Op-Ed piece by the Mayor's poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott in the New York Tmes and couldn't believe the spin he put into the article as he pleaded for the power to arbitrarily fire teachers accused of sexual misconduct but were found innocent by Arbitrators. In his piece he wrote many things that were either misleading or untrue.
First, He claims that substantiated investigations are proof enough that he would terminate teachers, regardless what the actual evidence is. People familiar with my story and my blog know that these investigations from OSI and SCI are not independent but are biased and unfair against an accused teacher. In fact, the Principal has a great deal of influence on how the investigation goes. If the Principal does not like the teacher, you can guess the investigators will substantiate bogus, false, and frivolous actions, and even hearsay statements as proof of sexual misconduct. I guess the Chancellor does not want the inconvenient truth that evidence should be used as the basis for determining if teacher sexual misconduct actually happened.
Second, he knows full well that when it comes to sexual misconduct, the Arbitrator does not "split the baby" as he claims. An Arbitrator who finds even minor sexual misconduct is required to terminate the teacher. In fact here is what it states:
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
The Chancellor knows very well what the rules state. What he ignores is that if these Arbitrators were not following the rules then why does the DOE keep them on the panel year after year?
Third, the Arbitrators rule on the preponderance of relevant evidence not unfounded hearsay, rumors, and gossip or worse, unsupported accusations aided and abetted by unscrupulous Administrators. Of course, in Chancellor Walcott's piece he assumes all substantiated investigations and accusations are true, except when it is about his principals, that the Arbitrator's decision can be overturned by him.
Finally, the Chancellor claims that he should have the authority to make the final decision. However, based on my and other cases he apparently does not have the necessary knowledge or patience to read the transcripts of the 3020-a hearings but takes the lazy way out by reading the so-called substantiated investigative conclusions as his basis for making his decision to terminate teachers. Consequently, I must question his judgement to fairly evaluate the evidence since he ignores the Arbitrator's reasoned decision and will base his decision on the politics and not the evidence.
Please read Accountable Talk's post for another response to the Chancellor's op-ed piece.