Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query April 15, 2010. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query April 15, 2010. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, November 4, 2010

The UFT Dies By Its' Own Hand

Note from Betsy Combier:

I worked for the UFT for three years as an advocate for members. I tried to stop the decline of this powerful entity, but I was never 'accepted' by the chiefs of the Union as one of "them" and tortured after Randi's departure to Washington.

 The April 15 agreement signed by Mike Mulgrew and Joel Klein is a fake, published to keep the public quiet about how $millions of dollars of public money are being spent on an absurd process of removing employees from the New York public school system that is not based on fact or law.

Indeed, the day of the announcement I received a call at home from the principal of a rubber room (each of the 8 'rubber rooms' had a 'principal' who watched over the room(s) at that location for the NYC DOE) at 8:15AM and he told me to get to a rubber room quickly, as the UFT was making an announcement about closing the rooms. Not one representative of the UFT told me about this agreement or the press conference announcing the so-called "end of the rubber rooms" (which everyone knew was not true). This was strange as I was specifically hired to work with the members placed into re-assignment centers ( as well as still working in their schools). Later that day we had our monthly meeting at the UFT with all the reps., liaisons from all the rubber rooms and district offices, and Co-Staff Director (and Secretary of the Unity Caucus) Leroy Barr told me that he "forgot" to tell me about the agreement, sorry.

So, what did I do then? I read the agreement and was alarmed  enough to start asking questions about how the rights of members to due process were protected. I was told that I was a great advocate, but the UFT didnt need me anymore. Bye.

They were right. The UFT does not need, nor do they want, someone helping members if it means going against the NYC Board of Education in any way. I think its time to look more closely at the people who take members' dues out of every paycheck. Full disclosure: I am not bitter at all that I no longer work at the UFT, thus I will write about the staff as information, not as revenge. I write what I see. I will start profiling staff members on this blog very soon.

I might suggest that each member consider calling the UFT Welfare Fund and removing your payment of dues to the UFT - not to your welfare/benefits - from your paycheck. You can still keep your benefits, but why keep paying dues if the people who are getting paid megabucks dont do anything to help you?

Here is the April 15 press release of the UFT, with another copy of the April 15 agreement:

City and UFT reach breakthrough agreement to eliminate “rubber rooms”



Streamlined disciplinary process to return good teachers to the classroom and provide for efficient removal of others from payroll
LINK
For immediate release
published April 15, 2010


Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein and UFT President Michael Mulgrew on April 15 announced a landmark agreement to eliminate temporary reassignment centers, or “rubber rooms,” where teachers accused of misconduct or incompetence are assigned pending resolution of their cases. Under the new agreement, most teachers accused of misconduct or incompetence will be assigned to perform administrative work in Department of Education offices or given non-classroom duties in their schools while their cases are resolved.



“Despite everything we've accomplished together to improve our City's public schools, we still have major reforms and improvements to tackle — and that is exactly what we are doing,” Mayor Bloomberg said. “Fixing this broken process gets us all back to what we want to be doing, giving our kids the education the need and deserve.”


“The rubber rooms are a symptom of a disciplinary process that has not worked for anyone — not the kids, not the schools, and not the teachers,” UFT President Mulgrew said. “This agreement is designed to get teachers out of the rubber rooms and to ensure that they do not have to wait for months or years to have their cases heard.”


“The rubber rooms were the result of a broken and protracted teacher discipline process. This deal goes a long way in improving the way the union and the department deal with teachers accused of and charged with wrongdoings,” Chancellor Klein said. “We are committed to adhering to the timetables outlined in the new agreement and confident that in the end our kids will benefit from this better process.”


There currently are some 550 teachers assigned to these rubber rooms, costing the city $30 million each year. Using this new process, cases that once may have lasted several years will now be resolved within a few months. After removing a teacher from the classroom, the department will have 10 days to file incompetence charges or 60 days to file misconduct charges depending on the nature of the case.


If reassigned teachers investigated for misconduct are not charged within the 60-day window, they will be returned to their classrooms. Similarly, teachers accused of incompetence who are not charged within 10 days of reassignment will also return to their schools. Investigations can continue after a teacher is back in the classroom, however, and the teacher may still face charges.


In some “non-termination” cases where the department is seeking a suspension at reduced or no pay, the agreement allows the department to use an expedited, three-day disciplinary process.


Additionally, the agreement expands the list of charges for which the department can suspend teachers without pay following a probable cause hearing to include violent felony crimes. When charges are not substantiated against educators, they will be entitled to back pay.


Under the new agreement, the number of arbitrators will increase from 23 to 39, and arbitrators will now hear incompetence charges seven days a month rather than five. Additional arbitrators will be hired to hear non-termination cases in the expedited disciplinary process.


While the agreement will not take effect until September at the start of the 2010-2011 school year, the department and UFT have agreed to begin immediately addressing the backlog of cases of teachers now in rubber rooms, with the goal of resolving all current cases by December.


The provisions of this agreement will be enforceable under the grievance procedures of the UFT contract. Read the full agreement.
Support for United Federation of Teachers eroding as once-mighty union forced to make concessions

BY Meredith Kolodner and Rachel Monahan, DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Monday, November 1st 2010, 5:13 AM
LINK

Michael Mulgrew and John Liu, NYC Comptroller
In the recent blowup over the release of teacher ratings, the United Federation of Teachers couldn't even rely on the Democratic White House for support.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan sided with the city - the latest blow to the once-mighty union, which has seen public support dwindle and has been forced to make concessions unthinkable just a few years ago.

Teachers unions were painted as villains in the high-profile education documentary "Waiting for Superman."

And the competition for millions of dollars in federal Race to the Top funds promoted reforms traditionally opposed by the unions, like charter schools and teacher evaluations linked to test scores.

"Public sentiment clearly has shifted in favor of reform and accountability, and the union has had to adjust," said Schools Chancellor Joel Klein.

Although some observers applaud the UFT for changing with the times, others suggest the compromises are eating away at its power.

"Definitely, the union is much weaker," said Sol Stern of the Manhattan Institute, often a critic of both the union and the Bloomberg administration. "It's a fad - the union is the obstacle to school reform."

Other critics say the union hasn't necessarily lost power but is under attack.

"I think it's a more controversial force. I don't think it's less of a force," said Kathy Wylde, CEO of the Partnership for New York City and a supporter of merit pay and eliminating tenure. "Is there a demonization of the teachers union? Yes."

Education expert Diane Ravitch points to a nationwide movement against the unions, starting at the White House, which supported the firing of the entire staff of a Rhode Island high school.

"President Obama and Secretary Duncan have undercut the political power of teachers unions and made common cause with their critics, to the point of demoralizing many, many teachers, not just their unions, across the nation," she said.

Union supporters note that the UFT has won 43% raises since the mayor was elected - a substantial victory.

UFT President Michael Mulgrew argues the Bloomberg administration's approach to reform has strengthened the union by aligning teachers with parents and community groups.

"Education's at a major crossroads," he said.

"It is our belief that teachers should be the ones leading the change. Our battle is to make sure schools don't get turned into test prep factories."

And he insists the union is still politically powerful, with candidates seeking endorsements and advocates asking for help in securing policy changes. Mulgrew also said that he got a good deal for teachers in the Race to the Top legislation.

Although other states made test scores count for 50% of teacher evaluations, New York State test results account for 25% of evaluations, thanks to UFT clout.

Even some of teachers unions' fiercest critics agree it's much too early to write their epitaph.

"Having witnessed the defeat of [D.C.] Mayor Adrian Fenty and the successful lawsuit against school closings in New York City, it's crystal-clear that the union is still plenty powerful," said Eva Moskowitz, founder and chief executive officer of the Success Charter Network.

mkolodner@nydailynews.com

Friday, July 29, 2011

Chris Lobo, Another Victim of Peer Intervention Plus (PIP+) Loses His Article 7511 in Supreme Court

The decision below reflects once again the power of RMC as the vendor that was hired by the NYC BOE to do observations of "incompetent" teachers" under the PIP+ program. The PIP+ program is a red flag that you must be terminated. The process is pursued through the principal of a school, and the observations of the PIP+ observer are given to the principal, whose opinion of the employee determines what is written. Arbitrators are told by the Gotcha Squad not to overrule the conclusions given as to the employee's performance and I know of only three cases where a teacher/employee was not terminated by the arbitrator at 3020-a, and no cases where the Supreme Court overturned this termination on Appeal.

Why the UFT would continue to push members into this program is my question, not only because of its obvious purpose, but also because the observers violate the UFTcontract (Article 8J) and Teaching In The 21st Century by not doing pre-observations.

NEW YORK COUNTY

Schools and Education
Hearing Officer's Decision to Terminate Teacher Found Not Shocking to Conscience
07-29-2011
Justice Lobis

High school science teacher, Lobo, sought to annul an arbitration's decision to terminate his employment. A hearing on misconduct charges was held after the Department of Education (DOE) preferred charges, including incompetence, against Lobo. Hearing Officer Henderson found Lobo's testimony consisted of general denials or excuses for his "shortcomings." Henderson found the DOE established that on the seven occasions administrators observed Lobo's class over two years, he delivered unsatisfactory lessons. He concluded that given the resources available to help Lobo, and his failure to improve and reluctance to admit deficiencies, it was unlikely Lobo would ever improve, ruling termination appropriate. Lobo claimed the termination was shocking to the conscience and should be vacated. The court disagreed, noting in light of Henderson's findings that Lobo was under-performing for two straight years, and even after being provided resources to assist him, Lobo could not argue the penalty of termination was unwarranted. The court ruled as Lobo failed to sufficiently allege cognizable causes of action, the DOE's cross-motion for dismissal was granted.

Profile of Judge Joan B. Lobis:

Part Rules


Individual Judges' Rules Non Commercial Division

Recent decisions

Matter of Colon v. Kelly, 117992/09

Decided: May 13, 2010 (Published 5/27/2010 Administrative Law)

Capparelli v. NYC Dept of Housing Preservation & Development, 117308/09

Decided: April 2, 2010 (Published 5/12/2010 Landlord/Tenant Law)

Sweeten v. Teperman, 100425/06

Decided: February 4, 2010 (Published 3/2/2010 Civil Practice)

Matter of Costigan v. Kelly, 109718/09

Decided: February 11, 2010 (Published 3/1/2010 Government)

Tribeca Community Assoc. v. NYC Dept. of Sanitation, 101498/09

Decided: January 11, 2010 (Published 1/28/2010 Civil Practice)

Matter of Press v. Kelly, 107020/09

Decided: January 8, 2010 (Published 1/26/2010 Administrative Law)

Torres v. Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center, 109359/08

Decided: December 4, 2009 (Published 12/24/2009 Criminal Practice)

Matter of Kinard v. New York City Housing Authority, 401041/09

Decided: October 30, 2009 (Published 11/25/2009 Landlord/Tenant Law)

Franklin v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 108022/09

Decided: October 22, 2009 (Published 11/18/2009 Civil Practice)

Matter of Douce v. New York City Housing Authority

106638/09, Decided: October 22, 2009 (Published 11/12/2009 Landlord/Tenant Law)

Yakkey v. Ascher, 105463/05

Decided: October 26, 2009 (Published 11/9/2009 Torts)

Matter of Local No. 1 v. Thompson, 111072/08

Decided: March 2, 2009 (Published 3/23/2009 Labor Law)

Matter of Brown v. Hernandez, 401918/08

Decided: October 16, 2008 (Published 11/12/2008 Landlord/Tenant Law)

C. v. C., 350571/06

Decided: July 24, 2008 (Published 8/26/2008 Family Law)

Matter of Riches v. New York City Council, 106898/08

Decided: July 16, 2008 (Published 7/29/2008 Government)

J.H.W. v. J.H.W. (Published 2/10/2006 Civil Practice)

Appellate decisions (The Appellate Decisions below were originally ruled on by this judge in a lower court.)

Matter of Duryea v New York City Hous. Auth. (2011 NY Slip Op 05554) (Date Decided 6/28/2011)

Kettaneh v Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of New York (2011 NY Slip Op 05410) (Date Decided 6/23/2011)

Fernandez v Moskowitz (2011 NY Slip Op 05344) (Date Decided 6/21/2011)

Matter of Block v Gatling (2011 NY Slip Op 03672) (Date Decided 5/3/2011)

Rose v Frankel (2011 NY Slip Op 03339) (Date Decided 4/28/2011)

Tribeca Community Assn. v New York City Dept. of Sanitation (2011 NY Slip Op 02959) (Date Decided 4/14/2011)

Matter of Gibbs v New York City Hous. Auth. (2011 NY Slip Op 01529) (Date Decided 3/1/2011)

Imperato v Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. (2011 NY Slip Op 01532) (Date Decided 3/1/2011)

Matter of Bautista v City of New York (2011 NY Slip Op 00784) (Date Decided 2/10/2011)

Cunningham v Newman (2011 NY Slip Op 00628) (Date Decided 2/3/2011)

Bustos v Lenox Hill Hosp. (2011 NY Slip Op 00432) (Date Decided 1/27/2011)

Matter of Zartoshti v Columbia Univ. (2010 NY Slip Op 09003) (Date Decided 12/7/2010)

Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v NYC East-West Acupuncture, P.C. (2010 NY Slip Op 07111) (Date Decided 10/7/2010)

Mulgrew v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York (2010 NY Slip Op 05863) (Date Decided 7/1/2010)

Matter of Girigorie v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. (2010 NY Slip Op 05880) (Date Decided 7/1/2010)

Nimkoff v Nimkoff (2010 NY Slip Op 04633) (Date Decided 6/1/2010)

Suckishvili v Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y. (2010 NY Slip Op 04647) (Date Decided 6/1/2010)

Matter of Days Impex Ltd. v Solomon Blum Heymann & Stich LLP (2010 NY Slip Op 04441) (Date Decided 5/25/2010)

Popowich v Korman (2010 NY Slip Op 04104) (Date Decided 5/13/2010)

Torres v Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Ctr. (2010 NY Slip Op 03379) (Date Decided 4/27/2010)

Matter of Riches v New York City Council (2010 NY Slip Op 03046) (Date Decided 4/15/2010)

Matter of Rodriguez v City of New York (2010 NY Slip Op 02020) (Date Decided 3/16/2010)

White v White (2010 NY Slip Op 01880) (Date Decided 3/11/2010)

Carter v Isabella Geriatric Ctr., Inc. (2010 NY Slip Op 01745) (Date Decided 3/4/2010)

Zak v Mintz (2010 NY Slip Op 00207) (Date Decided 1/12/2010)

Wyser-Pratte v Wyser-Pratte (2009 NY Slip Op 09531) (Date Decided 12/22/2009)

Septimus v Matos (2009 NY Slip Op 09166) (Date Decided 12/10/2009)

Matter of DeMartino v New York City Dept. of Transp. (2009 NY Slip Op 08073) (Date Decided 11/10/2009)

Ban Do Constr., Inc. v Connolly (2009 NY Slip Op 07161) (Date Decided 10/6/2009)

Matter of AJK Café, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth. (2009 NY Slip Op 06648) (Date Decided 9/24/2009)

Matter of Grasso v New York City Tr. Auth. (2009 NY Slip Op 04274) (Date Decided 6/2/2009)

Gliber v Choi (2009 NY Slip Op 03930) (Date Decided 5/19/2009)

Ansour v Ansour (2009 NY Slip Op 03030) (Date Decided 4/21/2009)

Brockman v Brockman (Date Decided 2/24/2009)

Lusk v Lusk (2008 NY Slip Op 07969) (Date Decided 10/21/2008)

Belmore-Gaillard v Gaillard (2008 NY Slip Op 04795) (Date Decided 5/29/2008)

Kinberg v Kinberg (2008 NY Slip Op 03696) (Date Decided 4/24/2008)

Camaiore v Farance (2008 NY Slip Op 03390) (Date Decided 4/17/2008)

Carter v Carter (2008 NY Slip Op 02635) (Date Decided 3/20/2008)

Evans v Evans (2008 NY Slip Op 01602) (Date Decided 2/21/2008)

Stots v Daniels (2008 NY Slip Op 01070) (Date Decided 2/7/2008)

Karas-Abraham v Abraham (2007 NY Slip Op 09686) (Date Decided 12/6/2007)

Trexler v Kahanovitz (2007 NY Slip Op 05138) (Date Decided 6/12/2007)

Kesten v Weingarten (2007 NY Slip Op 04576) (Date Decided 5/31/2007)

Gross v Gross (2007 NY Slip Op 04362) (Date Decided 5/22/2007)

Nimkoff v Nimkoff (2007 NY Slip Op 00376) (Date Decided 1/18/2007)

Bianco v Bianco (2007 NY Slip Op 00244) (Date Decided 1/16/2007)

A.C. v D.R. (2007 NY Slip Op 00216) (Date Decided 1/11/2007)

Muslin v Passer-Muslin (2006 NYSlipOp 10136) (Date Decided 12/28/2006)

Eun Lee v Solimano (2006 NYSlipOp 08185) (Date Decided 11/14/2006)

Crane v Crane (2006 NYSlipOp 07833) (Date Decided 10/31/2006)

St. Clement v Casale (2006 NYSlipOp 03697) (Date Decided 5/11/2006)

Church v McCabe (2006 NYSlipOp 00309) (Date Decided 1/19/2006)

Murphy v Murphy (2005 NYSlipOp 10201) (Date Decided 12/29/2005)

Filippatos v Filippatos (2005 NYSlipOp 07590) (Date Decided 10/13/2005)

Ritz v Ritz (2005 NYSlipOp 06375) (Date Decided 8/11/2005)

Haynes v Haynes (2005 NYSlipOp 04501) (Date Decided 6/7/2005)

Spector v Spector (2005 NYSlipOp 04315) (Date Decided 5/26/2005)

Weinstein v Weinstein (2005 NYSlipOp 03778) (Date Decided 5/10/2005)

Hale v Hale (2005 NYSlipOp 01997) (Date Decided 3/17/2005)

IBE Trade Corp. v Litvinenko (2005 NYSlipOp 01624) (Date Decided 3/3/2005)

Sygrove v Sygrove (2005 NYSlipOp 01277) (Date Decided 2/22/2005)

Sygrove v Sygrove (2005 NYSlipOp 01278) (Date Decided 2/22/2005)

Bartha v Bartha (2005 NY Slip Op 00450) (Date Decided 1/27/2005)

Mitnick v Rosenthal (2005 NYSlipOp 00357) (Date Decided 1/25/2005)

Matter of Dier (2004 NYSlipOp 09227) (Date Decided 12/14/2004)

Lewittes v Blume (2004 NYSlipOp 09016) (Date Decided 12/7/2004)

Cahen-Vorburger v Vorburger (2004 NYSlipOp 08599) (Date Decided 11/23/2004)

Lewittes v Lewittes (2004 NYSlipOp 08148) (Date Decided 11/16/2004)

McCarthy v McCarthy (2004 NYSlipOp 07775) (Date Decided 10/28/2004)

Racz v Racz (2004 NYSlipOp 07446) (Date Decided 10/19/2004)

St. Clement v Londa (2004 NYSlipOp 04863) (Date Decided 6/10/2004)

Haynes v Haynes (2004 NYSlipOp 01711) (Date Decided 3/16/2004)

Ligreci v Ligreci (2004 NYSlipOp 01680) (Date Decided 3/11/2004)

J.A. v S.A. (2004 NYSlipOp 01217) (Date Decided 2/24/2004)

Caffrey v Caffrey (2003 NYSlipOp 19802) (Date Decided 12/23/2003)

Lewittes v Lewittes (2003 NYSlipOp 19669) (Date Decided 12/18/2003)

Rubin v Rubin (2003 NYSlipOp 18414) (Date Decided 11/18/2003)

Tzo Kao Chang v Wei Qing Liu (2003 NYSlipOp 18336) (Date Decided 11/13/2003)

Saturday, September 28, 2013

City Sues UFT for Failure to Assign Rubber Room Arbitrators


City Sues UFT for Failure to Assign Rubber Room Arbitrators


LINK
NEW YORK—The city sued the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) on Friday for what it says is a failure of the UFT to uphold its end of an agreement to increase arbitrators. The arbitrators were to expedite the processing of teachers awaiting disciplinary hearings, allowing them to get back to the classroom, or be taken off the payroll.
In 2010, the UFT and the city struck a deal to end Temporary Reassignment Centers, also known as the “rubber room,” which is the place teachers go to await the outcome of disciplinary hearings. The city had taken heat for the rubber rooms after investigations found teachers spent years being paid for doing administrative work.
As part of the agreement, the UFT agreed to increase the number of arbitrators from 23 to 39, a move aimed to expedite the process.
According to the city, the UFT has failed to keep its end of the bargain. 
In a complaint to be filed today, the city charges only 19 arbitrators are on the books, well short of the 39 agreed upon. In 2011-2012 there were 24 arbitrators set, however, they were not seated at the same time, according to the complaint. 
Arbitrators are appointed only if the UFT and the NY Department of Education can agree on the person. The complaint alleges the UFT and the Department of Education were to meet at least twice a year to select arbitrators, something that has not happened. 
“They just keep delaying,” Mayor Michael Blomberg said on his Friday morning radio show. “The backlog keeps getting bigger. And it just prevents having a fair hearing for teachers who should be cleared of any charges, it allows teachers who should not be in front of our kids through incompetence or inappropriate conduct to continue collecting a paycheck.” 
In a Sept. 19 letter, Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott said he would agree to 30 arbitrators, the minimum required from the 2010 agreement. However, the UFT failed to agree, according to the complaint. 
Epoch Times reached out to the UFT for comment, but the union did not respond by press time.

Lawsuit alleges union is breaking promises in ‘rubber room’ deal

A “big deal” forged to shutter the city’s infamous rubber rooms more than three years ago is getting dragged down by the city teachers union, the city charges in a lawsuit filed today.
Department of Education lawyers say the United Federation of Teachers has failed to hold up a key part of the agreement, which was struck with joint praise from Mayor Bloomberg and union President Michael Mulgrew in April 2010 to speed up the disciplinary process for teachers whom the city wants to fire. At the time, the city estimated it was spending $30 million a year to pay 550 teachers who were removed from the classroom and who languished — sometimes for years — in reassignment centers known as “rubber rooms” while they awaited a hearing.
A major element of the deal was to increase the pool of mutually acceptable arbitrators — from 23 to 39 — who rule on cases against teachers charged with incompetence or misconduct. But three years after the reforms were scheduled to take place, that number has actually fallen to 19 — while the number of teachers facing trials stands at over 400.
The lawsuit alleges that the UFT has repeatedly balked at approving enough arbitrators to hit the new target. Last month, the union agreed to invite just 14 arbitrators, and the selection process stalled entirely this month.
UFT President Michael Mulgrew has argued that the union cannot agree to the arbitrators whom the city proposes. In a letter to Chancellor Dennnis Walcott earlier this week, Mulgrew said the selection process would be faster “if the DOE would propose more qualified candidates.”
The arbitrator pool has also shrunk because the state does not always pay arbitrators for their work in a timely fashion. The State Education Department, which is responsible for the payments, recently reported a $2 million deficit in the “Tenured Teacher Hearing” fund, which is used to pay arbitrators in disciplinary cases.
A group of arbitrators are suing the state over the payments, including one who’s owed $200,000 in backpay. ”The reason many of the very senior arbitrators [sic] no longer do these cases is the state would not pay us based on the work that we had done,” former arbitrator Arthur Riegel told WNYC.
Perhaps as a result, few people have wanted to take the job when it is offered. Just eight of the 14 arbitrators offered the position in August accepted.
“Many arbitrators are reluctant to work with the DOE,” UFT spokesman Dick Riley said today.
As a result, the speed of the disciplinary process appears to have barely budged since 2010.The department reported in its lawsuit that there are currently more than 400 teachers who require discipline hearings with the 19 arbitrators, and lawyers said they expect another 150 cases in the near future.
The city said it is spending $8 million a year to pay teachers who have been removed from the classroom while they await arbitration.
Riley said the current pool of arbitrators would be “enough” if the department would consider using a less aggressive legal process called mediation. In that process, the teacher and the city first try to reach a settlement at a pretrial hearing to avoid starting arbitration. Union lawyers said that of 55 cases that went through this process this summer, 39 reached settlement without arbitration. In some cases, teachers agreed to resign or retire, while in others teachers accepted suspensions before returning to the classroom, union officials said.
“If the DOE was truly interested in in resolving cases efficiently, it would agree to our proposal to keep this process in place permanently,”  Mulgrew wrote to Walcott this week.
The city’s complete lawsuit is below:

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Ten of the twenty-four 3020-a Arbitrators Quit the NYC UFT/DOE Panel



Very much worth reading to see how useless this "agreement" was, and how no one followed it (well, this you cannot tell from just reading it, but I can tell you that it was not adhered to by anyone, UFT/DOE/arbitrators).

Then came the April 15, 2010 "agreement" that no one paid any attention to either. Once in a blue moon an arbitrator would give 20 minutes to prepare for a witness' cross-examination at 3020-a, and I could always tell which way he/she was leaning when the 20-minutes was allocated, and it was not for lunch. See the agreement below.

Then, there were new rules effective April 1, 2012, which changed the way the arbitrators were paid, and guaranteed that none of them would be paid for the time they already spent hearing cases. Infuriated, ten of the 24 arbitrators on the UFT/DOE arbitration panel quit.

What effect this may have is anyone's guess, but one thing is for sure: the arbitrators are hopping mad, and they are not gonna take it anymore.

Stay tuned...

The April 15, 2010 "Close The Rubber Rooms" Agreement

April 15, 2010

Michael Mulgrew, President
United Federation of Teachers
52 Broadway, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10004

Dear Mr. Mulgrew:

This letter will confirm the mutual understandings and agreements between the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (“DOE”) and the United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”).  Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or modification of any provision of any collective bargaining agreement, letter (including but not limited to the June 27, 2008 letter from the Chancellor to the President of the UFT) or other agreement between the DOE and the UFT except as specifically set forth herein.  Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to convert non-mandatory subjects of bargaining into mandatory subjects of bargaining.  As used herein, the term “CBA” shall refer to the collective bargaining agreement covering teachers and corresponding provisions of other UFT-DOE collective bargaining agreements.

The long delays that have arisen in the current process of investigating alleged acts of misconduct and adjudicating charges pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a benefit neither the DOE nor the employees represented by the UFT.  The DOE and the UFT are committed to ensuring that the agreements reached here will be carried out so that those delays will be ended and the process outlined in the law, the contracts between the parties, and this Agreement will be adhered to.  

For purposes of this Agreement, all timelines shall be measured in calendar days, but shall not include the summer break, all recess periods and holidays.   

Reassignment

Misconduct Cases (i.e., any case deemed by the DOE to deal exclusively or primarily with an employee’s behavior, not his or her pedagogy):  Pending investigation of possible misconduct and completion of the § 3020-a hearing, the DOE may reassign an employee only to (i) a DOE administrative office to do work consistent with law (an “Administrative Office Assignment”) or (ii) an administrative assignment within his or her school with a program consisting of Professional or Administrative Activities (as listed in CBA Articles 7(A)(6)(a), 7(B)(8)(a), 7(C)(4)(g)(1), or 7(K)(3)(d)) other than items #1 (small group instruction), #2 (one to one tutoring), #3 (advise student activities such as clubs, teams or publications) and #7 (conflict resolution for students), which shall be scheduled consistent with CBA Article 7(B)(2)(c) regardless of the division in which the employee works (“Administrative School Assignment”).  Where the Chancellor or his designee determines that it is in the best interests of the school system that an employee accused of sexual misconduct as defined in CBA Article 21(G)(6) or serious financial misconduct involving more than $1,000 not be allowed to work in an Administrative Office Assignment or an Administrative School Assignment pending the outcome of the investigation, the DOE may suspend the employee with pay rather than reassign him/her.  The determination of the Chancellor or his designee to suspend an employee with pay shall be in writing.  Prior to a suspension from all duties with pay, the Chancellor or his designee shall consult with the UFT President or his designee. 
The DOE shall prefer charges pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a[1] within 60 days of an employee being reassigned or suspended, except in cases where the reassignment or suspension was caused by (i) an allegation of sexual misconduct as defined in CBA Article 21(G)(6) that is being investigated by the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District (“SCI”), (ii) an allegation of serious financial misconduct involving more than $1,000 that is being investigated by SCI, (iii) criminal charges pending against the employee, (iv) an allegation of serious assault that is being investigated by SCI, (v) an allegation of tampering with a witness or evidence, where the allegation of tampering is being investigated by SCI.  In cases where the 60 day period does not apply, when SCI issues a report or, in the case of criminal charges, the employee notifies the DOE of the disposition of the criminal case pursuant to Chancellor's Regulation C-105, the DOE shall have 15 days to bring § 3020-a charges against the employee or return the employee to his or her prior assignment.  Nothing herein shall waive any limitations period for the bringing of charges pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a.  The Chancellor or his designee and the President of the UFT or his designee shall meet monthly, or less frequently if the UFT and DOE agree, to review the status of these cases.   At the end of the first year of this Agreement, and in subsequent years if requested by the UFT, the DOE and the UFT will meet to review the issue of investigations and reassignments extending beyond 60 days and, if there has been a significant increase in the number of such investigations and reassignments, to negotiate ways to address this issue.
 
Except in those cases where the DOE is not required to prefer charges within 60 days, should the DOE not prefer § 3020-a charges within 60 days, the employee shall be returned to his/her prior assignment.  If an employee is returned to his/her prior assignment, adverse action shall not be taken against the employee solely because of the reassignment.  If § 3020-a charges are preferred subsequent to the expiration of the 60 day period, the employee may then again be reassigned to an Administrative Office Assignment or an Administrative School Assignment or, where the Chancellor or his designee determines that it is in the best interests of the school system that an employee accused of sexual misconduct as defined in CBA Article 21(G)(6) or serious financial misconduct involving more than $1,000 not be allowed to work in an Administrative Office Assignment or an Administrative School Assignment pending the outcome of the investigation, suspend the employee with pay rather than reassign him/her pending determination of the § 3020-a charges.  The determination of the Chancellor or his designee to suspend an employee with pay shall be in writing.  Prior to a suspension from all duties with pay, the Chancellor or his designee shall consult with the UFT President or his designee.   An employee’s assignment pending investigation and/or a hearing shall not be raised at the hearing or deemed relevant in any way to the determination of the charges, any penalty issued or the adjudication of any issue in the hearing. 

Incompetence Cases (i.e., any case deemed by the DOE to deal exclusively or primarily with an employee’s pedagogy) – Pending the bringing of Education Law § 3020-a charges for alleged incompetence and completion of the § 3020-a hearing, the DOE may reassign an employee only to an (i) Administrative Office Assignment or (ii) an Administrative School Assignment.  The DOE shall prefer charges pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a within 10 days of an employee being reassigned.  Should the DOE not prefer § 3020-a charges within 10 days, the employee shall be returned to his/her prior assignment.  If an employee is returned to his/her prior assignment, adverse action shall not be taken against the employee solely because of the reassignment.  If § 3020-a charges are preferred subsequent to the expiration of the 10 day period, the employee may then again be reassigned to an Administrative Office Assignment or an Administrative School Assignment pending determination of the § 3020-a charges.     
  
Tolling:  If the DOE gives a reassigned employee 48 hours notice of an interview which may lead to disciplinary action and the reassigned employee either fails to appear on the scheduled day or fails to notify the DOE that s/he is invoking any right he/she may have to not answer questions, the DOE shall reschedule the interview within a reasonable period of time and the time between the originally scheduled interview and the rescheduled interview shall not count towards the applicable 60-day or 10-day limits on the length of time an employee may be reassigned or suspended with pay.  Where a principal schedules an interview which may lead to disciplinary action of an employee that has been given an Administrative School Assignment and 48 hours notice is not required by the CBA, Chancellor’s regulations, or law, the following shall apply:  If the reassigned employee either fails to appear on the scheduled day or fails to notify the principal that s/he is invoking any right he/she may have to not answer questions, the principal shall reschedule the interview within a reasonable period of time and the time between the first scheduled interview and the rescheduled interview shall not count towards the applicable 60-day or 10-day limits on the length of time an employee may be reassigned.  Nothing herein shall constitute a waiver or alteration of any right the DOE may have to compel an employee to attend an interview which may lead to disciplinary action or any right an employee may have to not answer questions.      

Service of Charges

In order to make the process as efficient as possible, service of notice of the nature of the charges and the actual charges shall be consolidated and served together upon an employee along with specifications and, in incompetence cases, a bill of particulars.  Nothing in this Agreement shall alter a Respondent’s entitlement, if any, to a bill of particulars in misconduct cases.    
Probable Cause Determinations

In addition to the enumerated acts set forth in CBA Article 21(G)(5), serious misconduct shall also include actions that would constitute a class A-I or A-II felony or any felony defined as a violent felony offense in NY Penal Law § 70.02.  An indictment on a class A-I or A-II felony, an indictment on any felony defined as a violent felony offense in NY Penal Law § 70.02, or a felony indictment on any other conduct that constitutes serious misconduct pursuant to CBA Article 21(G)(5) shall create a rebuttable presumption of probable cause.           

If a finding of probable cause was based on an indictment pursuant to CBA Article 21(G)(5), the employee shall remain off payroll pending the disposition of the criminal case.  The DOE shall have 15 days after the employee notifies the DOE of the disposition of the criminal case pursuant to Chancellor's Regulation C-105 to bring Education Law § 3020-a charges based on the same conduct as was at issue in the criminal case.  If the DOE prefers § 3020-a charges on the same conduct as was at issue in the criminal case within the 15 days, and the employee was convicted in the criminal case of any offense that constitutes serious misconduct, he/she shall remain off payroll until a decision in the § 3020-a case and such § 3020-a case shall be completed within the timeframes for hearings set forth in this Agreement.  If the DOE prefers § 3020-a charges on the same conduct as was at issue in the criminal case within the 15 days, and the employee was acquitted of all offenses that constitute serious misconduct, the DOE shall reassign the employee to an Administrative Office Assignment or an Administrative School Assignment, suspend the employee with pay (if permitted pursuant to this Agreement) or request a second probable cause hearing to continue the suspension without pay until the final outcome of the § 3020-a hearing and such § 3020-a case shall be completed within the timeframes for hearings set forth in this Agreement.  If the DOE does not bring Education Law § 3020-a charges within those 15 days, the employee shall be restored to the payroll effective as of the date the disposition of the criminal case and returned to his/her prior position.     

If a finding of probable cause was based on criminal charges pursuant to CBA Article 21(G)(6), the DOE shall have 15 days after the employee notifies the DOE of the disposition of the criminal charge pursuant to Chancellor's Regulation C-105 to bring Education Law § 3020-a charges based on the same conduct as was at issue in the criminal charge.  If the DOE brings such a § 3020-a charge, the employee shall remain off payroll until a decision in the § 3020-a case and such § 3020-a case shall be completed within the timeframes for hearings set forth in this Agreement.  If the DOE does not bring § 3020-a charges based on the same conduct as was at issue in the criminal charge within 15 days of the employee notifying the DOE of the disposition of the criminal charge pursuant to Chancellor's Regulation C-105, the employee
shall be restored to the payroll effective as of the date the disposition of the criminal charge. 

Nothing in this Agreement shall alter the provisions of CBA Article 21(G)(5) and (6) with respect to entitlement to back pay.    The DOE agrees to meet on a bimonthly basis with the UFT to assess the status of investigations extending beyond 60 days where the employee has been suspended without pay.    

Timeframe for Hearings

Within 10 - 15 days of DOE’s receipt of the request for a hearing from an employee charged under Education Law § 3020-a, a pre-hearing conference shall be held.  Both Education Law § 3020-a and the collective bargaining agreements require hearings, including closing statements, to be completed within sixty (60) days of the pre-hearing conference and a decision to be rendered within thirty (30) days of the final hearing date. The UFT and DOE agree this timeframe must be adhered to by all parties to the hearings and strictly enforced by hearing officers.  Hearing officers shall establish a trial schedule at the pre-hearing conference to ensure that hearings are completed within the required statutory and contractual timeframes and ensure an equitable distribution of days between the DOE and the charged employee. 
  
Education Law § 3020-a permits “limited extensions” beyond the 60 days where it is determined that “extraordinary circumstances” warrant.  “Extraordinary circumstances” shall be construed narrowly by hearing officers so that the granting of “limited extensions” allowing hearings to last beyond sixty (60) days is the exception and not the rule.  Pursuant to CBA Article 21, a hearing officer may be removed prior to the end of his or her one-year term only for good and sufficient cause, which may include failure to comply with this Agreement, upon mutual agreement of the UFT and DOE. 

If the hearing officer determines that a necessary witness is a former student who is unavailable because he/she is residing outside of New York City or a current student who is unavailable because he/she has left New York City for an extended period of time, this shall constitute an “extraordinary circumstance.”  In such a case, the hearing officer shall schedule the hearing to begin or continue as soon as possible given the availability of the witness as demonstrated to the hearing officer.       

Arbitrators serving on the competence panel must agree to provide seven (7) consecutive hearing dates as defined in CBA Article 21(G)(2)(a) per month for the months of September through June and two (2) hearing dates for the months of July and August.

Discovery and Testimony

In order to comply with timelines for hearings, the UFT and DOE agree that hearings must be held in as efficient a manner as possible.  Disputes relating to document production, witness lists and other procedural issues often consume hearing time and should be dealt with to the maximum extent possible in the pre-hearing conference.  To that end, the UFT and DOE have already agreed in the June 27, 2008 letter from the Chancellor to President of the UFT to certain discovery procedures. 

The hearing process itself can be conducted in a more efficient manner that allows for issues to be fully and fairly litigated.  To accomplish this, the parties to the hearings shall adhere to the following guidelines:

  • 1.      It is the intent of the UFT and DOE that, to the extent practicable, hearing days shall be fully utilized, that hearing days not end before 5pm and the parties to the hearing have multiple witnesses ready to testify to avoid the loss of part of the day. 
  • 2.      Where a hearing day is not fully used, the unused time will be counted towards the time allocated to the party that caused the delay. 
  • 3.      Attorneys shall not meet with others between direct and cross examination for longer than 20 minutes, except in unusual circumstances.
  • 4.      Hearing Officers shall ensure that cross-examination is not used by either party as a dilatory tactic in order to reduce one of the parties’ allotted time to present its case.
  • 5.      Evidence shall be limited to relevant matters.
  • 6.      Rebuttal shall be used only to deny some affirmative fact that the opposing party has tried to prove.  During rebuttal, a party to the hearing may not offer proof to corroborate evidence that has already been presented by that party or proof tending merely to support that party’s case after the opposing party has rested.     

If relevant and requested at the pre-hearing conference, either party may introduce (i) relevant background evidence about a witness by affidavit from the witness; (ii) an affidavit from a doctor’s office attesting to an employee’s visit or non-visit on a particular date; (iii) an affidavit attesting to the date of an employee’s arrest, the charge (if any) against the arrested employee, and the disposition of that charge.  Such a witness may be cross-examined regarding any matter discussed in an affidavit. 

If relevant, a (i) business record, (ii) attendance list from a faculty meeting, orientation and/or training session, or (iii) any human resource document submitted by a respondent (e.g., absence or sick note) may be admitted with an affidavit from a custodian of the record, without the need for live testimony from a witness to authenticate the document. 

A party to the hearing or the hearing officer may request an unedited copy of the relevant transcript if a certified transcript is not available when needed.  The unavailability of a certified transcript shall not excuse adherence to the time limitations for completion of a hearing and issuance of a decision.   

Non-Termination Cases

The expedited hearing process as described in CBA Article 21(G)(3) shall be utilized as set forth therein, with the following modification:  If the DOE decides not to seek a penalty of more than a suspension of 4 weeks or an equivalent fine, the case shall be heard under the expedited procedures provided in CBA Article 21(G)(3), without the need for the employee to accept an offer of expedited arbitration.

A separate track of “non-termination” cases will be established with a separate panel of additional hearing officers that exclusively hears expedited cases. 

Panel of Hearing Officers

The number of hearing officers shall be as follows:

            Incompetence Cases shall be heard by a panel of 14 hearing officers.

            Misconduct Cases shall be heard by a panel of 25 hearing officers.

            Expedited Cases shall be heard by a panel of hearing officers, the size of which will be set by the UFT and DOE as described below. 

Representatives of the UFT and DOE shall meet monthly, or less frequently if the UFT and DOE agree, for the first year of this Agreement and at least twice a year thereafter (i) to agree on the number of hearing officers hearing expedited cases, (ii) to discuss the appropriateness of the number of hearing officers, including the possibility of agreeing to increase or decrease the number of hearing officers on either the incompetence or misconduct panels on either a temporary or permanent basis, and (iii) to discuss the appropriateness of the number of probable cause arbitrators, including the possibility of agreeing to increase or decrease the number of probable cause arbitrators.  If the DOE believes there is a need for more hearing officers to comply with the timelines set forth in this Agreement, it shall request that the UFT agree to increase the number of hearing officers and the UFT shall not unreasonably deny an increase.  

Decisions

Both Education Law § 3020-a and the collective bargaining agreements require decisions within 30 days of the completion of the hearing.

Meeting with the Panel of Hearing Officers

The Chancellor and the President of the UFT will personally, jointly meet with the panel of hearing officers annually to impress upon the hearing officers that both parties to this Agreement are serious about meeting the timelines in the law, the collective bargaining agreements, and this Agreement.  The Chancellor and the President will urge the hearing officers to strictly control the hearings and require all parties to the hearing to conform to the timelines provided herein.  They will assure the hearing officers that no hearing officer will be removed by either party to this Agreement for enforcing these rules.

Mediation of Education Law § 3020-a charges

This section, “Mediation of Education Law § 3020-a charges,” shall apply to all employees with pending Education Law § 3020-a charges on or before September 1, 2010 or being investigated on or before September 1, 2010 and the investigation results in § 3020-a charges.  The parties to the § 3020-a hearings shall begin mediating such cases upon the signing of this Agreement.

The UFT and DOE shall agree on hearing officers on the rotational panel that shall serve as mediators one day per month (in addition to their required hearing days that month).  The UFT and DOE may also jointly select mediators not currently on the panel of hearing officers.   

Each case subject to mediation shall be assigned, on a rotational basis, to a mediator, other than the hearing officer assigned to decide the case.

The employee (and the employee’s representative, if any) and a representative of the DOE with authority to negotiate settlement agreements (subject to final supervisory approval) shall meet with the mediator.  The mediator shall work informally to assist the charged employee and the DOE in reaching, if possible, a voluntary, negotiated resolution of the Education Law § 3020-a charges.  The mediator shall not decide the merits of the Education Law § 3020-a charges or impose a decision.  Instead, the mediator shall help the charged employee and the DOE to, if possible, agree on a mutually acceptable resolution.      

No mediator shall be compelled to or voluntarily disclose (including in any subsequent proceedings under §3020-a of the Education Law) any information learned during the mediation.

Backlog
Effective the first day of the 2010-2011 school year, all employees who, prior to August 31, 2010, have been (i) removed from their positions and assigned to a temporary reassignment center or (ii) charged pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a shall be reassigned to an Administrative Office Assignment or an Administrative School Assignment or suspended with pay (if permitted by this Agreement).     

For all employees charged prior to August 31, 2010, the requirement that the pre-hearing conference be scheduled within 10-15 days of the charge shall not apply, but the § 3020-a hearing and decision shall be completed by December 31, 2010. 

For all employees who were assigned to a TRC prior to August 31, 2010 and were not charged prior to August 31, 2010, the 10 or 60 day period to charge an employee or return him/her to his/her prior assignment, shall run from September 1, 2010.
Effective September 1, 2010, the parties will implement the new timelines set forth in this Agreement, which shall apply to all cases charged after September 1, 2010. 

 Sincerely,
Joel I. Klein
Chancellor
New York City Department of Education
 Agreed and Accepted By:
_____________________
Michael Mulgrew
President
United Federation of Teachers

[1] Probationary employees will be reassigned in the same manner as tenured employees under this Agreement, i.e, to an Administrative Office Assignment, Administrative School Assignment, or suspension with pay (if permitted by this Agreement).  This Agreement shall not be construed to create tenure or Education Law § 3020-a rights for an employee.       

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Extortion At 3020-a Arbitration

Extortion At 3020-a Arbitration in New York City
Parentadvocates.org
LINK


Michael Mulgrew
Black’s dictionary, 6th edition, defines “extortion” as: “The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence or fear, or under color of official right.”

Lately it seems that every tenured employee of the NYC Board of Education brought to 3020-a arbitration is being terminated. The arbitrators currently serving on the UFT-BOE New York City panel seem to be unwilling or unable to find a lesser penalty for any level of misconduct or incompetence.

No one is really listening to the facts of any case (and I don’t mean ‘hearing’ the facts, I mean listening), and, in my opinion as well as in my experience with the UFT Representatives, the UFT Reps. and NYSUT Attorneys really believe that anyone receiving charges is actually guilty of those charges. Oh, the UFT Rep. will help you file for your arbitration hearing – either 3020-a or “U”rating appeal - but then you will not hear from the rep. again, no matter what you do. They don’t want to get involved and put themselves into a chance encounter with SCI (Special Commission of Investigation) or an agent (notice I don’t call them “investigators”) from the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) or Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). People from these sub-agencies of the NYC BOE have the right of way.

The teachers who have had the sentence “you are terminated” handed to them since January 2011 don’t understand what happened. Of all the cases told to me by the teachers themselves, and after reviewing many pages of transcripts from many different cases, my opinion is that very few of the fired teachers deserved this fate. The rest were brought up on absurd charges that should have been written into a counseling memo (if at all) or given to the employee with, at most, a couple of weeks’ suspension. All were targets of a vindictive principal and/or “legal” (the NYC Office of General Counsel) who, under orders of “legal” and Mayor Bloomberg, go for employee termination in every case. There have been many success stories, too, but I’m here to tell you about a person who could have been successful in her case if her NYSUT attorney and the arbitrator had not used extortion and harassment to get her to resign.

While observing the hearings as a volunteer journalist, I was asked by Randi Weingarten to work as staff at the United Federation of Teachers and help members, including the members in temporary reassignment centers or “rubber rooms”. When I started at the UFT in August 2007 there were seven locations where tenured (and some non-tenured) employees sat every day, from about 8:30AM to 3-3:30 PM, depending on their school hours. In the 2007-2008 school year I went to all of the TRCs, then in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 I visited each of my locations (25 Chapel Street, 355 Park Place in Brooklyn, and 501 Courtlandt Ave, Bronx) every week and stayed all day because the people in these locations wanted to talk to me, or anybody (and I was the only person who visited every week). As I wrote above, I attended the 3020-a hearings as a volunteer until 2011, when I started working with private attorneys hired for 3020-a.

The 'NYC Rubber Rooms' refers to the eight locations open until July 1 2010 scattered throughout New York City where targeted tenured employees of the NYC public schools were told to sit until charged, often for 2 - 7 years. I also use the term to mean the process of putting people out of their jobs under false pretenses. While these people sat and awaited their “fate,” which was unknown and some were never charged at all, The Gotcha Squad created charges against them without their knowledge or consent. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) the New York State United Teachers legal group (NYSUT) and the New York City Board of Education (NYC BOE) all conspired together to deny thousands of people their constitutional due process rights. Many did not go away willingly or quietly after receiving unfair decisions through mediation/arbitration, so the 3020-a process was and currently is used to force employees out of the system. The NYC BOE Gotcha Squad could be held accountable if the charges are proven completely false and/or the employee brought to 3020-a is exonerated, so arbitrators on the UFT/BOE must prove something in order to get the NYC BOE paid back for the time and money spent on trying to get charges to stick (doesn’t matter if the charges are true or not).

The Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, started the campaign to close the Temporary Re-Assignment Centers (“TRCs”) in 2007, after the New York City newspapers began a series of articles on the “Rubber Rooms”, popularizing the nickname as well as the fact that hundreds of teachers, school counselors and other tenured personnel were being warehoused at their full salaries while they sat for months, and years.

My sources say Bloomberg realized that the setting up of warehouses for teachers and NYC BOE personnel was one of the biggest errors of his administration. The stories ripped into the minds of New Yorkers, who pay the highest taxes in the country. There was an uproar of disgust at the stories of so many highly paid public servants who would sit around and do nothing on the public dime. Actually the truth of the matter is that no one was in charge, so no data existed about why all these employees were placed in the warehouses, and no one wanted to admit that many were placed there unfairly.

I decided in 2003 that someone ought to investigate what was going on, and it might as well be me. By the way, Mike Bloomberg’s second biggest mistake was hiring Joel Klein, whose style of verbal abuse of anyone who refused to do what he wanted was the opposite of what Bloomberg wanted.

In 2008 Bloomberg, ordered Joel Klein and the UFT to expedite all the 'teacher trials' (3020-a arbitration hearings). As this arbitration is compulsory, teachers who are charged and who request a hearing have only this venue to defend their position pursuant to Education Law 3020-a. The first agreement, in June 2008 actually was never implemented. Everyone ignored the clause in there that principals should be held accountable for making false claims against any of their employees. Also, the signing of a document giving everyone a “speedy” hearing outraged almost everyone sitting in the temporary re-assignment centers or TRCs. None of the rubber roomers accused of wrong-doing or incompetency wanted an ‘expedited’ hearing that denied him or her a full and fair hearing, but no one at the helm of the UFT or BOE was listening. I and several of the temporary re-assignment centers’ liaisons were protesting all the time on our blogs and in-person to the leaders of this fraud, to no avail.

The lawyers who are assigned to handle the 3020-a arbitration seem to be unwilling or unable to be bothered to spend large amounts of time on any single case. Speed to termination or penalty was the goal, not a serious review of all the facts. Many members complained to me and anyone else who would listen about how they, after sitting in a rubber room for two-7 (or more) years, were given 1 hour to talk about the case when their NYSUT lawyer finally met with them. 

From 2007 to 2010 there were simply too many UFT members charged with incompetency and/or misconduct to spend any amount speaking to and/or defending any one client. Some NYSUT attorneys made this very clear to their client, especially if the person spoke slowly, didn’t have all the papers necessary, whose language was not English, or who simply didn’t get The Plan, which was to quickly run through the evidence and get you fined, resigned, or terminated, by force if nothing else worked. I often asked the lawyers – as did their clients – to subpoena witnesses, so that the proper testimony could be recorded, but NYSUT will not subpoena witnesses. This is a lethal error, in my opinion.

For some reason, the NYSUT Attorneys think that their clients come to the offices at 52 Broadway without a small digital tape recorder in their pockets. The lack of understanding about the 21st Century technology is astonishing, particularly when many clients have taped the investigators, the principals, assistant principals, and all other personnel for years at their respective schools. Why the NYSUT attorneys wouldn’t think that their clients are taping them as well is beyond me. Anyway, in New York State the law protects anyone taping anybody else with whom he/she is in a conversation without telling the other person. NYSUT attorneys, and you know who you are, remember that whatever insults and comments you say will be repeated, and may haunt you in the future.

Back to a short recent update on the Rubber Rooms. On April 15, 2010 the UFT President Michael Mulgrew, NYC BOE CEO Joel Klein, and Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that there was a new agreement to end the rubber rooms forever. This agreement was negotiated, signed, sealed, and delivered in total secrecy. Not I nor anyone else knew about it outside of a select few at the UFT headquarters and district offices. On the 15th I received a call at home from Luis Crespo, the Brooklyn TRC ‘Principal’ at 25 Chapel Street and he told me to get over there ASAP, as there was a major announcement in a few hours. It was 8AM.

The April 15, 2010 agreement mandated the closure of the eight locations that, altogether, held approximately 500 people awaiting their "trial", freedom and exoneration, or termination. The rubber room process – false charges substantiated at 3020-a followed by excessive penalties - didn't end, only the large warehouses specifically designated as "re-assignment locations".  

Teachers continue today to be thrown out of their classrooms often for little or no reason and without evidence of the allegations, but now, after April 15, 2010, the effort to get the people removed and tainted by charges has taken on a new urgency, fueled by Mike Bloomberg who dictates the rules. Most of the agreement dictated new rules for 3020-a that took away the few rights tenured members had. In my opinion, this agreement was a disaster in terms of honoring procedural and substantive due process rights for any person subjected to charges pursuant to 3020-a. The UFT has continued the "hands-off" strategy, and rules in the UFT contract are being ignored without any accountability. Employees charged with anything are removed from their classrooms and told to sit in the office of the school, the suspension room, at 65 Court Street, or 131 Livingston, both in Brooklyn, and Long Island City, just to name a few locations.

By 2010 the order from Mike Mulgrew, Klein and Bloomberg was to get all 'rubber roomers' off the arbitration calendar and, hopefully off of the NYC BOE payroll. To show how this played out, I will now tell the story of "Jane" - not her real name. I have redacted all mention of her real name in the papers that she gave me that details what happened to her at the hands of NYSUT attorney Keith Gross and Arbitrator Bonnie Siber Weinstock on May 13, 2010 to show how teachers are made into victims in this New York City arbitration known as 3020-a. Something must be done to stop what happened to Jane and countless others.

Jane was in the oldest rubber room, located at 25 Chapel Street in Brooklyn, NY, not far from the Brooklyn Bridge. She took a seat at the far end of the long room where she made beautiful and colorful small paper planes. I still have mine. She was very very upset at the charges as she loved 'her' children and her job, and would never do anything that represented harm to a child. She believed that the NYC BOE targeted her wrongly and framed her with false charges. After reading her charges and listening carefully to her story, my opinion was that she should never have been removed from her classroom. She was one of the “innocent” members of the rubber room. (My assessment/opinion).

On May 13, 2010 I happened to be in the room when a little before 12 noon Jane received a call from her NYSUT lawyer whose name is Keith Gross. He had an urgent message, that Jane must come to the administrative trial office immediately, at 51 Chambers Street, because her arbitrator, Bonnie Siber Weinstock, was waiting. Jane had been up most of the night before, and she was very tired we all heard her say, and couldn't she come on monday instead? Mr. Gross told her absolutely not.

As Jane told us later, she had no money that day for the subway to Chambers Street, so she ran across the Brooklyn Bridge to get to 51 Chambers Street ASAP, as Gross had ordered her to do. Jane went immediately into her hearing room with Gross, and Bonnie Siber Weinstock sat at the head of the table. The NYC BOE Attorney, Chrystal Barrows was there, Mr. Gross was there, and a transcriptionist from Ubiqus, the company hired by the NYC BOE to transcribe the record.

Jane told us Arbitrator Weinstock told her to sit down, and constantly mispronounced Jane’s last name. Jane has a simple last name and thought that the mis-pronounciation by Weinstock was to upset her from the very start of the meeting. It did. She was. Weinstock mentioned that if Jane went to a full hearing she could be terminated, and she told Jane that this is what would probably happen if she did not agree to sign the settlement agreement that was on the table. Jane really did not want to resign. She wanted to make some sort of agreement, but she didn’t want to be terminated, and she felt harassed by Weinstock. Nonetheless, Jane was not ready to sign her resignation, so Keith Gross said to her, let me take you outside for a moment.

When Gross got outside, Jane said, he and she went into another room, where Gross said something to the effect of “What do you think this is, a circus? You better resign, or you will be terminated”.

Jane was very scared at this point, so she said ok, but felt that this wasn’t ok at all. Gross and Jane went back into the arbitration room, and Weinstock put on the record that Jane had agreed to the terms of the settlement, and the hearing was over. In Exhibit "A" you will read the name 'Martin Weinstein'. He was the former Superintendent and coincidentally I happen to know Marty. I called him up and asked him if he ever saw or heard of the specifications and/or settlement of "Jane" - I of course gave Jane's real name - and Marty told me that he had never seen or heard that name, and never saw or read any paper with Jane's real name on it.

Jane did not return that day to Chapel Street, so a few days later I returned to Chapel Street and heard that she was still extremely upset, crying on and off. I sat down with her and she told me about what happened. I suggested that she call Mr. Gross up, which she did, and ask him to send her a copy of the transcript, which she received a few days later and gave to me.

I also asked her if she would write down her feelings of that day, which she did, and here is her statement:

"On May 13, 2010, my NYSUT Attorney, Keith Gross told me that I needed to immediately report to Chambers Street or the “deal” would be taken off the table – the deal – I could remain in the TRC until June 28 and not be sent to the ATR the minute I resigned – because there would be no need to be in the TRC once there was a “deal”.

Also, I’d get to receive my summer paychecks and receive my benefits through August – Benefits Id already earned. My Attorney said this was the best he could do for me and that if I didn’t take the deal that day it would be off the table and there would be a hearing beginning the following week . If I lost the case I would lose my pay from May through June.

We both felt there was no point in going through the hearing since I had other plans and new prospects for September.

I requested that I be allowed to meet with him to go over the paperwork on the following Monday – the 17th – because I was struggling to stay awake because I already started my course (?) transition and I was working nights and surviving on an average of 2 hours or less of sleep per night during the week.

I was told to stop making excuses, that even after I still wanted out that I did not have subway fare – no never until payday. I was told that I’d have to come up with the money if I was going to attend hearings because I literally had less than 20 dollars in my checking account that day.

I received a text message from Keith Gross to report to Chambers Street ASAP. I texted him the details of my situation and that if I felt better by the PM I’d walk over the bridge to get there.

I did do this. My Attorney went over the paperwork with me and the stipulations of the “deal”. I was assured I would never have a problem getting a teaching job outside of the city because the only information sent out would be the recommendation letter included in this packet.

When the arbitrator asked me if I had been coerced into making the agreement, I tried to explain that this really was coercion since there were few choices available to me and none that were very appealing.

She snapped at me and said that if I felt I was being coerced she would listen to the evidence at a three-day hearing and render her decision in three days. That’s what I heard. What is written in the transcript is quite different.

My Attorney made me go to the room next door and told me “This isn’t a game. And you said that you were ready to sign and you agree with the terms.”

I knew then that the UFT and DOE and NYSUT lawyers really are mostly all the same.

I was crying when I signed the paperwork. The arbitrator had the nerve to congratulate me and wish me luck. She never even asked how I pronounced my name – it was like she was deliberately pronouncing it incorrectly. If half my dues go to her for pay I want my half back.

I felt like all anyone cared about that day was how many people they could get off the payroll.

I did not “take a deal”. I quit because I don’t need or want anything from the DOE. But honestly, I want the DOE erased completely from my work record."

Jane now works at cleaning doctor's offices at night. She says that she is happy because she is out of the Department of Education.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com