A For Accountability", above)

Of course we all know that politics is Silencing Opposition: Education Policy Implementation Becomes a Matter of National Security

We attended NYC Deputy Chancellor Anthony Shorris' presentation to the NY City Council on the expense of defibrillators. He told the audience that despite the law mandating that each and every public school be equipped with these life-saving devices, he had nixed this idea because there was no money. A story on his astounding approach - he was indeed at the same time making a double salary in violation of the Conflicts of Interest Board rules and our own Chancellor Joel Klein knew this - is here:

DOUBLE-DIPPER KLEIN AIDE OUT Moonlighting school deputy quits

BY Alison Gendar, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, Saturday, July 26, 2003, 12:00 AM

Double-dipping Deputy Schools Chancellor Anthony Shorris has decided to pack it in - a week after the Daily News exposed his moonlighting at a second, high-paying job on school time. Shorris resigned his $168,700-a-year job as one of Chancellor Joel Klein's three deputies effective Aug. 31 to take a job as a visiting professor at Princeton University. His resignation came after The News revealed Shorris had been working Thursday mornings as a $60,000- to $100,000-a-year consultant for Local 1199, and splashed his photo on the front page. Shorris moonlighted with Klein's approval, as well as nods from Klein's predecessor and the city's Conflicts of Interest Board. Public reaction, however, was less forgiving. "Who needs this s---?

" Shorris said to a colleague when he told him of his pending departure. Klein's staff said yesterday the move had been planned and Shorris was not forced out. "He has served the Department (of Education) and the children of New York City with great distinction, and he will be sorely missed," Klein said. Shorris, who started at the then-Board of Education in 2001, had taken the deputy chancellor post with the understanding that he would help the new administration get its plans off the ground, Klein's staff said. Shorris has had numerous run-ins with Klein on a number of key issues, staffers said, from how to implement President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act to the reorganization of the bureaucracy, which was led by an outside consultant. The chancellor's tepid support of Shorris when the double-dipping story broke was the final indignity, sources said. The deputy acknowledged that he had been doing several hours of consulting work on Thursdays for the union's nonprofit health care fund. Former Chancellor Harold Levy, who approved the unusual arrangement, said Shorris put in long hours, nights and weekends for the system, and so a few hours one morning a week were never missed. Shorris is taking a job at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs - the same one he turned down a year ago to be part of Klein's inner circle. Klein's $168,700-a-year chief of staff, LaVerne Srinivasan, will take Shorris' job as one of the chancellor's three deputies. Tweed insiders questioned whether the chief of staff had the experience needed to pick up where Shorris, a career public servant and holdover from the previous administration, left off. The chancellor, however, said Srinivasan, a lawyer and former music executive, was "without question one of the most talented managers I have worked with in the public and private sectors."

See here as well:
Panel Investigates Deaths of 3 Students
by Tom Kertes, Education Update, March 3, 2003

I believe that a newspaper showed Mr. Shorris getting out of a publicly-funded chauffeur-driven limousine around the same time as he refused to pay for the AEDs. He evidently took his son to a private school on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, on the public dime.

Mr. Shorris was the first Deputy Mayor appointed by the de Blasio administration after Bill de Blasio was elected Mayor. Go figure that one out. Shorris met his wife, Maria Laurino, when they were both working for David Dinkins, who was Mayor of New York City 1990-1993. NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio met his wife Chirlane McCray also while working for David Dinkins.

In sum, MS 226 staff and students are in danger. Principal Rushell White is so consumed with excuses for her bully behavior and getting money from scoundrel Ruben Wills that the health, safety and well-being of the employees and students in her school are far from her mind.

But I would like to congratulate AP David Possner, who, because of his bravery and strength, has brought all of the information about Rushell White to the media and has withstood the most degrading retaliation of Rushell White (a mural? Called a "bad jew"?)

On Friday October 28, 2016, David sent me the following:

"Ms. White was in the school library with AP Shirley and the science coach, Ms. Bucknor. Earlier in the morning a repairmen, Miguel, from Dell computers came to fix some computer keyboards that were broken. When he was finished, I asked if him I could show him some broken keyboards in the computer lab in the back of the library. Ms. White then walked into the computer lab and asked what I was doing. I explained that the Dell repairman was here to fix keyboards, and I wanted him to look at the keyboards in the computer lab to fix them. She directed me to leave. As I was leaving, I was holding the Dell repairman's receipts that he needed me to sign. Ms. White then walked to the other side of the library, and called me over and stated that "she needed a favor". She stated: "Never come near me. Never be in my presence. When you see me, leave the room. When you see me coming, walk in the other direction."

Great walls of China! Rushell White is making it impossible for David to do his job, which necessitates communicating with her, but if he does, he could get charged with insubordination. This Catch 22 must be addressed by CSA. What say you, Ernest Logan?

Rushell will not be able to charge David with incompetency, because David's Attorney Roger Adler, with whom I work on David's case, just won the New York State Supreme Court Article 78 and we overturned the U rating David received from Rushell in 2014-2015. So Rushell White is going to have to make up some kind of misconduct in order to get him charged and removed from her payroll.

Stay tuned for Principal White's next act of retaliation. People consumed by hate and anger never think rationally.

Betsy Combier
President, Advocatz and The E-Accountability Foundation
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

↧

The Fair Student Funding Formula and 3020-a

November 3, 2016, 4:49 pm
$
0
0
Whenever you hear that the DOE gets the "best" teacher for the children, you can always count on one thing: the teacher they get is "cheaper".

The one constant in all the hiring/firing/substituting/excessing is MONEY.

One of my favorite people in NYC is Eric, or 'Chaz', the writer and Editor of the blog "Chaz's School Daze", and the article below is one of his best. All his posts  are terrific.

What I know is 3020-a. I know who the Attorneys are, who the arbitrators are, and why most of the charges are frivolous and should never have been placed on a table in the 3020-a hearing offices. I fight and assist educators and Guidance Counselors fix their careers.

With the DOE it's all about MONEY. OUR money.

Due to the fact that there are no senior transfers, so the only way that a principal can get a senior - read "expensive"- teacher removed from the school payroll is by charging the teacher/guidance counselor (GC) with 3020-a.

Because the purpose is to move the expensive teacher/GC out, the DOE (principal and 'legal' at the District office) set up the Respondent charged-employee-to-be so that anything they can make up becomes specifications with the goal being termination.

In every case, if the teacher/GC is exonerated, he/she goes back to the school he/she was charged at, and remains a full-time teacher. Therefore, principals must throw everything in the mud before it hits the wall, so something will stick, even if the teacher/GC is not terminated. If the penalty is a fine or suspension without pay even $1000/two weeks the teacher/GC becomes an ATR. This is still a success to the original principal, who now does not have you on the payroll....the goal was reached.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013


How The DOE's "Fair Student Funding Formula" Affects Hiring Quality Teachers.


















There seems to be some confusion, deliberate or not, on how the DOE uses the "Fair Student Funding" (FSF) formula works.   The theory behind FSF was that the money would follow the student with "high needs"  with these students getting more money than schools with few "high needs" students.  However, like many other programs the people at Tweed "perverts" the FSF and "picks and chooses" what parts of the FSF that support their ideology and that's where the confusion lies.

When it comes to hiring the DOE uses the FSF by using the "average teacher salary" of the school to determine the funding.  The result is that principals have an incentive to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best" teachers for their schools. Let's look at some examples:

Large School = 120 teachers average salary is $80,000.  The school hires a top teacher making $100,000.  What will the average teacher salary be?

ATS = {$80,000 x (119/120) = $79,333) + ( $100,000 x (1/120) = $833}   = $80,166.

However, $166 x 120 = a $19,960 increase in the school budget for teachers.

On the other hand, if the Principal hires a "newbie teacher".

ATS = {$80,000 x (119/120) = $79,333) + ( $40,000 x (1/120) = $333}   = $79,666.

However, $333 x 120 = a $39,960 decrease in the school budget for teachers.


Small  School = 30 teachers average salary is $52,000.  The school hires a top teacher making $100,000.  What will the average teacher salary be?

ATS = {$52,000 x (29/30) = $50,266) + ( $100,000 x (1/30) = $3,333}   = $53,600

However, $1,600 x 30 = a $48,000 increase in the school budget for teachers.

On the other hand, if the Principal hires a "newbie teacher".

ATS = {$52,000 x (29/30) = $50,266) + ( $40,000 x (1/30) = $1,333}   = $51,600

However, $400 x 30 = a $12,000 decrease in the school budget for teachers.
  
Mid-Sized  School = 60 teachers average salary is $65,000.  The school hires a top teacher making $100,000.  What will the average teacher salary be?

ATS = {$65,000 x (59/60) = $63,916) + ( $100,000 x (1/60) = $1,666}   = $65,582

However, $582 x 60 = a $39,350 increase in the school budget for teachers.

On the other hand, if the Principal hires a "newbie teacher".

ATS = {$65,000 x (59/60) = $63,916) + ( $40,000 x (1/60) = $666}   = $64,582

However, $416 x 60 = a $24,960 decrease in the school budget for teachers.

As the reader can plainly see the Principal has a financial incentive to hire the "newbie teacher" and save some money in the process.  The smaller the school, the greater the incentive. Its no wonder that there are over 2,000 ATRs rotating while "newbies" are being hired to fill the vacancies.

I hope the readers of my blog realize why principals hire the"cheapest" and are not interested in hiring the "best" teachers for their students. The principals can fool the parents of the students that they are hiring "quality teachers" to instruct their children but now you know better, its all about the money and not what's best for the students.
↧
Viewing all 1018 articles
Browse latest View live
Search