Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Outrageous Story From Kansas City: Vatterott College President Brian Carroll is Fired For Allowing Homeless Student To Sleep in the Library

There are many outrageous stories out there concerning unfairness, workplace bullying and violations of due process as well as simply irrational and inhumane decisions made by administrators.

The story below is one of the most outrageous decisions I have heard. The solution is to fire the people who made the decision to remove Brian Carroll, and re-instate him with all benefits. Pronto.

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
Brian Carroll

College president says he was fired for offering homeless student shelter inside library in sub-zero temps

He was only trying to be kind to a homeless man.
That, according to the former campus president of a Kansas City trade school, is what led to him being fired, while offering a homeless man shelter from coldweather.
Brian Carroll, campus president at Vatterott College in Kansas City for five years, says one of his students had no place to go. On Friday, January 6th, he allowed a student, who is homeless and schizophrenic, to sleep overnight in the school's library. The school fired him on Monday, January 9th, the next business day.
"Education is a beautiful thing to me," Carroll told FOX 4 News. "But sometimes, it gets destroyed in the process."
The recorded overnight temperatures outside Vatterott College on January 6th hit four degrees below zero. Carroll says that student had been sleeping in a wooded area near the school, but temperatures were too harsh that night, and the student had nowhere to seek warmth.
"I just didn't want to take the chance," Carroll said. "We had ice and snow."
"I had a tough choice to make. He can't stay on campus. I can't put him in my car. I can't take him to my house."
Carroll says the student had run out of his medication. He allowed the student to bed down in the school's library, and even though the student didn't steal or damage anything, Carroll was fired once the school's corporate leaders found out. The building has a series of surveillance cameras that can be viewed via remote, which is how Vatterott's Saint Louis-based management team found out.
"I made a choice. I was choosing between life -- I'm not from here. I'm from Southern California. I'm not sure if I could live in the woods at minus two degrees," Carroll said.
For more on this story, visit Fox4KC.com.


Retirement After Being Charged With 3020-a Automatically and Permanently Terminates a NYC Teaching License

Wayne Crawford Jefferson sued the NYC Department in Queens Supreme Court to get his teaching license back when his license was permanently taken as a result of his retirement while charged with 3020-a.

In NYC, the procedural errors alone, I think, should be a factor for review of Chancellor's Regulation C-205. 

I am not an attorney, just an avid reader of the rules, regulations and laws of the Education Law 3020-a process. It stinks.

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 Jefferson v New York City Bd. of Educ.
2017 NY Slip Op 00166
Decided on January 11, 2017
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on January 11, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department 
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. 
LEONARD B. AUSTIN 
SHERI S. ROMAN 
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

2015-11195 
(Index No. 6002/15) 

[*1]In the Matter of Wayne Crawford Jefferson, appellant,

v

New York City Board of Education, respondent.





Wayne Crawford Jefferson, Hazleton, PA, appellant pro se.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to reinstate the petitioner's New York City teaching license, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler J.), entered August 3, 2015, as, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner was employed by the New York City Department of Education, sued herein as the New York City Board of Education (hereinafter the DOE), as a teacher until he retired on October 27, 2014. At the time he retired, charges were pending against him pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a. Pursuant to paragraph 24 of New York City Board of Education Chancellor's Regulation C-205, the petitioner's New York City teaching license was permanently terminated since charges were pending against him pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a at the time he retired. The petitioner was apprised of the termination of his license by an attorney from his union.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the DOE to reinstate his teaching license. The DOE moved to dismiss the petition. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, and denied the motion as academic. The petitioner appeals.
"A special proceeding under CPLR article 78 is available to challenge the actions or inaction of agencies and officers of state and local government" (Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d 724, 725; see Matter of Hollander v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., Child Support Enforcement Bur., 140 AD3d 1064, 1065). When a petitioner challenges an administrative determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing, the court must consider whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, or arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d at 725; Matter of JP & Assoc. Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 122 AD3d 739, 739). A determination is arbitrary and capricious when it is without sound basis and reason and generally taken without regard to the facts (see Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of Correctional [*2]Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale and Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231; Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d at 725).
"Pursuant to Education Law § 2590-h, the Chancellor has the authority to promulgate regulations necessary or convenient' to the administration of the public school system" (Matter of Springer v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 27 NY3d 102, 106). "The tenets of statutory construction apply equally to administrative rules and regulations" (id.). Such regulations should be construed in accordance with their plain language (see id. at 107; see also Matter of Vaccaro v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 139 AD3d 612Matter of Brennan v City of New York, 123 AD3d 607).
Here, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding since the plain language of paragraph 24 of New York City Board of Education Chancellor's Regulation C-205 provides that a New York City teaching license shall be permanently terminated if the license holder retires while charges are pending pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a. The petitioner's contention that he was unaware of this regulation, which was issued on September 5, 2000, and posted online on the DOE's website, is unavailing, as he was "deemed to be on notice of the DOE Chancellor regulation[s]" (Matter of Benjamin v New York City Dept. of Educ., 119 AD3d 440, 441; see Salamino v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 85 AD3d 617, 619).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court