Saturday, November 14, 2009

Where Does The Money Go When Teachers Either Settle With Or The Arbitrator Awards Money To The DOE?



One of the questions that reassigned teachers ask and get no answers from the union is what happens to the money that the teacher either agrees to settle with the Office of Legal Services or the Arbitrator awards the DOE? Now in Betsy Combier's blog - rubber room reporter she identifies a mysterious group at 65 Court Street, known as "District 65" who she believes may be the beneficiary of the teacher fines. Contrary to what most people believe, the Arbitrators and transcribers are paid by New York State and not the DOE. Therefore, the money the DOE collects from teachers seems to disappear into the Tweed bureaucracy but now Betsy Combier may have discovered where the money may actually go to. Could it be this top secret "District 65" group?

My question is, if this "District 65" group actually exists. What is their purpose? Who runs the group? Where does the money they allegedly take in used for? If anybody knows about "District 65" and what their purpose is please contact

Betsy Combier
P.O. Box 17
NY., NY 10021
reassigned@live.com

All information sent to Betsy will be kept confidential.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have the same question. Since the move seems to be away from unpaid suspensions to out-and-out fines for settlements and adverse decisions this is a substantial amount of money we are talking about.
Just another mystery from the bizaare 'pay to play' scheme of teacher fines and cash settlements.

A Teacher In The Bronx said...

RICO carty

RICO petrocelli

puerto RICO

RICO brogna

Anonymous said...

Our spies inform us that the DOE District 65 is a secret fund that funnels money into the still operating Manhattan Engineering Project that designed the first Atomic Bomb.The DOE is building its own weapon to destroy public education..

Anonymous said...

It seems nobody either knows or is willing to let other people know what "District 65" is.

BeamMeUp said...

We have uncovered District 65. It was formerly Area 51 but due to some copyright issues had to be renamed. Seriously nothing like a good conspiracy rumor to get the deviants frothing. The money actually goes into the city's general fund where it becomes part of general tax levy funds. Don't be influenced by the lightheaded.

Anonymous said...

Can 'beam me up' please explain how the practice of 'fines' began and what on earth it has to do with improving teacher competency?

Remember: “The primary purpose of a disciplinary proceeding is not punitive, but rather, to determine a teacher’s fitness to teach and to carry on professional responsibilities” .

Arbitrator fines may only make sense in Area 51. Perhaps I am lightheaded...or the union has been asleep at the switch.

BeamMeUp said...

I'll bite. You're right a fine for incompetency makes no sense except in the free marketers' world of incentives. Fines started, my guess, as a way to compensate the tax payers for the loss of services caused by certain findings, like excessive absence or conduct unbecoming charges. So its clear fined teachers are not required to pay the fine if they quit or retire before they payments become due. The fine is against future earnings.

Chaz said...

Very interesting. However, this does not explain what District 65 is?

Anonymous said...

Beam Me UP

Almost correct. The hefty fines currently being levied in teacher competency cases are nothing more than outrageous 'pay to play' schemes. At some point our union might actually and publicly label this practice as political corruption (as 'pay to play' actually is) and have some success ending it.
Since these cases rarely involve actual teacher incompetence but are instead thinly disguised and clearly fabricated retaliation attempts, the,'pay to play' fines are, ironically enough, more appropriate.
Given the purpose of teacher competency cases: “The primary purpose of a disciplinary proceeding is not punitive, but rather, to determine a teacher’s fitness to teach and to carry on professional responsibilities”, a skillful union would require the DOE to publicly justify their 'pay to play' scheme.
Perhaps, this would end the practice...and slow down the wacky pace of false 3020a's entirely.
Of course another way to slow the false 3020a and rubber room assaults on our profession would be to assist teachers in their suits against DOE but I am not holding my breath.
I suspect the 'pay to play' fines actually reimburse the DOE for expenses involved in targeting and harassing teachers. It is not so much the false pursuit of teachers - although that is outrage in and of itself - it is the fact that teacher fines might feed this false pursuit that is so nauseating. And the Union non-response is utterly vomitrocious!!