The New York Post's Misleading Editorial

The New York Post has an editorial that blames the De Blasio administration for keeping alleged misbehaving teachers on the payroll indefinitely.  The problem is that some of those teachers cited in the article were put in their predicament by ex Chancellor Joel Klein, a decade before Bill de Blasio became Mayor of New York City, but don't let the facts get in the way of an editorial.

Furthermore, the statistics used in the editorial is like comparing apples with oranges. The 2012-13 school year showed that 13% of educators charged under 3020-a were terminated.  While only 6% were terminated in the 2018-19 school year.  The problem with the comparison is that the 3020-a hearings take six months or longer for the arbitrator to write up the decision.  Therefore, many of the 2018-19 3020-a cases have not been completed until this year and are not included in the 2018-19 statistics.

Finally, with a more teacher friendly Chancellor in Richard Carranza, the DOE has been more careful in charging teachers under 3020-a (227 compared to 443 in 2012-13) and that is the reason why there are fewer (47%)  educators charged under 3020-a from the last year of the Bloomberg era..

The "Hit Squad"- DOE's Office Of the General Counsel

 
The Department Of Education (DOE) has a group of lawyers who's only job is to terminate teachers by any means possible.  The lawyers are from the DOE's Office Of Legal Services (OLS), now known as the Office of General Counsel (OGC).  The OGC is divided into four departments, two departments primarily go after teachers .  One is the Administrative Trials Unit (ATU) that prosecutes teacher misconduct and the other is the Teacher Performance Unit (TPU) also known as the "gotcha squad", that prosecutes teacher incompetence.

If you ask DOE management the OGC only goes after teachers that commit serious misconduct or are incompetent.  The truth is far different, the OGC will willingly aid and abet unscrupulous  principals to get rid of veteran teachers by any means possible.   Principals know that if they claim that the teacher either committed misconduct or are incompetent, the OGC will eagerly help the Principal charge the teacher under section 3020-a.  Even if the independent State arbitrator finds the DOE charges to be untrue, the arbitrator will still give the teacher some penalty and this allows the Principal to jettison the teacher into the ATR pool and out of the school.

DOE has two main investigative units, the Office of Special Investigations (OSI), who investigate corporal punishment and verbal abuse cases, while the semi-independent Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI) investigate sexual and criminal complaints .   Both  OSI and SCI investigators are not fair minded.  Both investigative agency's mission is to substantiate the allegations against the teacher.  Read my corrupt investigations posts Here.

An example is the lunch teacher, a 20 year veteran, that South Bronx Schools is writing about.  The teacher is an elementary school teacher and she was giving an untimed State Common Core test last year.  She noticed that one of the students was struggling and hungry,  the teacher decided since it was lunch time so she told the students to hand in their tests and she collected them and locked them up.   After lunch, she gave the student who hadn't finished the test to complete.

The Principal found out that the teacher stopped the students from completing their tests and took them to lunch  The Principal contacted OGC who accused the teacher of test cheating and failure to follow instructions.  This resulted in 3020-a charges against the teacher.

There was no cheating and at worst, the teacher should have given a counseling memo not a 3020-a charge.  However, with the Bloomberg era ideology that still dominates at the DOE,  veteran teachers are targeted and this is just one case among many.

A Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Annuls The Unfair Termination Of A Teacher.

A Brooklyn high school teacher at the High School for Civil Rights with an unblemished disciplinary record,  was terminated by a State arbitrator when he was charged with corporal punishment and conduct unbecoming a teacher by the DOE.  The teacher named Shawn Browne tried to remove an unruly student from his Math class and the confrontation escalated to the point that the misbehaving student, who was playing cards instead of working in his Math class, was told to leave the classroom and refused to do so.  The student then throw a stapler and a towel at the teacher and, in response, the teacher tried to push the student out of the room.  According to the student and a school safety agent, the teacher allegedly punched the student twice in the face while trying to remove the student from the classroom.  The teacher denied punching the student and was backed up by other students in the classroom. However,  the arbitrator, Dean Burrell, chose to believe the student and school safety officer and ignored the other witnesses and the teacher and terminated the teacher. 

The arbitrator did not take into account the 15 year unblemished disciplinary record of Mr. Browne or the circumstances that lead to the incident.  Consequently, the arbitrator claimed that the teacher's conduct cannot be remediated.. Therefore, the arbitrators award of termination. 

The teacher appealed his termination to Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge,   Alexander Tisch, who ruled that the arbitrator's award "shocked the conscious" and sent it back to the arbitrator for a lesser penalty. According to Justice Tisch the arbitrator failed to take into account the teacher's unblemished disciplinary record, the circumstances that lead up to the altercation, and the lack of a co-teacher in a co-teaching class, a violation of State regulations when dealing with students with an IEP.  Moreover, Mr. Tisch found that an anger management course for Mr. Browne is a proper remediation for the teacher for the one time incident, along with a penalty short of termination.

Naturally, the DOE will appeal the decision to a higher State court.

Educators Served With 3020-a Termination Charges Remain High During The De Blasio Years.

When Mayor Bill de Blasio took over there was hope that the confrontational actions at the DOE would change to collaboration.   However, once he selected Carmen Farina as Chancellor with her anti-veteran teacher attitude and her deep ties to the Bloomberg years as a Deputy Chancellor, most educators knew deep down that nothing will change and the "gotcha system" would continue.  Under the new Chancellor, she retained 80% of the Bloomberg policymakers at the DOE and instead of reducing the amount of lawyers at the Office of Legal Services and the data mining Accountability Managers, they actually increased. In fact under Mayor Bill de Blasio there has been a doubling of high-salaried bureaucrats at the DOE while school budgets are tight and essentially remained flat.

When it came to teacher discipline, the change in the Mayor's Office hardly affected the punitive process from the Bloomberg years.  Every year there are over 350 educators who are served with 3020-a termination charges.  In fact the number of educators served with 3020-a termination charges under the de Blasio/Farina tenure are as follows:

2014..........366
2015..........392
2016..........381

Interestingly during the Bloomberg years, from 2002 to 2013,  the average was 271 educators charged under 3020-a and that includes the 2006-7 years when it averaged 636.   Historically, before the Bloomberg years 3020-a charges were served on educators averaged 90 yearly.   However, just like during the Bloomberg administration years, not all educators went through their 3020-a hearings.  Quite a few, the majority in fact, took settlements ranging from a fine and exile into the ATR pool to irrevocable resignation or retirement.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that three out of every four settlements result in the educator irrevocably resigning or forced into retirement.

In 2016, independent State arbitrators issued 93 decisions or approximately 24% of all educators served with 3020-a charges. Of the 93 cases the arbitrators ruled on, 23 resulted in the educator's termination (25%) and 9 were found innocent (9%).  It should be noted that educators found innocent was only 2.5% of all charged educators.   The remainder resulted in either fines or suspensions (67%).

If we take the last year of data, 2016, there was 381 educators charged under 3020-a but only 93 resulted in an arbitrator ruling.  Meaning that 288 educators took settlements and since 75% of these settlements resulted in the educator irrevocably resigning or retiring.  The DOE was able to remove 239 educators from the DOE payroll or 63% of the 381 educators served with their 3020-a charges.  This is slightly higher than the 55% figure in the last two years of the Bloomberg administration.

A major reason for the higher numbers is that many veteran teachers took the settlement to irrevocably retire rather than fight the 3020-a charges was the language in the 2014 UFT contract that allows the City to eliminate the educator's retro and lump sum payment if the arbitrator recommends termination.  Therefore, to protect their up to $50,000 payments owed, they elected to take the settlement rather than risk losing the money.

When you combine the ingredients of the anti-veteran Chancellor with the 2014 UFT contract and add a pinch of the "gotcha system", you have a recipe for continued attacks on  veteran teachers as the 3020-a numbers readily show.

Using Personal Email During School Time Can Lead To 3020-a Charges.

I have been contacted by a teacher in Brooklyn who told me he was removed from the ATR pool and reassigned while being charged with using his personal email on his own laptop, not even a DOE computer during school time.  While I cannot tell you if there are more charges in his anticipated 3020-a papers, it seems the DOE's Office Of  Legal Services has stooped to a new low in going after select ATRs who the DOE would like to remove from payroll with frivolous charges.  What is our union doing about this ramping up of charges against their members?  Nothing, nothing at all.

I found it very difficult to see how teachers can collaborate with the DOE leadership at Tweed and even the new Superintendents who are routinely not granting tenure to teachers and making them work an additional year before a tenure decision is rendered.  Moreover, the DOE encourages large class sizes, the hiring of "newbie" (sorry Jonathan) teachers because they are cheap and easily fired, and refuses to allow for teacher autonomy in the classroom but wants school supervisors to micromanage them.

Let's see, our disconnected union leadership has a love affair with the Mayor and Chancellor while the teachers are subject to "gotcha" administration, a punitive Danielson framework, and the lax student discipline code making it unsafe for both teachers and students. With protectors like Mikey Mulgrew and his inner circle, beware of the 3020-a charges that are becoming a regular fear for many teachers who are increasingly being abandoned by the union leadership as they continue their love affair with Chancellor Carmen Farina and Mayor Bill de Blasio.

While our union leadership continues to "deal with the devil" the members are the ones that get burned.

It's DOE 3020-a Charges Season.

Late May and Early June are known as the best months of the year as the weather warms and teachers see the goal line to the end of the school year and hopefully enjoy the summer months.  Unfortunately, this time period is also marked by the DOE's issuance of 3020-a termination charges to far too many teachers due to incompetence, time and attendance, and minor misconduct.  In, the last couple of years has seen a rise in teachers getting 3020-a charges due to field supervisor "flyby observations" to rotating ATRs, appointed teachers receiving two consecutive "ineffective" ratings and Principal directed minor misconduct such as insubordination, lateness, and even buying and charging for books!

The question is who decides on 3020-a charges against a teacher?  The Principal? The Superintendent?  Chancellor Carmen Farina?  The answer is the DOE's Office of Legal Services.  This Office of lawyers and support staff exploded during the Bloomberg years going from a dozen or so lawyers to 200.  Many of them filing and prosecuting the charges against the teacher in the 3020-a termination process. While the other actors can recommend termination, its solely up to the DOE's Office of Legal Services to actually approve the filing of 3020-a termination charges.

The Office of Legal Services is split into two parts The Administrative Trials Unit (ATU) that prosecutes alleged misconduct against teachers and the Teacher Performance Unit (TPU) that goes after teacher incompetence.  Both groups ask for teacher termination and few cases are settled under the new approved 3020-a process jointly agreed to be the DOE and our disconnected union leadership. The more favorable rules for the DOE lawyers has resulted in teachers no longer able to call in character witnesses unless they were involved in the charges and the union quietly agreeing to allow field supervisor observations and recommendations to be used as evidence against the teacher in the 3020-a process.

At one time the Office of Legal Services were much more discriminating about the cases they prosecuted and settled many cases before going into the 3020-a hearing or wanted more evidence from the Principal before wasting time and money on these cases.  However, under Bloomberg and Klein that started to change as Principals clamoring to get rid of their veteran or trouble making teachers by contacting the Office of Legal Services on frivolous charges in the hopes that they get permission to remove the teacher and their high salary. Principals are dumping teachers into the ATR pool by filing a Technical Assistance Committee (TAC) memo and get rid of the teacher once and for all from the school.   More often then not the Office of Legal Services complied and had the teacher removed.

Under Chancellor Carmen Farina nothing has changed, the Office of Legal Services has not shrunk and the 3020-a process against teachers has become more difficult to survive termination, previously it was a 25% termination rate, however, the latest numbers are higher (55% left the DOE after their hearing) and that's before the new, more stringent rules in the 3020-a process that favors the DOE were  enacted this February.

While administrators can recommend 3020-a charges its only the Office of Legal Services who can actually file such charges and they are happy to do it as they attempt to take a teacher's livelihood away.

A Second Bite Of The Apple To Terminate Teachers- New York State's Part 83.

In the New York Post today there is an article about the two female foreign language teachers who were allegedly caught, after school locking lips and being partly undressed, in a classroom.  The DOE brought 3020-a charges against them and-both were fired due mostly from the bad publicity it generated in the media.  However. in their Article 75 appeal both teachers were given their jobs back after being suspended without pay for a year or more.  End of story?  No, not quite.

It now appears one of the two teachers has been investigated by the State of New York under their Part 83 for "good moral character.  This formally little used State provision allows the State to revoke an educator's teaching certificate and was only used against teachers found guilty of serious sexual misconduct with a student or for felony criminal convictions  However, over the last few years the State has vigorously pursued New York City teachers who were found to have committed misconduct such as corporal punishment, inappropriate behavior, and other non-firing offenses, despite the fact that many of them survived their 3020-a hearings. .

The definition of "good moral character" is quite vague and inclusive that allows the State to arbitrarily decide who to file Part 83 against, usually from a recommendation from the DOE's Office of Legal Services, since it takes a representative of a school district to notify the State of actions taken against a tenured teacher.   Betsy Combier's blog clearly spells out the State Part 83 requirements and can found here.

One example is the selective nature of the State's application of Part 83.  The two teachers found to have allegedly engaged in inappropriate behavior in a classroom after school.  However, only one of the two teachers were subject to the Part 83 investigation, why?   It should have applied to both or neither teacher and since there were no students or children involved and occurred after school by two consenting adults, why is Part 83 being used to take that teacher's license?  Seems unfair to me.

The State's aggressive used of Part 83 to revoke a teacher's license is all part of the Cuomo agenda to terminate teachers and not to improve student instruction. Just because a teacher survives the 3020-a process, look out for New York State's Part 83 provision that gives the politicians a second bite of the apple to terminate tenured teachers.

Can A Terminated Teacher Lose Their Pension? The Answer Is No If They're Already Vested!

Over the years I have been contacted by teachers who are going through their 3020-a termination hearings and the one question they have is "will I lose my pension if I am terminated"?  I have always reassured them that they do not lose their pension, no matter the outcome of their 3020-a hearing. Part of the problem is that back in the early 1980s, before the law was changed, New York City had the right to not give a pension for employees found guilty of misconduct.  The police and firefighters, with less than 20 years of service, still have that rule but to my knowledge, nobody else does.

For teachers who are vested, if they are terminated at their 3020-a hearing, they still qualify for a pension and can take it at age 55 (reduced pension) or 62/63 (full pension).  Retiree health benefits are also provided for as long as the terminated teacher worked the appropriate amount of years to qualify for the benefit (Tier 4, 5/10 years, Tier 5, 10 years, Tier 6, 15 years).

Vested teachers who are terminated and want to take their retirement contributions rather than waiting for a pension can do so.  Included would be the member contributions, the 5% interest paid on the member contributions by the City, and the money the city contributes to the Annuity Savings Accumulation Fund (ASAF).  If they have money in the Teachers Deferred Annuity Fund (TDA), they can either leave it there or take it out.

For the teachers who are not vested and are terminated, they can receive their member contributions plus the 5% interest.  However, they will not be eligible for a pension unless they secure another position with either New York State or the local governmental agencies under the New York State public employee pension plan. If you withdrawal your member contributions then you also must take out your TDA contributions as well.

Approximately 50% of the teachers never last long enough to be vested and only 33% will make it to full retirement age and this is before the Governor's proposed teacher evaluation system that will result in an increasing exodus of teachers from teaching in the City and State.  That means both the City and State can expect to see fewer teachers drawing pension benefits and  an eventual surplus in their pension funds in the next decade or two.

The bottom line is if you are terminated after your 3020-a hearing and you are vested, then you are eligible for a pension.and possible retiree health benefits.

Don't Believe What You Read In The Media.

Sunday, I was reading the New York Post and came across an article by Susan Edelman called "Teachers Accused of Misconduct Keep their Jobs in Secret Settlements". In the Newspaper itself the headline read "bad teachers" instead of teachers accused.   The article was the usual crap with a political slant along with the misleading statistics.  However, what bothered me is what the article claimed Betsy Combier said with regard to the settlements.  The N.Y. Post article stated the following:

 “All they want is your money,” said paralegal Betsy Combier, who helps defend teachers. “It doesn’t matter what happened to the kid — it’s kind of frightening.”.

If you read the article it makes Betsy appear to be blaming the DOE for making secret deals with bad teachers and allowing them back into the classroom to cause more damage.  The truth is that Betsy Combier said no such thing.  What she said to Susan Edelman was this:

"What I told Ms. Edelman was that when an educator is charged with misconduct or incompetency, and sign up for a NYSUT attorney, in many cases the NYSUT Attorney tries very hard (sometimes, in my opinion, abusively) to get the educator to resign, retire, leave town, or settle. Anything but go to a hearing. I believe the NYSUT Attorneys know how much of a due process disaster the hearings are, from the viewpoint of defending an educator's rights. After watching the attorneys work at 3020-a for almost 8 years, 2003-2011, I thought there was a better way to defend, and started as a paralegal advocate in defense of Respondents brought to 3020-a in 2011. No one who is innocent of charges should be forced into a settlement of any kind. You can win a 3020-a."


Knowing Betsy like I do, she would never had said what the New York Post quoted her as saying.  Both Betsy and I see the settlements as DOE extortion when they cannot prove their case for termination and offers the terrified teacher a way out. Please read Betsy Combier's blog for her story.


Remember, when you read stories that come from these rags, the Daily News, Post, and Times, don't believe what your reading, its not about the truth.

For educators who want to know how to defend themselves against abusive administrators, there will be a "Don't Tread On Educators" (DOTE) meeting on Wednesday, October 1, at the Elmhurst Diner located at Grand Avenue and Queens Blvd, starting at 5:30pm.  Be there if you think you are being targeted.  Plenty of parking in their parking lot and the M or R train stops there.

The New York City 3020-a Process Part II - The Independent Arbitrator

The New York State tenured educator disciplinary process, known as the 3020-a process has three major actors.  The School District (DOE), the educator, and the Arbitrator. I previously wrote about the 3020-a process and can find it here.  This post is about the independent Arbitrator and what goes into the Arbitrator's "award".

In the New York City version of the 3020-a process the Arbitrator is selected from a rotating panel of between 23 and 39 arbitrators that are jointly selected by the DOE and UFT.  These arbitrators serve one year terms and are only renewed if both the DOE and UFT are satisfied with their decisions.  Otherwise, the arbitrators are removed from the panel.  While the DOE is much more aggressive than the UFT in removing arbitrators, the fact is that most arbitrators leave the panel out of frustration with New York State's failure to pay them for their work.

Arbitrators get $1,400 dollars per hearing date.  While it may seem like a good chunk of money,  the truth is that New York State never allocates enough funds for 3020-a cases and many arbitrators quit the panel due to a lack of timely payments.  One senior arbitrator quit the panel after not being paid for three years and owed an astonishing $200,000!  Presently,, the NYC arbitration panel is down to 18 arbitrators and the blame squarely lies with New York State.

Arbitrators have a wide latitude in determining the "award" (penalty) for the School District and against the educator.  The "award" ranges from a mere "letter to the file" to termination.  While the NYCDOE always asks for termination, the job of the Arbitrator is to find the proper corrective actions that will rehabilitate the educator and have the educator return to service.  If there are no corrective measures available to rehabilitate the educator, the Arbitrator will terminate the educator.

There is a myth that arbitrators will "split the baby" since both the DOE and UFT must be satisfied with their decisions.  Arbitrators do not "split the baby" when it comes to the "award".  The Arbitrators take many factors into account including the "preponderance of relevant evidence".  You can see the list in my post here.  The "splitting of the baby" is a myth that Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Dennis Walcott claims when educators survive the 3020-a process with the jobs, if not their reputations, intact.  I guess to those two the 38% termination rate over the last two years is not good enough, it should be 100%!

While arbitrators are not immune from political considerations or pressure from one side or the other, they are usually fair and reasoned, for the most part, in their "awards"  Very few Arbitrator decisions are reversed on appeal, less than 10% from anecdotal evidence.  However, of late some justices have either modified the arbitrators decisions or sent it back for a re-review when the justice believes the "award" may have been based upon charges not included in the specifications submitted to the Arbitrator.

Finally, there is no "rubric" for the Arbitrator's award since the "award" depends on many factors including the personalities involved in the 3020-a hearing. One of the more upsetting aspects of the 3020-a process is the Arbitrator's assumption that the Principal is always credible.  Even when the Principal is caught lying or exaggerating, the Arbitrator will still find credibility with the Principal's statements. By contrast if the educator is caught lying the Arbitrator will find the educator not credible and usually terminate the educator.  Unfair or not, that's how it goes.

While Arbitrator decisions are usually fair and well-reasoned, many factors go into the "award" and as one of my now terminated colleague once said to me "every case is different" and so are the "awards".

The Real Reason That There Is A Lack Of Arbitrators In The 3020-a Hearing Process.

Friday on his radio show Mayor Bloomberg blamed the UFT for the glacial pace of the 3020-a hearings.  A seemingly frustrated Michael Bloomberg went on to say that the teachers union refused to approve arbitrators and that the agreed upon 39 arbitrators are now down to 19!  The result is that, according to the Mayor, there are 400 educators awaiting an arbitrator to hear their case.  If only he had the authority to fire them all.  The City has now filed a lawsuit that the teachers union is violating the April 2010 "rubber room" agreement.

President Michael Mulgrew responded by saying that the DOE's failure to use the mediation process to settle many of the cases is a major cause for the delays. In addition, he pointed out the oversized legal unit at the Office of Legal Services is the primary reason why the DOE fails to use the mediation process since they need the work to justify their positions.  He also stated further that the DOE has recommended many unsatisfactory candidates as arbitrators and the UFT after carefully vetting the DOE endorsed candidates, has refused to accept them on the panel.  Finally the UFT has claimed that the agreed to timelines once a hearing starts are being adhered to,

 Both Mayor Michael Bloomberg and UFT President Michael Mulgrew failed to identify the major culprit for the long delays and lack of arbitrators, New York State.  The State has failed to pay the arbitrators for up to three years with one arbitrator being owed $200,000!  Is it any wonder that many senior arbitrators have quit the panel?  Furthermore, the State's Tenured Teacher Hearing Unit expects a shortfall of a  $2.03 million dollars  for the 2013-14 school year.  Therefore, many of the present arbitrators will be waiting years to be compensated for their work.  Moreover, the State has reduced the daily fee for arbitrators from as much as $2,100 to $1,400 per day, still a godly sum but significantly less than before 2010 and has resulted in many of the best people not wanting the highly stressful arbitration position.  The lower payment and long delays getting paid has resulted in many long-standing arbitrators to quit the panel.  Apparently, many of the recommended replacements are not qualified and therefore only 19 arbitrators are currently on the panel or 11 less than what the DOE and UFT wanted as a minimum (30).


While both the DOE and UFT have no control on the State's failure to pay the arbitrators, the DOE can use the mediation process to bypass the lengthy 3020-a hearing process.  However, under Mayor Bloomberg the DOE only wants to terminate these 400 educators not settle no matter the time and cost.  this is the DOE who rather waste over $40 million dollars in keeping the 400 cases in offices doing little or no work  rather than the classroom than use  mediation to resolve the cases.  Yes, the very same DOE that is wasting $160 million dollars annually on 2,000+ ATRs rather than putting them in the classroom to eliminate overcrowding, uncovered classes, and reduce the largest class sizes in over a decade.  What else is new.

"Children last"....Always.

Randi Weingarten's Legacy That Has Made Teaching In The NYC Classroom A Minefield.

There is little doubt that teaching in the New York City classroom has become an increasingly hostile experience under Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chancellors Joel Klein, Cathie Black, and Dennis Walcott.  However, much of the blame must be laid on the doorstep of our ex UFT President, Randi Weingarten.  The great appeaser.  Under her destructive tenure as head of the UFT she eroded the rights of her members and allowed the DOE to impose programs that were damaging to the classroom teacher.

Let's start with the erosion of teacher "due process rights" under 3020-a  for teachers accused of
incompetence.  Until 2000, a teacher accursed of incompetence would go before a three member arbitration panel to determine the penalty.  The result was the teacher would usually get a compromise verdict and keep their job.  However, Randi Weingarten negotiated with the DOE and agreed to have only one Arbitrator review the incompetence charge and many teachers found themselves terminated. Moreover, in the same 2000 agreement the teacher had no choice in the assignment of an Arbitrator while teachers in the rest of the State have the right to refuse the first Arbitrator offered to them.  In 2002 she allowed the Bloomberg Administration to have Mayoral control of the schools that has resulted in a "rubber stamp" PEP that echos the Mayor's  policy.


Then there was the terrible 2005 contract that further reduced teacher "due process rights" and caused the ATR crises. Rather than describe the problems associated with the 2005 contract.  Included,  is a legacy of the awful "givebacks" that Randi negotiated for us:  Here, here, here, here, and here!  This contract was an unmitigated disaster and was considered a "sellout" by many of the rank and file.

In 2006 the Bloomberg/Klein Administration imposed a "fair student funding formula" on the NYC public schools.  Had Randi sued or brought the issue to PERB, she would have won.  Instead she remained silent and combined with the elimination of seniority transfer rights have resulted in older and more experienced teachers not being able to get a permanent position. Hence the ATR crises. She also allowed the co-location of charter schools, which was a shock to Joel Klein she since she could have stopped it in its tracks but failed to do so.

Even in the 2007 contract she allowed the voluntary but union endorsed, PIP+, the termination program for incompetent teachers and expanded the list of actions that fell under serious misconduct and ending up with a 90-day suspension without pay or health benefits.  It was during this time that the "rubber rooms" exploded with a maximum of 744 reassigned teachers awaiting their fate.

In 2009 Randi remained silent as Mayor Bloomberg and Christine Quinn overturned term limits that resulted in the disastrous third term and an increase in vilifying teachers that result in the Bloomberg "last in, first out" bill.

Finally, her parting gift to her members in 2009 was to reclaim the two days before Labor Day that she gave up in 2005 but at what cost!  We had to give up 1.25% interest in our TDA funds (8.25% to 7.00%).  If the average member puts away $15,000 annually for twenty years, the members lose about $10,000!  More, if you put in more.  Interestingly, we actually owe the City 0.58% when we get the next contract in 2014.!

Now Randi works on destroying member rights in other school systems.  Washington D.C., Baltimore Maryland, and now Newark New Jersey.   Interestingly, the Chicago teachers told Randi Weingarten to "butt out" and won.  Who can forget she invited Bill Gates as a keynote speaker at her AFT conference who's main idea is high stakes testing and video surveillance of the classroom. Goodbye and good riddance Randi, you have done enough damage to your members in New York City.

.

Chancellor Walcott, First Clean Up Your Own House Before You Complain About Teachers.

Unfortunately, the rag, the Daily Snooze, oops I mean the Daily News has once again went after teachers that were accused of "sexual misconduct" but were found by an independent Arbitrator to have committed no such thing.  To Walcott and Bloomberg it doesn't matter if there is evidence to support the accusation.  Just being accused is good enough for them. Evidence?  who needs any damn evidence, if the student or administrator says the teacher did it then it's off with their heads!

At this point I would like to clarify that any teacher found guilty of "sexual misconduct" by an Arbitrator is automatically terminated.  In fact. here is what the UFT/DOE contract states on being found guilty of "sexual misconduct".

  In 3020-a proceedings, a mandatory  penalty of discharge shall apply to any tenured pedagogue a) found by a hearing officer to have engaged in sexual misconduct or b) who have pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of criminal charges for such conduct.


That's right!  The independent Arbitrator must terminate the teacher if that teacher is found guilty of "sexual misconduct".  Unfortunately, our Chancellor is not intelligent enough to understand that evidence is required and hearsay or gossip are not evidence.  Moreover, he fails to differentiate between a teacher having sexual intercourse with a student and a teacher that touches a clothed shoulder of a student to reassure her.  To him it's all the same. He wants the right to fire them all!


Presently, the Chancellor can terminate his DOE employees without a hearing if they are accused of "sexual misconduct" but has failed to do so.  For example take the case of DOE CEO John Shea who was accused by two females of "sexual misconduct" and have federal lawsuits against him.  What action did the Chancellor take?  None!  How about the two leadership academy principals who also have been accused of misconduct of a sexual nature.  Anissa Chalmers, and Emmanuel Polanco.  They are still principals of their schools!  If that's not enough how about the case of acting Principal John Case Jr who was found by OEO to have sexually harrasses female subordinates and students at the school.  In defending Mr Chase, Chancellor Dennis Walcott said the following.

 On the new allegation, he said, “Just because an accusation is made doesn’t mean a person is guilty.”

That's right!  Our zero tolerance Chancellor for teachers is quite tolerant when it comes to his managers and administrators.  What a hypocrite and a phony. It's a good thing that he only has 188 days left in his tenure and we finally get an educator that truly understands education and what goes on in the classroom and not the walls of Tweed and City Hall.

The DOE, UFT, And The Rubber Room.

The assailed teacher wrote a very heart-felt article on his evolution as a clueless "newbie teacher" who worshiped his Principal to a knowledgeable Chapter Leader who. with eyes wide open, sees the injustice and hypocrisy that permeates the New York City schools. Part of his evolution is how he perceived teachers who were banished to the "rubber room".  At first, he assumed, like many teachers, that those teachers reassigned were perverts, beaters, or committed financial larceny.  However, as he saw colleagues reassigned to the "rubber room" for bogus or frivolous incidents he soon realized that the Administration was removing teachers not for serious misconduct but because they didn't like the teacher, be it for complaining, age, salary, or for their own prejudice. This post will explain, from a largely first-hand perspective the evolution of the "rubber room" and why the amount of reassigned teachers exploded starting in 2005 and only ended in 2010 with the Rubber Room Agreement.

Historically teachers were reassigned out of the classroom and away from children when accused of "major misconduct", usually corporal, financial, or sexual in nature.  These teachers waited for their 3020-a hearings at district or regional offices doing clerical work.  The average number of reassigned teachers was between 80-100 on a yearly basis.  The numbers started to inch up under the Rudolf Giuliani Administration into the low hundreds as the first non-educator, Harold Levy, became Chancellor.  However, it was not until Michael Bloomberg came into office and appointed non-educator and failed classroom teacher, Joel Klein, as Chancellor did the number of reassigned teachers significantly increase. 

During Chancellor Joel Klein's reign of terror and disrespect the number of reassigned teachers skyrocketed to an astonishing 802 by 2008.  It was really more since the thirteen "rubber rooms' (downsized to seven by 2010) were bursting at the seems and many teachers who principals wanted removed from their school were told by the DOE that there was no more room and to leave them in the teachers work room or any other room with no contact with children.  Rumors were there were half as many teachers reassigned out of the classroom (400) but not sent to the "rubber room". That meant that the real number of reassigned teachers at the peak may have been as high as 1,200. Various DOE officials who I talked to during these days confirmed that the principals were clamoring to remove teachers from their schools but since the reassignment centers were overcrowded, the principals appeals were refused with some exceptions.

You might want to know why the sudden increase in reassigned teachers during the Bloomberg/Klein years?  Yes, it was partly due to the anti-teacher attitude of the Chancellor and it was the the granting of more discretionary power to principals.  However,the major reason was the Chancellor's decision to remove teachers from the school's payroll after only 60 days once they are reassigned.  Previously, if a Principal removed a teacher, that teacher's salary stayed on the school's payroll through the entire school year.  Therefore, Principals had to think twice about removing a teacher if they still had to pay the teacher's salary and pay a substitute for the teacher's classes.  Consequently, only teachers accused of serious misconduct were removed. The result of Chancellor Joel Klein's decision to remove reassigned teachers from the school's payroll was the primary reason for the high number of both "reassigned" and "rubber room" teachers.

Presently, the "reassignment centers are now closed and reassigned teachers are sent to their school's "Children First Network" (CFN) offices to do little or no work (see Franseco Portelos)   However, since the teacher's salary must stay on the school's payroll until the end of the school year unless the teacher is removed for major misconduct, the number of reassigned teachers have dropped to 222, including administrators.

The UFT was very complicit in the "rubber room' fiasco as they rarely objected to the removal of a teacher or provide investigators of their own on obvious bogus or frivolous cases.  The UFT had special representatives who represented reassigned teachers and were, for the most part, useless.  Their advice to reassigned teachers is to say nothing to anybody and that the teacher sitting next to you could be a "snitch" and testify against you at your 3020-a hearing (in my almost five years of being rubberized, I never saw this happen). In other words the UFT told reassigned teachers to be "quiet and clueless to their fate"  Once the teacher was pressured to resign or terminated (20% of the time), the UFT's action was "don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave".  I saw this first hand many of the time and that always bothered me that the UFT seemed to be on the side of the DOE in many of the cases at the Queens reassignment center. As the liaison at the Queens reassigned center I found myself explaining the rights to the reassigned teacher and what they can expect, especially, when it came to OSI and SCI investigations.  Too many teachers came in traumatized and in need of support, it was up to the liaison to provide comfort and clarity to their situation.  These put us in conflict with the union leadership as we felt it was our responsibility to let the reassigned teacher know what will happen to them, step by step in the reassignment process.  Knowledge is power and the union would badmouth the liaisons by telling reassigned teachers not to listen to us since we were a threat to the union because of our knowledge and respect by the "rubber room" teachers.  Of course almost all the teachers did look to the liaisons for information and in many cases we helped them make informed decisions about their fate in the 3020-a process.

My experience with the NYSUT lawyers who represented us in our 3020-a hearings was a positive one (sorry Betsy).  Overall the NYSUT lawyers were competent and tried their best to represent us.  Sure, there are cases when the teacher didn't think his or her NYSUT attorney was on their side but I believe that had more to do with the "Chemistry" between the NYSUT lawyer and the teacher and not the competence of their representing us.  Further, a minority of teachers had a private attorney represent them and had mixed results . Moreover, I was unimpressed with the DOE lawyers, they seemed unprepared and believed hearsay against the teacher was a proven fact only to fall apart in front of the independent Arbitrator.  In other words the DOE lawyer believed their own propaganda and in many cases the "Specifications" were either dismissed or reduced by the Arbitrator when real evidence was found wanting.  The DOE lawyers case is to throw as many accusations against the wall and hope that some stick.  They call this a "preponderance of evidence".  However, to the Arbitrator it is the preponderance of relevant evidence and not unsupported hearsay that is a major part of their "award".

  Unfortunately, for the teachers Arbitrator decisions do not follow a simple rubric but requires many different variables, some subjective, before they make an "award".  For example three teachers were found to have been drinking alcohol in a Queens High School classroom before open school night.  The three teachers received widely different "awards" from three different arbitrators.  One received a six-month suspension without pay, the second received a $25,000 fine, while the third teacher who actual bought the alcohol and brought it into the school and tried to get his student teacher to join in (she refused) received a $5,000 fine. In other words not all Arbitrators weigh the evidence the same way.  Some of my closest "rubber room" friends received terrible "awards" including terminations while others received a mere "slap on the wrist".  The best statement I can say about the 3020-a process and the "awards" that come out of it is "that every case is different" and I found that to be very true.

In summary, while there are no "rubber rooms" for reassigned teachers and fewer teachers are being reassigned since the Principal must show that the teacher committed major misconduct otherwise, the school still pays their salary for the school year, the union must be more pro-active and not reactive to teacher reassignments.  Furthermore, the union should start their own investigation when there is a reasonable suspicion that the Principal removed the teacher for personal or vindictive reasons and not let the teacher languish in a CFN for over a year

A Closer Look At What Happens When A Teacher Is Accused Of Incompetence.

I have read today's New York Post article called "The Dance Of The Lemons" and believe people deserve a closer and more accurate explanation at what actually happens when a teacher is accused of incompetence.  As the liaison of the Queens "rubber room" for three years, I have seen well over a hundred teachers who were accused of "incompetence" and until the union-approved infamous PIP+ program was implemented, the DOE did make deals with many of the teachers who were brought up on 3020-a charges for incompetence simply because it was time consuming and difficult to prove a teacher was actually incompetent.  The average fine the DOE negotiated with these teachers was $5,000 dollars and a course on classroom management.  The reason why the DOE lawyers made these deals with teachers accused of incompetence lies with the fact that many of the charges were brought by principals who lack expertize in the classroom themselves.  This is especially true about the "Leadership Academy Principals" For example, the school Administration would claim a Science teacher is incompetent but have no Science Administrator testify as a witness against the teacher.  Without an "expert witness" to testify against the teacher, the independent Administrator would not agree to terminate the teacher.  Therefore, it was easier to make a deal with the teacher than go through a six month to a year or more in a 3020-a hearing knowing that termination was a remote possibility.

However, everything changed when the UFT and DOE agreed to a voluntary program called PIP+ in the October 13, 2007 contract. found under Article 21.J (page 123).  This program was supposed to allow for an independent evaluation of the teacher by an "expert" on teaching.  Unfortunately. the PIP+ program turned out to be a teacher termination program, with an over 90% failure rate!  While a few enlightened Chapter Leaders have told their staff not to take PIP+ and may have saved that teacher his or her job, many of the CLs follow the union's lead in advising their members to take PIP+ to give them an extra six months in the classroom without realizing that it will almost always end up in the teacher's termination.  Too bad since an Arbitrator has already ruled that a teacher's failure to take PIP+ cannot be used in a 3020-a hearing.

That brings me to the present.  The New York Post article claims that of the 166 teachers brought up of 3020-a incompetence charges in the last two years, the DOE managed to get rid of 117 from the DOE payroll, or 70%. I suspect that most of  the teachers that kept their positions (49) never took PIP+  and therefore were not faced with an "expert witness" against them in the 3020-a hearing.  The rest either were terminated in the 3020-a hearing (29), resigned, or retired in a settlement (88).

With regard to the settlements.  According to the New York Post article, it makes it sound that these teachers who agree to settlements can be hired again by the DOE.  However, the truth is very different.  In the settlement, the DOE lawyers clearly state in writing that the teacher has "irrevocably" retired or resigned their position.  This triggers a "do not hire" designation for the teacher's file who cannot even work as a substitute teacher for the DOE.  Yes, the "U" ratings are changed to "S" but these are internal ratings and are not given out to other school districts and if a school district would simply check with the State they will find that the teacher had 3020-a charges for incompetence and now can not even get a Principal recommendation from the last school he or she taught at,  just a neutral DOE letter stating the teacher worked for them for a certain time period.  It is very easy for the school district to add 2+2 and come up with the fact that the teacher settled the charges against them by resigning from the DOE.

While, a smattering of these teachers have found positions in Charter and Private schools (I know three), it is only because these schools only asked the State if the person has a "criminal record".  However, most schools and their districts usually asked the State if the teacher has been disciplined (3020-a charges) and inquired about the outcome?  Do you really think they will hire that teacher?

The  New York Post article "dance of the lemons" is deceiving since the statement referred to principals who told a teacher that they would be rated "unsatisfactory" unless they transferred to another school.  That is not the case when the DOE offers settlements for teachers accused of incompetence since their are no other schools that would take them and no way to get back on the DOE payroll.

Santa Claus Is Terminated By The DOE For Conduct Unbecoming A Teacher.

Santa Claus had landed a job as a teacher in Global Studies and Geography since he had first hand knowledge of the globe. Better yet, the school had to pay him only a salary of $45,530 dollars for all his knowledge of the world. He eventually received tenure and was on his way to a rewarding career as he not only gave children presents during Christmas but educate them about the world as a teacher.   However, storm clouds were brewing under the clueless Chancellor Dennis Walcott and his perverse definition of sexual misconduct. Santa was in real trouble as his affectionate and caring actions were considered "sexual in nature" by the Grand Inquisitor and his SCI investigators.  Their biased report, full of out of context statements, bogus accusations, and frivolous actions was enough to file 3020-a charges against Santa Claus who was eventually terminated. The trash media had a field day, the Post and Daily News, labeled poor Santa as "perv Claus".  What did Santa Claus actually do?  I'm glad you asked.  Here are the charges against Santa Claus.

• Calling school girls "hoes".
• Telling schoolchildren to sit on his lap.
• Asking the children if they were "naughty or nice"?
• Threatening them with a lump of coal in their stockings.
• Letting the students know that he will be breaking into their houses.

Santa Claus  was immediately removed from the classroom and sent to his local CFN "rubber room" where he languished for a month before he was summoned to a "probable cause" hearing where he was suspended without pay and health benefits.  Below is Santa Clause's 3020-a hearing at the point that Santa is cross examined by the DOE lawyer.

 The DOE lawyer asks Santa Claus why he kept telling the girls in the class that they are Hoes? Santa Claus responds by saying "I said Ho, Ho, Ho. Not that they are Hoes". The DOE lawyer states that Hoe and Ho are the same and the girls complained that they believed he was calling them Hoes.  The DOE lawyer asks Santa Claus why did he want to know what sexual deeds did the girls do?  Santa replied that he meant naughty as nice not sexual things. The DOE lawyer then brings up why did he threaten them with coal in their stockings if they didn't act nice? Santa Claus responds: "That is my way to encourage them to do the right things in life". The DOE lawyer states that sounds like you are scaring them. Santa Claus responds. "I was trying to get them to be good". The DOE lawyer then asked "haven't you asked the students to sit on your lap"? Santa Claus responds. "Yes".  Don't you think that is a sexual act?  Santa replied "no it is just a show of affection" The DOE lawyer asked Santa "didn't you tell the children that they will not get presents if they don't behave"?  Santa replied "yes". The DOE lawyer then asks didn't you tell the children that you will break into their house when they are sleeping? Santa Claus responds. "Yes, but only on Christmas Eve". So you admit to threatening them with breaking and entering into their homes? Santa Claus responds. "I guess so". Finally, is it true that you tried to bribe the children with presents if they sat on your lap?
Santa Claus responds. "I was not trying to bribe them". 

In his closing statement the DOE lawyer states the following. The DOE has proved his case that Santa Claus is guilty of the following offenses.

1. Sexual misconduct of a verbal nature in calling the girls Hoes.
2. Sexual misconduct of a physical nature by forcing the children to sit on his lap.
3. Corporal Punishment by threatening them with a lump of coal in their stockings,
4. Verbal Abuse by threatening them with no presents for being naughty.
5. Felony criminal charge of "breaking & entering" and "bribing" the children

The Arbitrator, under pressure from the DOE, found poor Santa guilty of all charges and terminated him 30 days after the closing statements.  Now poor Santa can never work for the DOE again.  Too bad he wasn't a DOE manager, he would have kept his job.

 

Why Doesn't The Union File Expedited Grievances When Selected Teachers Are Reassigned Out Of Their Borough?

There seems to be a misconception that there are no more "rubber rooms" and teachers mo longer spend many months and even years out of the classroom.  While most of these teachers will find themselves in their local CFN offices.  However, for some selected and targeted teachers that the DOE have singled out, are send to the far reaches of New York City.  To me, this is simply vindictive and presumes guilt even before a decision is made.  In one case I know of the teacher wasn't even charged and still was sent to a different Borough! According to the UFT contract and Chancellor's Regulation C-770, a teacher who is removed from their school will be placed in the District Office and for the most part the DOE abides by that interpretation of the contract. In fact, here is what the DOE wrote about reassigned teachers.

“5. Assignments for Suspended Employees http://docs.nycenet.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-82/C-770__9-5-00.pdf

It should be noted that, during the period of suspension, all individuals are expected to
perform duties appropriate to their regular assignments, insofar as possible. The duties
will depend, of course, upon the circumstances surrounding the suspension.
Suspended employees are to be assigned within their own districts or divisions. Requests
for a temporary change of assignment because of extraordinary circumstances must be
directed in writing to the Executive Director of the Division of Human Resources, with
supporting statements for the request. The Executive Director shall confer with the Office  of Legal Services regarding this request. The employee is not to be reassigned from the district or division until written authorization has been granted.”

 
 However, for those selected and targeted teachers, the DOE has chosen to make their life as difficult as possible. Let's look at two examples of what the DOE has done to two different teachers.

Example 1:  A District 26 middle school teacher in Queens was sent to Staten Island while waiting months for his 3020-a decision,despite the DOE's own written policy.  The teacher asked the union to file an expedited grievance to get him reassigned to either his District Office or local CFN.  Instead, the UFT representative filed an ordinary grievance that could take a year or more to be heard.  The teacher has now left the DOE and his grievance has still not been heard.   You would think the union would continue to pursue the grievance to make sure that the DOE's vindictive action would no longer be allowed and other teachers would not be subject to abusive travel conditions.  As far as I know the union might have dropped the grievance since the teacher no longer is employed by the DOE.

Example 2:  A District 31 Staten Island middle school teacher, Francesco Portelos, was reassigned to Queens despite the DOE's written policy that Mr. Porteles should have been reassigned to Staten Island.  I assume he has had the union file a grievance but as far as I know, Mr. Porteles has been officially reassigned to Queens once again this school year with no 3020-a charges as of yet.   You can read all about Francesco Portelos on his blog.

The question is why hasn't the UFT followed through with the grievance?  I would think that the DOE's apparent violation of the contract and their own policy is worthy of a grievance that the union should follow through with.  Is it not the union's duty to represent all their members?  Does the union buy into the DOE's policy of the teacher being guilty if accused?  If not, why the inaction in allowing these selected and targeted teachers to be subject to outrageous and costly commutes?

The bottom line is the union has a responsibility to protect these teachers and not buy into the vindictive actions of the DOE.

The Christine Rubino Facebook Decision And Why The Arbitrator's Award Is Excessive.

As many of my followers know, Christine Rubino's case has made the newspapers.  She was charged by the DOE for her Facebook comments that, were to say the least, ill considered and wrong.  However, this was Christine's private Facebook page and only her friends should have been able to see it.  Unfortunately, for Christine she had a falling out with one of her teacher friends who ratted her out to the Principal.   Despite the DOE having no policy on social media at the time and no students were hurt by what she said on Facebook, Christine was charged under section 3020-a anyway. In fact, she continued teaching until her 3020-a charges more than five months later!

She was assigned an Arbitrator, Randi Lowett, who people in the 3020-a hearing process believed was reasonably even-handed in her "awards".  However, according to Betsy Combier in Christine's open and public 3020-a hearing, this one was different.  The DOE seemed especially interested in terminating Christine for her Facebook comments and in many of the sessions the head of the "Administrative Trials Unit (ATU), Teresa Europe, showed up.  According to Betsy Combier who has been in many 3020-a hearings, this was a rare event to see the head of the ATU show up on more than one occasion.   The question must be asked did Teresa Europe showing up at Christine's 3020-a hearing influenced Arbitrator Randi Lovett's decision?  Furthermore, since Christine had fired her NYSUT lawyer, did this make it easier for the Arbitrator to terminate Christine?  I do not know the answers but I have my own suspicions.  The Arbitrator's original decision can be found here.

Based upon the Arbitrator's decision to terminate Christine Rubino for her Facebook comments it would seem that the "award" was excessive and Christine rightly appealed the case under section 75-11. The Supreme Court Judge, Barbara Jaffae, ruled that the "award"  was shocking to the conscious" and sent it back to Arbitrator Randi Lovett, for a less severe "award".  In the meantime the DOE has appealed the Judge's decision to the Appellate Court and since they were required to follow the Judge's decision for a lesser "award", the DOE arbitrarily asked that the Arbitrator rule that a two-year suspension would be appropriate.  This type of severe penalty has not been "awarded" since the turn of the century to any one's knowledge.  Either the educator gets a one year suspension or is terminated.  The last two year suspension issued by a NYS Arbitrator is in the 1990's and that was based upon more serious charges.

Shockingly, but not surprisingly, the Arbitrator Randi Lowett agreed with the DOE and issued a two year suspension without pay or health benefits in what reads as a very angry decision.  Christine is appealing again against the excessive "award" issued by the Arbitrator and  hopefully, the Judge will once again send it back to a different Arbitrator, this time, for a decision that does not "shock the conscious".

I really know how Cristine feels about her persecution by the DOE.  I spent 1567 days in the "rubber room" on false and frivolous charges and even this year the Mayor's poodle, the Chancellor, Dennis Walcott proclaimed me guilty even after the real evidence showed otherwise. Read the following blogs for more information on the DOE's crusade against Christine Rubino, a teacher with a fifteen year unblemished record.  Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here.

Thank You!

I would thank the many education bloggers who have rallied to my defense after the DOE tried to ruin my reputation by giving the newspapers a deliberately distorted file about me that omitted some very important information and the actual truth as to what was decided in my 3020-a hearing. The DOE file, complete with false accusations, misstatements and deliberate omissions made it seem that I committed sexual misconduct and got away with it. The truth is very different.

Thanks to all of you both the Daily News and New York Times experienced the "blowback" and have now realized that the DOE was less than forthright and had their own agenda in sending them selected information that was intended to trash my reputation and others. I can only hope the next time the news media gets information from the DOE, they should carefully "fact check" the information and not assume it is correct or complete.

What is next for me? I guess I will find out if the DOE retaliates and "reassigns me" or will they simply lick their wounds and realize that their strategy to destroy the sixteen teachers backfired? I guess I will know Monday when I report to my school. Stay turned.

Again, my thanks to all the education bloggers and the people who commented on my and other people's blogs in support of me and the truth.

The Principal & The SCI Investigation - My Story.

Time and again I have heard naive people ask me why would an SCI Investigator not want to do a fair and independent investigation? The answer is that once SCI takes a case, they have a presumption that the smoke of the accusation means that there must be a fire. In other words if an accusation is made, then it is up to the investigator to substantiate the accusation by any means possible. This article will try to go through my SCI investigative process and the reason the Arbitrator dismissed & discredited the SCI report in my 3020-a hearing.

The Principal:

The most important person in an SCI investigation is the Principal. In my three year experience as a liaison of the Queens Teacher Reassignment Center (TRC) I had heard many stories from teachers. The ones who had SCI investigations for alleged sexual issues where usually sent back to their school if their Principal supported the teacher. By contrast, principals who disliked their teachers would use the SCI investigation process to have 3020-a charges filed against the teacher for alleged sexual misconduct even when there was little or no evidence of such. Of course if a teacher really had a sexual relationship or sexually abused a student then no Principal could save that teacher and nor should they.

My Ex-Principal:

It was no secret in my school that the Principal and me did not see "eye to eye" on many issues. I was on the School Leadership Team (SLT) for the last four years and usually voted with the students and parents and against the Principal who was running the school into the ground. I always believed that my Principal's policy of "Principal first, children last" was destroying the school and his poor decision-making skills were hurting the students. In fact, at the end of the school year that I was reassigned. the DOE finally removed the Principal "for cause" but it was too late for me.

The Principal was the same Principal who gave me my 2002 reprimand which the Arbitrator threw out as "unfair and inaccurate" in 2004. The relationship between my Principal and I deteriorated further in the mid 2000's to the point that, with my Chapter Leader's urging, I filled a PERB complaint against my Principal and NYSUT agreed to supply me with a lawyer after carefully reviewing my Principal's actions against me. In front of the PERB mediator, the City lawyers threatened to have me reassigned during the PERB hearings which could take a year or more to conclude. With that threat, it was agreed that the Principal will not target me or practice disparate treatment if I was to drop the PERB charge. Since I didn't want to be reassigned, I reluctantly accepted the deal.

The Principal simply waited until the 2006-07 school year when a student complained to the Guidance Counselor and got the ball rolling by calling SCI. He told SCI some highly inaccurate information to ensure that they would take the case. First, he told SCI that I had inappropriately touched and threatened to kiss a student. He also told them that I was reprimanded previously of such actions which he knew was false. He personally selected students for the DOE to talk to rather than a random selection in the hopes that some of these students will talk trash about me and influence the SCI investigation. Finally, the DOE used a deliberately inaccurate statement I allegedly made and the Daily News used in their article came from the Principal and not the student. "If it won't get me in trouble, I would kiss you".

The SCI Investigator:

The SCI investigator was an ex-police detective and I did not cooperate with him as instructed by my union. When a UFT lawyer looked at the accusations against me she laughed and said are they serious? Who did you piss off? She told me not to worry, their case against me is unreal and frivolous. The SCI investigator actually turned out to be a fairly decent person and strongly hinted to me on his occasional visits to the TRC that the case against me was very weak and he had told the Principal that it might be best to dump a letter into my file then pursue the case due to lack of evidence. Obviously, the Principal thought otherwise since he was able to get rid of me and my salary off the school's payroll. Of course it did not stop the SCI investigator from substantiating the frivolous charges and lying in my "probable cause hearing" by using the DOE's/Principal's deliberately inaccurate statement instead of the actual statement recalled by the student in his report. He also said that the word "kiss" is sexual no matter how one uses it when he realized that he was caught in a lie by the "probable cause Arbitrator".

I ran into the SCI Investigator after my winning the "probable cause hearing" a couple of more times and he told me how shocked he was that they dumped a "probable cause hearing" on me. He also said to me that If he could do the investigation over, he would have come out with a different conclusion. While he didn't say it upfront, he blamed the Principal for the damage done to me. He even told a colleague in the TRC that the charges against me was "bullshit". In his 3020-a testimony the SCI investigator did his job calmly, and coolly, but did not hurt me, especially when we brought up "the statement" and he admitted I used the qualifier of "I'm so proud of you" in the statement.

The Student:

The student made as many as five conflicting statements, to different people who interviewed her, depending on who she talked to and these conflicting statements were presented as evidence that she was either lying or being manipulated. In her testimony at the 3020-a hearing she would change her testimony to suit what she thought they wanted to hear, including my NYSUT lawyer! It was very obvious to all she didn't want to be there and her testimony was not credible. I even felt sorry for her after her emotional and ever-changing answers to questions by both sides.

The bottom line is that while the Daily News can call me a "pervy teacher" the Arbitrator, when confronted with the evidence, or in the DOE's case, lack of evidence of any "sexual misconduct" could only give me a fine for making a comment that embarrassed the student in front of a class of thirty. Maybe the Daily News need to investigate the connection between principals and SCI that can and do taint the investigation process.

You can read my story Here and Here.