Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Linda Tripp. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Linda Tripp. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Fire Joel I. Klein, the Snake Oil Salesman Without a Contract



Smug with his success at creating a public school administrative structure that denied anyone who disagreed with his policies a chance to speak and that openly violated every law and regulation designed to protect children, teachers, and all personnel in NYC public schools, Joel I. Klein has, for seven years, fearlessly and arrogantly walked amidst a daily hailstorm of anger and opposition from parents and stakeholders because he is immune to all public criticism. Indeed, on Wednesday July 1, 2009, a few hours after the shamelessly fake and deliberately harmful Department of Education went out of existence, Klein was re-appointed unanimously to his position as "Chancellor" in name only (he has no contract - see the letter he was given by Bloomberg which I received after filing a freedom of information request) by the new members of the instantly created New York City Board of Education. I contacted a friend of mine who is an Attorney specializing in contract law, and he told me that all contracts need an expiration date. He said that this letter is not a contract. Somebody file a complaint with the Bar Association and get him disbarred. Please!!!!. General Counsel Michael Best and Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon also must go.

But that's not enough. We must mobilize the entire city to fight what happened on Wednesday July 1, 2009: the undemocratic re-establishment of dictatorial leadership of the NYC public schools under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, with a new gang at the helm appointed to MAKE SURE that the Mayor continues his control. Congratulations to Jane Hirschmann from Time Out From Testing for her statement at this meeting.

On tuesday June 30 at 12 midnight Education Law 2590 (scroll down to 2590 -Editor)expired, and the "old" decentralized Board of Education was re-instated. Or so the law said. However, there has been no law-abiding top official at the pseudo city agency, the NYC Department of Education, since its inception in 2002, nor was there anyone who would squeak up about the runaway, fast moving train that ran through all regulations and rights in the law books and threw all of these guides and rules away. It was that bad, folks.

Any opposition or question about what was happening inside and outside of Tweed (NYC BOE headquarters) was met with threats, deliberate harm of the individual making the inquiry, and, if neither of these tactics "worked" to silence the person, then a strategy was put into place to pursue immediate separation of this person from gainful employment. The NYC BOE must protect its' house of straws from any wind.

We know that Mayor Bloomberg demands total allegiance to every decision, whim, policy, and statement. He brought Joel Klein from Washington D.C. because Klein was an excellent protector of Bill and Hilary Clinton's public and private lives while Bill was President. Joel Klein took Vincent Foster's office the day after Foster committed suicide. On wikipedia is this:

"Wrestling with clinical depression, Foster was prescribed the mild sleeping aid/anti-anxiety pill Trazodone over the phone by his doctor, though he only had taken a few before he died. The next day, Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, a federal park in Virginia. He was found with a gun in his hand and gunshot residue on that hand. An autopsy determined that he was shot in the mouth and no other wounds were found on his body. A suicide note of sorts, actually a draft of a resignation letter, was found torn into 27 pieces in his briefcase, a list of complaints specifically including, "The WSJ editors lie without consequence" and lamenting, "I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport."

Linda Tripp, of Monica Lewinsky fame, told Congress that there was only one person she was afraid of in the Washington government: Joel Klein. When asked why, she answered that he kept files on anyone who crossed his path, and went after the person who committed this "crime":

" Printed from JudicialWatch.org
Nov 9, 1999 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172

JOEL KLEIN'S ENEMIES LIST
CLINTON ANTITRUST CHIEF IN WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE DURING FILEGATE

Tripp Says He Kept "Files on Others," Including Starr's Office
Link

(Washington, D.C.) Joel Klein, the Clinton Justice appointee and Assistant Attorney General prosecuting the Microsoft antitrust case was in The White House Counsel's Office around the time period that Republican FBI files were illegally gathered by the Clinton White House. Indeed, after the death of Vince Foster, Klein filled Foster's job and occupied his office. Linda Tripp, (pictured at right) who worked with Klein, testified in the Judicial Watch Filegate lawsuit that she understood that these FBI files were being uploaded into a computer in the White House Counsel's Office. In the least, Mr. Klein was at "the scene of the crime" around the Filegate time period. Tripp testified that Klein kept files on others, including Ken Starr's office, for intimidation purposes.

Tripp recounted in her testimony how Klein said that being a good lawyer wasn't enough, "that in order to survive, we have to be good politicians too." Tripp also testified that Klein "scared" her.

"Is the Microsoft case a matter of the Clinton Administration once again doing favors for selected Clinton/Gore donors - this time Microsoft's competitors in Silicon Valley and elsewhere?" asked Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel. Klayman was a trial lawyer on the famous AT&T case for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division in the Carter and Reagan administrations.

"The past news that Joel Klein had breakfast at the home of Netscape's CEO just before the suit against Microsoft was filed raises significant questions about Mr. Klein's possible involvement in a political payback," stated Klayman.

Judicial Watch believes the involvement of the Clinton Justice Department's "tainted" political operatives such as Joel Klein has pushed the ongoing antitrust action against Microsoft. The group filed a request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act to see if politics and campaign contributions have influenced its actions against Microsoft. When the Clinton Justice Department failed to respond, Judicial Watch filed suit. The case remains pending and active.

Video and transcripts of Ms. Tripp's testimony about Mr. Klein are available upon request. Ms. Tripp's deposition testimony about Mr. Klein can be found at pages 375-77, 400-05, 485-90, and 798-803 from her testimony of January 5, 1999 and January 22, 1999. The transcripts are available on the Judicial Watch Internet site at www.judicialwatch.org.

© Copyright 1997-2002, Judicial Watch, Inc."


Joel was appointed "Chancellor" pursuant to Education Law 2590, and clause "H" states that he "must have a contract". He never had one. He became head of the new Board of Education, re-named the Panel For Educational Policy, (pictured below at the May 2009 meeting) to provide an alias for the group as they violated Open Meetings Law and their own Bylaws. For example, teachers were terminated behind the closed doors of Executive Sessions held before the public PEP meetings began. This violates Open Meetings Law Section 105. Another example of the PEP members' disdain for the rule of law is that the PEP Bylaws require a Secretary (Section 1.5) - who happens to have been General Counsel Michael Best - who must write the minutes. There are no minutes.(I filed a freedom of information "FOIL" request).

The By-Laws state that every year there will be a "review, evaluation, and assessment of the Panel's role and functions for the purpose of identifying and implementing changes that will improve its effectiveness." (Section 1.6, p. 5). In answer to FOIL requests made for these assessments, Michael Best wrote that the PEP has no official or administrative function, and there are no reviews of the PEP or of the performance of Joel Klein. So in March, 2004, I wrote what I thought Joel Klein's Performance Review should look like.

Patrick Sullivan told me on September 18 2008 at a meeting with Senator Liz Krueger on a third term for Bloomberg that there was a RAND report given to all PEP members (indeed, he had it in his hand as he told me about it) that Mr. Klein had told him and all PEP must not be given to anyone. I asked Patrick for a copy of this report as a member of the public and a concerned citizen, but he refused, and said that he would check with the Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, the person who appointed him. Neither Stringer or Sullivan ever replied to my request. Stringer susequently made his support of Mike Bloomberg publicly known by appointing his Attorney Jimmy Yan to the "new" Board of Education on July 1, 2009. The NYC BOE answered my FOIL for the RAND document with "sorry, this request is denied". I'm appealing.

Scott Stringer is now on the list for removal from office by the parents and teachers of the NYC public schools.

I am a proud voter, and one of the most outrageous policies of the 2002-2009 Department of Education was the removal of participation by anyone "outside" of the clique of Bloomberg/Klein teletubbies. We, the general public, have no vote, and therefore we have no representation of our interests at Tweed. The Community Education Councils are, in my opinion, entities full of people who want to look good and act like they have power but dont. CEC members are elected by "selectors" picked from the positions of President, Secretary, and Treasurer of Parent Associations. The people "represented" by the "selectors" are not similar to the diversity of New York City public school parents/guardians. The lawsuit brought by a man named Kramer in 1969 to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kramer v Union Free School District won the right of all taxpayers to vote for their district school board. NYC has no elected school board, and the general public now has to take the "new" Board of Education as valid until we as a class action or as a critical mass of concerned citizens get our legislature to change this. Teacher Hipolito Colon sued Joel Klein, and others (NYSUT has since been removed as a Defendant) in October 2006, and this case now has survived two motions by the City of New York to dismiss. New York State Supreme Court Judge Eileen Rakower has said "no" to dismissal, twice. The public thanks her for her stand against all odds.

Beth Fertig of WNYC wrote the follwing about the PEP:

"WNYC News Blog
Mayor’s School Panel: An Advisor or Rubber Stamp?
By Beth Fertig
May 18, 2009

Legislators have spent much of this year holding hearings on the issue. Supporters of the mayor credit him with school improvement; but critics claim he’s abusing his authority. Much of the controversy has to do with an obscure panel that meets once a month. In the summer of 2002, Albany gave Mayor Bloomberg something previous mayors had only dreamed about: control over the nation’s largest school district. Finally, the mayor could appoint the Chancellor, not the Board of Education. He wouldn’t have to fight any more with board members who could reject his proposals. The board was replaced with a new Panel for Educational Policy, an advisory body. And most of its 13 members would be appointed by the mayor and answer directly to him.
Bloomberg was in great spirits that July when he announced the seven educators and business leaders he’d appointed to the panel.
“Let me remind you that unlike the past Board of Ed, these members are all volunteers. They do not get a salary. They do not get a car and driver. They don’t get all of those other perks (laughter). We didn’t tell you that?”
It was a light-hearted moment. But the mayor grew serious when a reporter asked him how much independence his panel members would be allowed to exercise.
“Their job is to give advice to the chancellor. Not advice to the press. I do not expect to see their names ever in the press answering a question either on the record or off the record. That’s exactly what’s wrong with the current system right now. And it’s not going to happen. It has not happened elsewheres in this system and I would not tolerate it for 30 seconds.”
The mayor was true to his word. In 2004, Bloomberg removed three panel members right before they could vote against his plan to stop promoting third graders who scored poorly on state exams.
Since then, education groups and parents routinely refer to the panel as a rubber stamp for the mayor. But one former legislator who co-wrote the law putting Bloomberg in charge of the schools says that wasn’t its intention.
“While it was certainly the intent of the state legislature and the governor in 2002 to provide significant mayoral authority, it certainly was not the intent to provide mayoral autonomy.”
Steve Sanders is former Chairman of the State Assembly’s Education Committee. He’s now lobbying for the New York State School Boards Association, which worries about the precedent in giving a city mayor so much power. Sanders says the 2002 law was designed so the panel could provide real oversight of the mayor’s leadership. But he says Bloomberg is violating the spirit, if not the letter of the law, by not using the panel as a real sounding board.
A New York Times analysis found the mayor’s seven appointees miss, on average, a quarter of the monthly meetings. Three of them were absent at last month’s meeting in the Bronx, where several parents testified that there weren’t enough seats in the new construction and renovation plan. Josh Karan came from Washington Heights to address the meeting.
“Seven schools still have trailers, we have buildings without gyms, auditoriums, art rooms, lunch at 10 a.m.”
A few minutes later, the panel’s chairman, Chancellor Joel Klein, called for a vote on the $11.3 billion capital plan. It passed with only one dissenter, Patrick Sullivan.
Sullivan is the Manhattan Borough president’s appointee to the panel, and often the lone dissenter. Each borough president gets an appointee. Sullivan says the lopsided vote shows why the law needs to be clarified to give panel members more oversight over matters like contracts and the school construction budget.
“The key thing is everybody understands there’s limited resources and prioritization. But we have to have a real planning process with a real needs assessment and explain this is how we determine how many seats are needed in what parts of the city and it’s just not there.”
There are several proposals for strengthening the panel. The teachers union and a group called the Parent Commission believe the mayor should no longer appoint a majority of its members. Harlem State Senator Bill Perkins thinks this would be good for democracy.
“If you can’t but mimic the mayor then you are denying the public that alternative voice, that alternative idea, that kind of debate that our democracy is built on.”
But Mayor Bloomberg and his supporters argue the public schools are NOT a democracy. That was the problem with the old board of education, says Bloomberg, which was dominated by special interests.
“The bottom line is when you have these committees, what happens invariably is somebody doesn’t like change, change is scary. And with the more people you have more likely you’re going to have one person who doesn’t like any given change. And I can’t think of any change that would have passed if you go by committee if you go back to the old Board of Ed days.”
Bloomberg says the current system is working and the rising test scores are proof. He also notes that President Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, has endorsed keeping mayoral control in New York.
But New York’s model of mayoral control has fewer checks and balances than in other cities. Boston, Chicago and Oakland, for example, all have mayoral control but their school boards get to pick the superintendent – and in Oakland some board members are elected. Joseph Viteritti, a professor of public policy at Hunter College, wrote a book called “When Mayors Take Charge.” Viteritti concludes that the mayor of New York should control the Panel for Educational Policy. But its members should have fixed terms, so they can debate issues without the fear of being removed.
“I think it’s important to have a board that reviews policies and that requires the chancellor to explain policies in a public forum and have an open discussion about them and have hearings about it. I mean, one of the things that the old Board of Education did right, and there weren’t many, was that there was always a public discussion about issues.”
Viteritti was on a committee appointed by the Public Advocate to study mayoral control. It also called for giving either the state or city comptroller more power to audit the school system. And it recommended that community education councils, or local school boards, have more power in approving superintendents and the opening and closing of schools. Parents have complained about feeling shut out.
Albany lawmakers will decide next month on whether to renew the law or amend it. Both Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith have said they want to keep the mayor’s majority on the Panel for Educational Policy. But Queens Assemblyman Rory Lancman says lawmakers are considering other changes to provide more parental input because they’re getting an earful from their constituents.
“When parents call my office or talk with me about their child’s education it’s at a much greater intensity than it is when they’re talking about garbage pickup or state of their parks. And parents want an opportunity to be involved in the decision making process regarding their kids education.”
Lancman says that should be a warning to Mayor Bloomberg. If he doesn’t give some ground to parents, lawmakers could make a deal without him because local politicians are the ones most likely to feel the wrath of the voters."

Now, that's where we are at.- Betsy Combier, Editor


A second-grade student at Public School 130 in Chinatown working on an interactive chalk board. As annual school spending has risen to $22 billion, the Bloomberg administration has given principals more responsibility and control over their school budgets, as well as higher pay.

July 1, 2009
With More Money, City Schools Added Jobs
By JENNIFER MEDINA and ROBERT GEBELOFF, NY TIMES

In the seven years since Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took the reins of the city’s schools, he has rolled out numerous statistics as proof of his accomplishments, including rising graduation rates and test scores.

But one of the clearest ways to see what he and his schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, have done with public education is to track what they have done with its money.

They have overseen a large expansion in annual school spending, to $22 billion from $13 billion, with the additional money pumped in from Mr. Bloomberg’s budget and from the state. And that has allowed them to reshape the system to reflect the central elements of the mayor’s philosophy: smaller schools, relentless assessments of progress, and higher salaries for administrators to attract top talent.

A New York Times analysis of seven years of education spending has found a number of changes in how dollars are allocated. There are now 1,075 more principals and assistant principals, even as overall student enrollment has fallen, largely because the city has broken up a number of underperforming schools into smaller schools. There are more administrators, like academic coaches who track test scores, and more support staff, with tasks like patrolling hallways and monitoring attendance.

And more administrators are earning top dollar. The number of employees making more than $150,000 has risen to 240, up from 175 in 2002, when those salaries are adjusted for inflation. The number earning at least $125,000 has more than tripled, to 1,935.

Some shifts were driven by necessity. While the number of teachers in regular classrooms has dropped, hundreds more special education teachers were added to keep pace with a 26 percent jump in students needing those services. There are also thousands more special education assistants and therapists.

Much of the increase in the overall budget has been used to pay for rising teacher salaries, pensions and benefits, as well as the growing debt for new school construction.

But in many ways the spending patterns reflect the Bloomberg administration’s mindset that money attracts people who can bring business-world success to the public arena. Mr. Klein has supported salaries reaching nearly $200,000 for several of his deputies, saying that the pay reflects their qualifications and responsibilities, and that they could be earning far more in the private sector.

Education Department officials say that the size of the teaching corps is in line with the student population, which dropped to 1,029,459 in 2008 from 1,091,717 six years earlier, and that having more support staff frees teachers to concentrate on the classroom.

Mr. Klein has also pushed principals to take on greater responsibility, and his ideal, he has often stated, is to allow principals to spend their money as they see fit. They can decide, for example, whether to hire another math teacher or to use the money for after-school programs instead. In concert with this philosophy, many of the highest-salaried employees today are principals, not administrators: 53 principals made $150,000 or more last year, whereas none were earning that much as recently as 2006, when those salaries are adjusted for inflation. That does not include performance bonuses of up to $50,000 for principals of schools that perform well on standardized tests.

“There is absolutely a priority to attract and keep the best talent, and there is no doubt better pay helps us with that,” Mr. Klein said, adding, “When I tell people that they can earn $200,000 for being a principal in New York City, that really gets them paying attention.”

In line with the mayor’s affinity for using numbers to judge success, one of the largest areas of growth in the central administration has been in the department’s accountability office, which measures performance on state tests and issues school report cards.

But as legislators decide whether to keep city schools under the mayor’s control, one of the major criticisms is that the school system itself could be more accountable, particularly in the way it spends money.

Since 2002, the department has remained in a gray area of being technically neither a state nor city agency. It has come under repeated criticism from the city comptroller, who is Mr. Bloomberg’s likely opponent in the November mayoral election, and other officials for awarding contracts without bidding, a practice generally prohibited in other city agencies.

“Right now, we don’t have all the information we need,” said Ronnie Lowenstein, the director of the city’s Independent Budget Office. “People come to us and say, what does this mean, how much are we really spending, what are other ways of looking at this?”

Legislation passed by the State Assembly would hand oversight of the department’s budget to the Independent Budget Office, which could have the ability to independently assess other numbers, like graduation rates and school-level spending. The change has not been opposed by the mayor, and Mr. Klein has said that he would welcome an outside agency looking more closely over the department’s numbers.

“I think much of this is politics,” Mr. Klein said in an interview last week. “We have always been open to oversight and we have been audited repeatedly.”

It is still unclear whether the State Senate, stuck in a leadership battle, will pass the Assembly’s bill or press for more changes to the law. Mr. Bloomberg’s control of the schools was set to expire at midnight Tuesday, meaning that the schools could revert to supervision by an independent Board of Education, although most officials believe the mayor would be able to maintain stewardship until an agreement in Albany is reached.

Shifting Responsibility

The new billions result partly from Mr. Bloomberg’s spending decisions, and partly from a lawsuit filed by a group called Campaign for Fiscal Equity, which successfully argued that Albany was shortchanging the city’s schools. But the group is not necessarily pleased with the results.

“You would think that the school of today compared to the school of yesterday compared to the school of seven years ago would be a richer environment, that there would be a rich art curriculum or more intimate experiences,” said Helaine Doran, the deputy director of the group. “There is just no tactical feeling that things are any better.”

The sheer size of the department’s budget makes it unlike any other city agency. The city’s next largest agency, the Human Resources Administration, which administers welfare, has about $9.2 billion, less than half of the education budget, according to the Independent Budget Office. The Police Department spends $7.3 billion.

Mr. Bloomberg has spoken proudly of trimming the central administration. “You can’t say, ‘Let’s cut the bureaucracy,’ ” he said in January, amid budget negotiations in Albany. “We have taken $250 million out of the bureaucracy and moved it into the classroom. We have streamlined everything we possibly can.”

The overall increase in school spending is partly attributable to increased teaching salaries and pensions as well as paying off debt for school construction, which has more than doubled in the last six years. The mayor has raised teacher salaries 43 percent through contract negotiations, with the average salary now at $70,104.

Generous pensions have been won over many years by the teachers’ union, a consistently powerful force in Albany, where pension laws are passed. The mayor and the teachers’ union recently reached an agreement, which still needs legislative approval, to trim the cost of pensions for future hires.

Significantly, the Bloomberg administration has also shifted more responsibility and control over school budgets to principals.

Lily Woo, the principal of Public School 130 in Chinatown, said she has been able to take money that in other years would have been spent on hall supervisors and reallocate it to buy supplies like computers and smart boards, which combine technology with traditional chalk boards. Funds that would have been used for a single reading teacher have instead paid for extra hours for a teacher already on staff to work with small groups of children during their lunch time or a free period.

“If you asked schools to effect change without letting them control their money,” she said, “it would be like giving a cook a Bunsen burner and telling them to make a four-course meal.” The number of regular-classroom teachers has dropped by more than 1,600 to 61,549 since the Bloomberg administration took over, according to the Times analysis, which used seven years of payroll data, budget documents, audits and statistics produced by the department at the request of The Times.

Meanwhile, the costs of special education teachers, as well as their assistants and supplemental therapists, has soared along with the number of special education students: 103,228 last year, up from 81,268 in 2002.

There are 4,500 new school aides, who typically supervise lunchrooms and school yards. More than 2,000 secretaries who previously worked in district offices, which lost much of their role, now work in the schools, according to Education Department data.

Over all, enrollment has declined, and the average class size has shrunk about 5 percent from kindergarten through eighth grade, to 23.3 from 24.5. The department’s stated goal is 20 students per class for kindergarten through third grade, but it does not have a target class size for grades above third.

The teacher-to-student ratio, which includes teachers in areas like physical education or lab who are not assigned to particular classrooms, has decreased slightly: to 1 to 15 in 2008 from 1 to 16 in 2002.

The centralization of the school system has allowed the city to do away with administrators who once worked in regional or district offices. In their place, for example, the Education Department has increased the number of education analysts and education officers, to 724 from 415 in 2002. Lawrence E. Becker, the head of human resources for the Education Department, said that those titles could include everything from a central administrator looking at financial data to a school-based worker monitoring student test performance.

The number of lawyers has also nearly doubled, to 118. Education officials say the additional lawyers are needed to more aggressively pursue teacher discipline cases and to handle a growing number of lawsuits asking the city to pay private school tuition for special education students.

Efforts at Accountability

Chancellor Klein has attracted dozens of administrators who had little experience in public schools. Many came from careers in law or business, with hefty salary requirements. James Liebman, the department’s chief accountability officer, who also teaches part time at Columbia Law School, made just more than $196,000 in 2007, when Chancellor Klein earned $250,000, the same salary he has received since he began in 2002.

“Many of these people could be earning far, far more in the private sector,” Mr. Klein said. Referring to the deputy chancellor who oversees political and labor relations, he added: “Somebody like Chris Cerf could be earning well over $1 million if he were out practicing law.” Mr. Cerf earned $196,575 in 2008.

Photeine Anagnostopoulos, the department’s chief operating officer, said her $177,000 salary was less than what she earned in her first job after graduating from business school 25 years ago.

Of all the changes Chancellor Klein has made during his tenure, perhaps none has attracted more attention than the power he has given to the Office of Accountability, which has created several systems to track and measure student performance and improvement in the schools. According to Education Department numbers, the office grew to about 110 people in 2008 from about two dozen in June 2001.

Officials say the growth reflects the fact that the office’s role has undergone big changes in the last several years. The office now issues annual letter grades for each individual school in addition to developing ways for principals and teachers to monitor student improvement. According to The Times’s analysis, the accountability office payroll totaled $9.4 million in 2008.

Critics have accused Mr. Klein of putting too much faith and money into the accountability office. Last fall, the Independent Budget Office released a report estimating that the department would spend more than $350 million on accountability-related measures from 2007-9. The department objected, saying that the audit included several costs that could not be directly attributed to the office. For example, according to the department, $17.6 million was spent on school inquiry teams, including school staff.

“This is the backbone of the system,” Mr. Klein said. “Without accountability, you spend all the time arguing over what you spent the money on, not what results you got for that money.”

KLEIN ON 'BEST YEAR': I'D GET A FOR EFFORT
By YOAV GONEN, Education Reporter, June 26, 2008 --
LINK

Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said it was the best year of his tenure. There were gains in state reading and math scores and incentive programs for teachers, principals and students. Klein touched on these issues, and some controversies, in an exclusive interview with The Post.

Q: You've talked about how smoothly the school year started - did it stay that way?

A: What surprised me was how smooth it was given all the changes we made. Remember, we eliminated the regions, downsized the bureaucracy, downsized central [administration] and brought in all the school support organizations. That's a lot of stuff, if you will, and compared to the first reorganization, there's no question that this was much smoother.

Q: What are some of the highlights of the school year?

A: I think the major highlight of the year is the [test] results. I'm a results guy, and the results were big. Probably the second major thing was the implementation of the accountability system, which I believe is long-term, big and meaningful . . . The charter scores were really dynamite. To have charter schools in the city of New York that are 92 percent African-American and Latino, 80 percent poverty, performing at the same level as the state of New York or even a little better is really a remarkable thing. [And] we got a pay-for-performance deal with the UFT [United Federation of Teachers].

Q: Speaking of charters, there is some opposition growing in District 22 to the Hebrew Charter School that could open there in 2009. Are you concerned at all that it's going to turn into a lightning rod the way [Arabic-themed school] Khalil Gibran did?

A: I hope not. We've done [dual language] schools with such success . . . I think [the Khalil Gibran issue] was a combination of two unfortunate things - a lot of misunderstanding about what Khalil Gibran was about and then a real focus on the principal, the original principal, and I think that created some noise. I hope this Hebrew charter school - which again will be dual language, which has got zero religion to it - will be successful, but I guess we have to stay tuned.

Q: Was there anything you wish had gone differently - like the teacher-tenure legislation [not allowing school districts to use student performance in tenure decisions] in Albany, for example?

A: I wish it hadn't occurred. On the other hand, I think it did surface the issue really at the national level . . . I clearly wish that the economy was otherwise and we wouldn't have to go through budget cuts. But by and large I thought this was a smooth year.

Q: What about complaints about the report-card grades for schools?

A: The report cards were probably one of the noisy periods. But . . . I can't tell you how many principals said to me, 'You know, chancellor, I didn't get the right grade but I promise you I won't get the same one next year,' so I think that had a big impact.

Q: Where do things stand on the budget cuts - is there any hope that Albany is going to loosen restrictions on the funds at this point?

A: I don't believe that's going to happen . . . We are looking at a variety of strategies.

Q: Like what?

A: I'd rather not get ahead of the story.

Q: If you had to assign a grade to yourself for the school year, what would it be?

A: This was in my view the best year we had. I always like to say the grade is 'A' for effort and other people can grade our performance.

Q: What's next?

A: Now that we have so much information . . . we're going to be able to really home in on what schools made real progress. We're going to [focus] on which schools are really moving the English-language learners, which schools are moving in special education.

Q: What's in store for you after Bloomberg's term ends - would you like to stay on as chancellor?

A: I would like to keep serving . . . I think education is going to be a part of my life. I'm now doing this national [equality] project, which I'll continue to push on . . . I've got many, many things that I want to do - not the least of which is to write a hell of a book about my 7½ years as chancellor.

yoav.gonen@nypost.com

Friday, February 5, 2010

Kleingate

Starting at around 6PM and lasting until 3AM on January 26-27 2010, more than 3,000 outraged New York City residents showed up at a fake school board meeting (the Panel For Educational Policy has no administrative or executive function, violate their own Bylaws, have no minutes, and obstruct public discussion) to protest the closing of 20 New York City public schools by the pretend Chancellor of the New York City Board of Education, Joel I Klein. This is a fact.

Who could not care less that he has alienated the public school parents, teachers, administrators and public leaders of NYC: the pretend chancellor, Joel I. Klein. Read below for my statement as to why this all is happening.
And I'll put my name on it:
Betsy Combier



For 13 years Judicial Watch has been in a lawsuit with the former Clinton administration over files, missing emails, and personnel records that were collected by FBI agents illegally. Informaniacs like me are interested in cases involving emails and files, especially if the withholding of relevant information from the public involves a man we in the New York City public school community know as "Chancellor", Mr. Joel I. Klein.

See Judicial Watch and the Cara Leslie Alexander lawsuit, and dont miss Linda Tripp's January 22, 1999 deposition where she describes a thug who worked for the Clintons named Joel I. Klein.

White House sued by five whose files were obtained.(Nation)
Article from:The Washington Times (Washington, DC) Article date:September 13, 1996Author:Thibault, Andy

"The first five of more than 900 former White House staffers have come forward in a class-action suit seeking more than $90 million in damages for the Clinton administration's improper procurement of their secret FBI background files.

Named as defendants in the suit are the White House, the FBI, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, former White House personnel security director D. Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, a former U.S. Army civilian employee who had been assigned to the White House.

"We expect to confirm and further expose that the misconduct was not limited to low-level operatives, as the Clinton administration now asserts, but was orchestrated from the highest levels," said lawyer Larry Klayman, chairman of the government watchdog group Judicial Watch, who filed the suit yesterday in U.S. District Court.

The five plaintiffs are David Lee Black of Washington, a retired Bush appointee to the Department of Energy; Joseph Nelson Cate of Washington, who served as an unpaid volunteer in the Bush personnel office; Marjorie Anne Bridgman of Annandale, who served in the Reagan administration and on the Bush transition team; Patrick Beers of Boston, who served on the Bush advance team; and Cara Leslie Alexander of Fairfax County. Miss Alexander was not available yesterday, and Mr. Klayman could not immediately say what post she held.

Many others are expected to join the class action or file separate suits. Among those who said they have met to consider such suits are James Cicconi, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, and Ron Kaufman, deputy personnel director in the Bush administration.

The suit, which has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, claims violations of the Privacy Act of 1974. Sensitive personal material in such files often includes unproved allegations.

Mr. Clinton has called the FBI records search "a bureaucratic snafu," without explaining how the files of so many Reagan-Bush officials were "mistakenly" obtained and why they remained at the White House for about two years.

Mark Fabiani, Mr. Clinton's special associate counsel, declined to comment yesterday.

Mr. Livingstone was forced from his job in June after revelations that his office in late 1993 and early 1994 improperly obtained the files. He said that Mr. Marceca gathered the files in a bureaucratic blunder and that he knew nothing about them until this spring.

The White House files request became public after Rep. William F. Clinger, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, discovered that former White House travel office chief Billy R. Dale's background records were sought seven months after he was fired.

FBI Director Louis J. Freeh confirmed that the Dale files were among the "unquestionably unjustified acquisitions" by the White House, along with those of Barney Brasseaux, another travel office employee fired in 1993.

Mr. Dale's file was sought on a form containing then-White House Counsel Nussbaum's stamped name, although Mr. Nussbaum said he had no information on why his name would have appeared on the form.

Mr. Dale was indicted on two embezzlement charges and acquitted by a federal jury, which deliberated just two hours after a three-week trial.

A protege of Mr. Freeh's, FBI general counsel Howard Shapiro, became the target of a Justice Department investigation after House leaders accused him of collusion in the burgeoning file scandal.

Mr. Clinger said Mr. Shapiro "lost his credibility to represent the FBI before this Congress" after tipping off the White House about potentially damaging information in FBI files about Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Shapiro acknowledged in testimony before the Government Reform and Oversight panel that he tipped off the White House counsel's office July 15 that the FBI had discovered notes of a 1993 FBI interview crediting Mrs. Clinton with Mr. Livingstone's appointment as White House personnel security director.

He defended the move as "a good-faith attempt at being nonpartisan" because the file material had been subpoenaed by a GOP-controlled House committee.

Mrs. Clinton has publicly denied that she ordered the hiring of Mr. Livingstone."

What is shocking is that brilliant financial magnate Michael Bloomberg fell for the "expert fixer" public relations spin, and brought Joel Klein's threats and "Attorney" personhood to the equally brilliant New York City public school community. Did anyone in Mayor Bloomberg's cartel really believe that we, the general public, would not figure all of this out?

I have said for years that Joel Klein is "Chancellor" in name (and on the NYC BOE stationery) only, as he does not have a contract. When I first received confirmation of this from the FOIL officer Susan Holtzman in 2005, I asked myself, "Why doesn't he have a contract?" Education Law Section 2590-h says that he MUST have a contract:

"* § 2590-h. Powers and duties of chancellor. The office of chancellor
of the city district is hereby continued. Such chancellor shall serve at the pleasure of and be employed by the mayor of the city of New York by contract. The length of such contract shall not exceed by more than two years the term of office of the mayor authorizing such contract. The chancellor shall receive a salary to be fixed by the mayor within the budgetary allocation therefor. He or she shall exercise all his or her powers and duties in a manner not inconsistent with the city-wide educational policies of the city board. The chancellor shall have the following powers and duties as the superintendent of schools and chief executive officer for the city district, which the chancellor shall exercise to promote an equal educational opportunity for all students in the schools of the city district, promote fiscal and educational equity,increase student achievement and school performance and encourage local school-based innovation, including the power and duty to...."




What that is about, I believe, is Mayor Bloomberg (at left) brought Klein to New York City to be the Attorney that represents NYC BOE personnel when they are sued for violating contractual rights and laws. He is, therefore, a "fixer". For example, the Corporation Counsel told Plaintiff/teacher Hipolito Colon that he cannot get relevant and material information from Defendant Klein (whom he sued in his official AND individual capacities) nor can he depose Klein, because this information is withheld as "Attorney-Client Privilege".

Linda Tripp's deposition on January 22, 1999 supports this opinion of Joel Klein.

On the Judicial Watch website under "filegate", is the story of the Clintons' attempt to cover up the gathering of personal information, the death of Vincent Foster, Monica Lewinsky, and other such activities. Evidently the Clinton White House procured the private FBI files of Alexander and Duggan in 1993 and 1994 respectively by claiming the two individuals required access to the Clinton White House. One problem. Neither individual worked for the White House any longer and therefore did not require access. This was simply a ruse by Clinton officials to get their hands on the files, something they did with regularity. In fact, one FBI official testified they made 488 such requests based on the bogus claim of "access" in a single year! The Clintons called in a man to cover up for them, current New York City "Chancellor" Joel I. Klein.

Alexander, et al. v. FBI, et al.

In the early 1990’s, President and Hillary Clinton violated the privacy rights of their perceived political enemies by wrongly accessing and misusing the FBI files of Reagan and Bush I staffer and others. This scandal became known as "Filegate." In pursuing its Filegate investigation, Judicial Watch learned with the help of whistleblowers Sheryl Hall and Betty Lambuth that the Clinton-Gore White House had hidden over 1.8 million e-mails from courts, Congressional investigators and independent counsels for nearly two years. Plans were also uncovered to destroy the files. To keep the e-mails secret, Clinton-Gore White House officials threatened contractors and staff with their jobs or jail time. Once the failure to produce the e-mails was revealed, the cover-up began; a cover-up that included obstruction and false testimony. Then, on hearing the testimony of the White House whistleblowers, a federal court judge ordered the testimony of former high-level Clinton-Gore White House officials in a court hearing to examine the threats, obstruction and alleged false testimony. (Editor- see "Whistleblower Protection - Sheryl Hall" and "Whistleblower Protection - Betty Lambuth")

Evidence showed that the e-mails are incriminating and covered virtual all of the Clinton-Gore scandals, yet these e-mails were not considered by Independent Counsel Robert Ray who gave the Clinton-Gore White House a clean bill of health. (View ethics complaint.)

In January 2001, the e-mail files were placed under custody of the National Archives (NARA) and were restored, costing the American tax-payers over $13 million.

In December 2002 the court ordered the files be searched. The NARA is responsible for responding to all special access requests and subpoenas that are made pursuant to the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The PRA generally restricts public access to the Clinton Presidential and Gore Vice Presidential records for five years after the end of the administration and for specific records for an additional seven years.

Judicial Watch is representing plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed by the White House employees of Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations whose FBI files were wrongly accessed by the Clinton White House. The FBI and White House are being sued for breach of the Federal Privacy Act while other individuals, including Hillary Clinton, are being sued for invasion of privacy. (Go to the website for more information, including the legal documents).

If there is one legal case that exemplifies the "never-give-up" attitude of Judicial Watch and its attorneys it is the Filegate lawsuit, which was filed 13 years ago when Bill and Hillary Clinton still occupied The White House. As long-time readers of the Weekly Update know, over the years, Judicial Watch has continued to aggressively pursue justice in this matter, earning some key victories along the way (like the discovery of the hidden White House emails, to name just one example).

And just this week, on October 19, we filed a "Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment," asking the U.S. District Court to rule in favor of two Filegate victims, Cara Leslie Alexander and Joseph P. Duggan (Cara Leslie Alexander, et al. v. FBI, et al., C.A. No. 96-2123 (RCL)).

At its core, Judicial Watch's Filegate lawsuit is the Clinton White House's illegal maintenance of the private FBI files of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush officials.

Specifically with respect to Judicial Watch's clients, the Clinton White House procured their private FBI files in 1993 and 1994 respectively by claiming the two individuals required access to the Clinton White House. One problem. Neither individual worked for the White House any longer and therefore did not require access. This was simply a ruse by Clinton officials to get their hands on the files, something they did with regularity. In fact, one FBI official testified they made 488 such requests based on the bogus claim of "access" in a single year!

And to make matters worse, not only did the Clinton White House misstate the facts to get the private FBI files, it held on to them for almost three years!

Now, after 13 years of pushing the same tired justification for this illegal handling of private information, the FBI and the Obama White House (defending corruption in the Clinton White House) have asked the court to rule in its favor by filing a "Motion for Summary Judgment." (A "summary judgment" is granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.) We filed our own Cross Motion for Summary Judgment in reply, and here is our basic argument:

Over the long and complex history of this matter, certain key facts have remained irrefutable. First, FBI background investigation files are perhaps some of the most sensitive records that the federal government maintains on individuals.

Second, the FBI has never disputed that it sent literally hundreds of these files to the Office of Personnel Security ("OPS"), a component of Executive Office of the President (EOP), despite the fact that OPS's requests for the records were, in the FBI's own words, "without justification and served no official purpose." Indeed, the FBI has admitted that it failed to "institute sufficient protections to effectively safeguard the records"...and that their handling of the matter resulted in "egregious violations of privacy."

...There can be no genuine dispute that the FBI violated the Privacy Act by failing to establish appropriate administrative safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of its background investigation files and that its failure to do so was in flagrant disregard for Plaintiffs' rights under the Privacy Act.

Third, regardless of the circumstances under which OPS acquired the records at issue, there has never been any dispute that OPS continued to maintain them long after it was known that the persons who were the subjects of these records never worked at the Clinton White House and had no need for access to the Clinton White House.

As we further noted in our Cross Motion, even Bill Clinton himself has said his administration should be held accountable. Clinton told historian Taylor Branch in preparation for his recently published book, "those files did not belong at The White House," and that they "should have been isolated and returned immediately." According to Branch, Clinton said "[h]is administration should and would be held accountable."

We agree.

But the Obama administration has taken the legal position that the Privacy Act does not apply to the Executive Office of the President and the Clinton FBI files scandal was not a scandal.

This will be worrying to those of us concerned about the Obama White House's collecting "fishy" emails and compiling an enemies list of new organizations, radio hosts, businesses, and industry associations to attack and smear. Is the Obama defense of the FBI files scandal less about that Clinton scandal and more about what his White House is up to now?

Deposing Corrupt Politicians - Filegate Depositions

In Alexander et al. v. FBI, et al., the case commonly known as “Filegate,” Judicial Watch represented plaintiffs from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations who claim that the Clinton administration gained illegal access to their FBI files. Hillary Clinton is mentioned specifically as a defendant in the case. The FBI and White House are being sued for breach of the Federal Privacy Act while other individuals, including Mrs. Clinton, are being sued for invasion of privacy. Below you will find the depositions of three of the most notable figures in the case.

James Carville was the former campaign manager and political consultant to President Clinton. He is questioned in this case regarding his knowledge of White House activity that involved the files in question. George Stephanopoulos was a senior political advisor to President Clinton as well as his press secretary and communications director at various times in the administration. He was also questioned about his knowledge of Filegate. Linda Tripp, a White House employee during both the Bush and Clinton administrations, provided Judicial Watch with perhaps its best evidence of all. It is Tripp that reveals a direct connection between Mrs. Clinton and the illegally obtained files.

See Filegate Depositions

Filegate: Did they have your file?
and, the list of deceased persons reportedly associated with the Clinton administration

Attorney General Gonzales' aide says she'll plead the Fifth

The Raw Story



JW Files Appeal with Supreme Court Challenging Hillary Clinton's Eligibility to Serve as Secretary of State
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 1:34pm

Judicial Watch: High Court Has an Obligation to Stop an End-Run Around U.S. Constitution

Contact Information:
Press Office - 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC -- January 6, 2010

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that on December 31, 2009, it filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court in its lawsuit on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer David C. Rodearmel challenging Hillary Clinton's constitutional eligibility to serve as Secretary of State (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al. on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia).

Judicial Watch's lawsuit, filed on January 29, 2009, maintains that the Ineligibility Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Clinton from serving as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court dismissed Judicial Watch's lawsuit on October 29th, ruling that Mr. Rodearmel lacked "standing" to bring the lawsuit. The court did not address the constitutional merits of the lawsuit itself.

As Judicial Watch notes in its brief, federal law provides that an Ineligibility Clause appeal related to the position of Secretary of State may be brought directly to the U.S. Supreme Court within 20 days of a judgment on the validity of the appointment. Moreover, the law states, "The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question presented by an appeal...accept jurisdiction over the appeal, advance the appeal on the docket, and expedite the appeal."

There are two key questions at issue in this lawsuit, according to Judicial Watch's Supreme Court appeal (technically called a "Jurisdictional Statement"):

(1) Whether an Officer of the United States, when placed in a position where he must either violate his oath of office or risk substantial, adverse consequences to his employment, has standing to maintain a challenge to the appointment of a constitutionally ineligible superior.

(2) Whether members of Congress who are otherwise ineligible for appointment to an office in the Executive Branch under the plain language of Article I, section 6 of the Constitution, can have their eligibility restored by an act of Congress.

With respect to the issue of standing, Judicial Watch contends that Mr. Rodearmel "demonstrated in the district court that he is being injured in his employment by being required to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior, Mrs. Clinton. This is because [Mr. Rodearmel] has been placed in a position where he either must violate his oath of office or risk substantial, adverse consequences to his employment."

With respect to Congress' attempt to circumvent the Ineligibility Clause by "rolling back" compensation for the position of Secretary of State to the level in effect on January 1, 2007, Judicial Watch maintains: "This [fix] does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate."

"The Supreme Court has an obligation to settle the Ineligibility Clause issue once and for all," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "If our government and courts will not observe even the plain and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution, then we are cut adrift from the anchor of law and liberty and the rule of law is in jeopardy. We hope the Supreme Court takes this opportunity to vindicate the Constitution."

Rodearmel v. Clinton
LINK
Appeal to the Supreme Court: Jurisdictional statement

Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

This provision, known as the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. The "Ineligibility Clause" is interpreted by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government.

On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the ground that she is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State under the Ineligibility Clause. The "emoluments" or salary of the U.S. Secretary of State increased at least three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's recent resignation.

Judicial Watch's lawsuit is on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel, a retired Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General Corp. See Rodearmel v. Clinton, Case No. 09-171 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Col.)). The lawsuit maintains that Mr. Rodearmel cannot serve under Secretary of State Clinton as it would force him to violate an oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States. For more information on Mr. Rodearmel, see below.

In December 2008, Congress attempted to evade the clear prohibition of the Ineligibility Clause with a so-called "Saxbe fix," reducing the Secretary of State's salary to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. This maneuver, first used in the Taft Administration, has been more frequently used in recent years by both parties, most notably allowing Republican Senator William Saxbe to become U.S. Attorney General in 1973 and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen to become Treasury Secretary in 1993. A similar "fix" has been enacted for Senator Ken Salazar to join the Obama Cabinet as Secretary of the Interior. These attempted "fixes," however, are insufficient, as they cannot alter the historical fact that -- as in Mrs. Clinton's case -- salaries increased during the terms for which these officials were elected, thereby violating the Ineligibility Clause.

The lawsuit was reviewed on an expedited basis by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who held that Mr. Rodearmel did not have standing and did not comment on the constitutional questions. Judicial Watch filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Documents

Obama Administration Denies Judicial Watch FOIA Request for White House Visitor Logs

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Joel Klein Appointed The Point Man To End Hacking At News Corp.

I agree with Dennis Wolcott's statement below that was published in the New York Times:

Dennis M. Walcott, New York City’s current schools chancellor, noted that Mr. Klein had “navigated very difficult issues” throughout his career.
“Joel,” he said, “can handle anything.”

Oh yes he can.....because he ignores all protests, is rude and insulting to anyone who gets in his way, and gets rid of all blocks to his goals. Linda Tripp testified that she was afraid of only one person who worked with her in the Clinton administration, a man with the name Joel Klein. Mr. Klein took over for Vincent Foster after Foster killed himself (or was killed).

Good luck, Mr. Murdoch.

Betsy Combier

Thursday, July 07, 2011
His Area of Expertise
NYC Educator
LINK

Joel Klein, who blithely observed scandal upon scandal for Mayor Bloomberg, has been tapped by Rupert Murdoch to oversee his own scandal. It's about time we saw Klein utilized for something he actually knows about. Wasn't it Klein who oversaw his no-bid contracts result in children freezing on street corners, while waiting for buses that never came? And didn't Klein tirelessly plug the achievements on state tests that proved to be nothing whatsoever after revelations in 2010 that they'd been dumbed down?

Joel Klein brought accountability to students, making sure they could pass tests before graduation. Diana Senechal took one of these tests, marked A, B, C, D in a pattern without reading the answers, and passed. Klein bravely fought to fire teachers, as nothing that occurred under his tenure was ever his fault. He presided over the closure of almost every high school in the Bronx, contending they were failures. None, of course, were failures on his part. That's what Klein called "accountability."

Klein spent years at the job, dispensing favored treatment to people like Eva Moskowitz, and setting up a two-tier system that ensured Eva's students were better treated than the overwhelming majority of kids attending city schools. He took almost a billion dollars to reduce class sizes, and through innovative management techniques, managed to make them go up just about everywhere.

So, if a scandal's brewing, Klein's your guy, Rupert. He's seen scandal from just about every angle there is. Only one thing, though--making things better for Rupert Murdoch is not necessarily the same as problem-solving. Klein's image was in the toilet when he resigned. I'm not remotely certain he's the guy to rehabilitate the image of a propaganda king.

Peter Hutchison


July 6, 2011, 7:39 pm
Joel I. Klein, Former Schools Chancellor, to Tackle Hacking Case
By ELISSA GOOTMAN, NY TIMES
LINK
He did battle with the powerful New York City teachers union. He stood down placard-wielding protestors at meetings of the Panel for Educational Policy. For more than eight years, he closed schools, opened schools and otherwise tried to transform the nation’s largest school system.

Now Joel I. Klein, who left his post as the city’s schools chancellor in December, has been given a task by one of the world’s most powerful media moguls: helping to oversee one of the seamier media scandals in recent memory.

After stepping down from the chancellorship, Mr. Klein, 64, took a job with the News Corporation, one of the world’s largest media conglomerates, as chief executive of the education division and as executive vice president in the office of the company’s chairman, Rupert Murdoch.

Now, amid allegations that a British tabloid owned by the News Corporation, News of the World, hacked the cellphone of a murdered 13-year-old girl nine years ago, Mr. Murdoch has announced the appointment of Mr. Klein to “provide important oversight and guidance” in investigating the matter. Mr. Klein is also to be partially responsible for “keeping News Corporation’s board fully advised,” Mr. Murdoch said in a prepared statement.

“We are committed to addressing these issues fully and have taken a number of important steps to prevent them from happening again,” Mr. Murdoch’s statement read.

In a brief telephone interview on Wednesday, Mr. Klein said he was “not in charge” of handling the investigation, but he declined to elaborate on the specifics of his role. “It’s just what it said in our release today: I’m providing counsel and advice to the company,” he said.

Asked whether his experience running New York City schools would inform his efforts in this particular challenge, he said, “I think my whole life’s experience will bear on this.”

Before Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg named him schools chancellor, Mr. Klein was known as one of the brightest legal minds in the country; he worked as a lawyer in Washington for nearly three decades. At the Justice Department, he served as the assistant attorney general in charge of antitrust enforcement, leading the prosecution of Microsoft. He also spent two years as deputy White House counsel during the Clinton administration and was the chairman and chief executive of Bertelsmann, a multinational media corporation.

Mr. Klein was a “very wise choice” for the role, said Chris Cerf, who has known Mr. Klein since 1986 and served under him as a deputy schools chancellor.

“He’s been in the cauldron for a good stretch of his career, so it’s more than an abstract issue for him,” said Mr. Cerf, who is now acting commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education. “It’s something he knows a great deal about in a personal way.”

Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a business group, said she had often had dealings with Mr. Klein and that his experience at the Education Department “established his ability to take on a difficult challenge in a straightforward, honest way, and enhanced the credibility that he established during his years in Washington as a defender of the public interest.

“He’s a smart guy, he’s a sharp lawyer, he’s got credentials from years in public service, and it makes him an appropriate person” to help make the News Corporation’s case, she said.

Dennis M. Walcott, New York City’s current schools chancellor, noted that Mr. Klein had “navigated very difficult issues” throughout his career.

“Joel,” he said, “can handle anything.”

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Pink Slime: Anna Phillips Reflecting On Dennis M. Walcott's First Year as "Chancellor" [Without A Contract]

I'm going to address the ridiculous article printed by SchoolBook's Anna Phillips and the media rush the past couple of days to glorify Dennis M. Walcott - and thus praise Mayor Bloomberg - and libel the teachers who, by fighting well with evidence and truth, were not terminated at 3020-a arbitration, the "teacher trials" . 

Anyone who has gone through the 3020-a arbitration in New York City knows it is a set up. NYSUT, UFT, and Department of Education lawyers as well as employees know that this forum is designed to (a) play up the DOE as an agency which values zero tolerance for any act of touching or speaking deemed by them as "improper", if you are a tenured teacher or staff member making more than $80,000/year; (b) scare all employees who think they can speak up against the System in any way and get away with it, into silence and into a state of "yes, I will lie about my colleague if it will please you" mentality.

The only part of the process that remains valid and stops total destruction of tenure rights is the intervention of a few good arbitrators who adhere to the standard known as "Just Cause" espoused by arbitrators around the country and by the American Arbitration Association.

But the answer is not to resign or settle, the solution is - IF YOU ARE INNOCENT OF THE CHARGE - to fight and bring in witnesses, testify, use a private attorney who will spill the beans on the principal, AP, Superintendent, and their motives in bringing you to 3020-a, etc.
More on this in future posts, and past posts here, here, here, and here. I also think you should read "Kleingate" and see, in my opinion, why Mayor Bloomberg brought Joel Klein to NYC in the first place and what Linda Tripp thought of him when he was hired by Hilary and Bill Clinton to help them get rid of reporter pests after Vincent Foster died.

 First, Mr. Walcott is not "legally" Chancellor. Read Education Law Section 2590-h, which states:

 "Powers and duties of chancellor. The office of chancellor of the city district is hereby continued. Such chancellor shall serve at the pleasure of and be employed by the mayor of the city of New York by contract. The length of such contract shall not exceed by more than two years the term of office of the mayor  authorizing  such  contract." 

....And Walcott has no contract. No one gives him a performance review, and he cannot be fired for any reason except by the Mayor. How is this good or even adequate public policy?

Second, I do not know who Ms. Phillips and the pollsters are talking to, but over the past year I have been talking to parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, lawyers and arbitrators, everyone dislikes Mr. Walcott with a passion, not only in the way he seems to be arrogant as he delivers bad news, but in the fact that he stomps out dissent with a big stick, the Mayor's total control. The public school system in NYC is the largest system in America, gets the most money from the US government, and has no effective voice from it's constituents. Isnt this a form of "taxation without representation"? Wasnt there a revolution fought over this?

I have had only disgust for the politicians who absorbed the pink slime policy fillers which have harmed so many people over the past 10 years. I include the Borough Presidents and their appointees to the Panel For Educational Policy, and the promotion and publicity people for these appointees - anyone who supports their being there. Yes, I include Leonie Haimson, whose personal support for Patrick Sullivan has cost many unsuspecting parents alot of time running over to PEP meetings to beg for their schools to remain open, while Haimson channels the UFT and does nothing to actually help a teacher keep his or her job.

Betsy Combier

At One-Year Mark, Walcott Sees Improvement in Education Debate's Tone

 April 5, 2012, 5:01 p.m.
Reflecting on his first year as chancellor of the city’s schools, one marked by protests over school closings and the public release of teacher rankings, Dennis M. Walcott said that, in some ways, the tone of the citywide education debate has improved under his leadership.
In an interview Wednesday, Mr. Walcott said that he has tried to make himself accessible and visible to principals, teachers, parents and students by opening public meetings to more audience questions and frequently visiting public schools. But in a year when the Occupy Wall Street movement joined forces with critics of the Bloomberg administration’s education policies, public meetings have been just as raucous as in the past.
“I think people view tone solely as the PEP meetings,” he said, referring to the Panel for Educational Policy, which has oversight over some schools issues. “But I think it goes beyond the PEP meetings. And I think the tone has changed. And tone is that, for me, I will respect you.”
At the beginning of this school year, Mr. Walcott laid out his objectives in an interview with The New York Times, citing few policy initiatives and saying he intended to be “the cheerleader of our education system.”
His public calendar has been full of school visits, as has his private one, and he has viewed the constant work of talking to staff and students as his way of improving the public’s perception of the chancellor.


 As for policy, he has adhered to the agenda of closing low-performing schools and opening new small ones that was established by former Chancellor Joel I. Klein.
Since he became chancellor last April, Mr. Walcott has seen his popularity with New Yorkers improve. A recent poll by Quinnipiac University found growing support for him, with 43 percent of voters approving and 31 percent disapproving of his job performance.
Asked if parents have become more involved in their children’s schooling in the last year — Mr. Walcott’s stated No. 1 priority — he said that he has talked to more principals about engaging parents this year, but provided no evidence of this strengthening parents’ connections to schools.
In September, the city plans to open a parent academy, modeled on the parent university created by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district in North Carolina, which offers parents workshops on how to help their children academically.
Plans to begin measuring schools on how well they involve parents have not begun yet, he said.
Here is more of the interview, edited for brevity:
Q.
If you were to rate yourself, give yourself a grade for your first year as chancellor, whether it’s an A through F or a 1 to 10, what would you give yourself and why?
A.
And my response, and this is my honest response, is I don’t give myself a grade. I don’t really focus on that. To me it’s the satisfaction of what I see when I go to schools and when I interact with students. You know me, you guys have been trailing me for a while. I just love being in the schools, I love being with the students, hearing what they have to say, meeting them, watching them learn, watching them answer questions, and my quote unquote grade is derived by the type of interaction I have with them and they have with me.
Q.
Recently, you decided not to close seven schools that you had previously marked for closure. What made you change your mind?
A.
Over the several years they were on the P.L.A. (persistently low achieving) list these schools particularly made progress, and I’m on record saying even with Maxwell (W.H. Maxwell Career and Technical Education High School), the A school, that even though there’s progress there we still have to take a look under the hood because we still want more progress. And so staff went out, meaning deputy chancellors went out, or Veronica (Conforme), our chief operating officer, to meet, listen and talk to students in the schools. And teachers and others. And as a result of that, we felt and I felt we should just take them off the list.
Q.
One of the schools that was taken off the closure list a while ago isBoys and Girls High School, which has performed poorly for years. Why did you decide to keep that school open?
A.
I have a lot of faith in Bernard Gassaway (the school’s principal). I think Bernard Gassaway has made tremendous progress in trying to turn around the issues that have been contributing to Boys and Girls being an F-rated school. So I have a lot of stock in Bernard. And Bernard and I meet and I’m giving him that stock to turn it around. We haven’t set a timeline but we’re working closely.
I think Bernard has made some significant changes to the school and so I’m looking for improvement and we’ve talked about a number of challenges the school faces, and how we change the image of the school around to make sure that they are attracting a board cross-section of students as well.
Q.
Looking back at the release of the teacher data reports, at the time you said that it is what the courts told you to do, so you had to do it. But was it a good idea? A bad idea? Was there anything good that came out of it?
A.
Yes, to answer your question, I think a lot of good came out of it. Just a discussion around teacher quality, teacher effectiveness, and the ability of the teacher to do well. What didn’t come out was what are the other variables that contribute to a teacher being a good or a great teacher as well. And I think that got lost in the discussion and that was what I was trying to convey beforehand, is that one shouldn’t view the T.D.R.s as the be-all-to-end-all. It was one sliver of information.
Q.
In September, you said that your first priority was increasing parents’ involvement in their children’s schooling. Have you seen that improve?
A.
I think there are various levels of involvement of a parent and how you define involvement of a parent. And so to me, involvement of parents is at schools. And so we put a lot of emphasis in talking to our principals around the engagement of parents at their schools and providing supports.
I think Jesse has done a lot coming on board, Jesse Mojica, as far as his role in dealing with parent and community engagement. We’re looking at how we define the role of parent coordinators. As you know back in June, we had a session on the Common Core for parent coordinators, C.E.C. (community education council) members, and P.A. (parents association) members. And we had another one in August.
We’ve done a lot of macro things to engage parents around the implementation of common core and also taking a look at having suggested items on what to ask during parent teacher conferences. We provide, I think, a variety of vehicles and forums for parents both at a macro level, a district level, or a school level, to get more involved in their children’s school.
Q.
You also said you were going to measure schools on how well they are able to get parents involved. How far along is that initiative?
A.
We talked about it more. I don’t know if we’ve developed a measurement tool. And it’s funny, I was just going over some of the accountability measures for other metrics that we’re looking at and I’m not sure, I don’t have an answer for you on that.
Q.
SchoolBook: What are some of the other metrics you’re looking at? New metrics you will be incorporating?
A.
When we’re ready…that one is a to-do. I still have two steps to do before I release that. But yeah, we’re looking at new metrics as far as school accountability, school performance, and how we track what they’re doing.
Q.
One of the things you wanted to do was make the public debate over education more civil, less heated. Have you changed the tone in your first year?
A.
I know I’ve changed the way we interact at town hall forums, and so I think in that regard the tone has changed. It’s a more interactive session, definitely more Q. & A., and it’s different than other town halls we’ve done before.
I think tone can be defined as I define it, as accessibility as well. In that I think accessibility to me and the staff, that’s definitely there, so whether it’s staff or parents or community groups, I’m there. They may not be happy with everything, but the accessibility is there. At the panel meetings, it depends on the calendar itself. I mean there have been some panel meetings that actually are very calm. And there are those that are not.
I think people view tone solely as the PEP meetings, but I think it goes beyond the PEP meetings. And I think the tone has changed. And tone is that, for me, I will respect you.
Anna M. Phillips is a member of the SchoolBook staff. Follow her on Twitter @annamphillips.