Marcel Kshensky, Susan Holtzman, and "Sham Closings"

Everyday the 6th floor at 51-49 Chambers Street is busy with cases being heard, not only 3020-a, but grievances as well. When a grievance is scheduled, the parties are listed at the reception desk on a board.

The process of hearing a grievance has been broken for years, as long as I can remember.

The arbitration hearings that are grievances are actually scripted so that the Respondent/employee thinks that he or she is being heard, when all that is happening is, three people are being paid to deny one person his or her complaint. The three people are, of course, the hearing officer, the opposition to the employee, and the representative of the employee whose grievance is being heard. Everybody performs his or her role.

One hearing officer is Marcel Kshensky. See picture above (the photo on the right is current) He was sued in Federal Court by a former teacher by the name of George Lawson, who, as a friend of a rubber roomer in the Bronx, called me on several occasions to talk about this man, Mr. Kshensky. George alleges that Kshensky discriminates against people. I posted his name and a little about his story in a previous article.

Why am I telling you about this historical view of Mr. Kshensky? Because he is still a hearing officer at 51 Chambers Street, but I fail to understand why. Anyway, on May 4, 2012 I went to 51 Chambers Street for a 3020-a at which I am hired as the paralegal for a private Attorney. As I was signing in at the reception desk, UFT rep Mary Atkinson was laughing, she was sitting at my right in the waiting room. She told me to look at the grievance board, and take a picture.  I looked at the board, and I did take a picture:

 Aside from lines 2 and 3 having the names of Marcel Kshensky and SUSAN HOLTZMAN, here are lines 4 and 5:

11:00a #RM606  CONDCONF  Marcel Kshensky  Karen Solimando 122137  CSA  Excessing-Sham Closings 122137

1:30p #RM606  CONDCONF  Marcel Kshensky  Karen Solimando  122136  UFT Sham Closings 122136                                                                                                                         

That's why Mary was laughing, I assume, the "Sham Closing".

Who is Susan Holtzman?

None other than the former Records Access Officer at Tweed (replaced by Joseph Baranello) who gave me Joel Klein's "contract" (not) and was ridiculously rude whenever I asked her any questions, such as, if Joel Klein does not have a contract (which he doesnt - the 'letter' that I was sent is not a contract because there is no expiration date, says my brilliant lawyer friend and grad of Columbia Law School), and Education Law Section 2590-H says that the 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. "

Then, how can he be Chancellor? Ms. Holtzman really made fun of that question, but 

never answered it. Cathie Black didnt have a contract and neither does Dennis Walcott.

If the chancellor does not have a contract, then how does the delegation work, say when a teacher is charged with discipline as in 3020-a?? From where does the power/authority for Dennis Walcott to delegate to Superintendents the "authority" to charge anyone? 

I wish someone would answer this question, its been 7 years since I started asking it.

Betsy Combier

Why Do Grievants Lose Their Grievance Hearings? Hearing Officer Marcel Kshensky Explains

Most people who have been through the grievance process at either 49-51 Chambers Street, 6th floor, or at 65 Court Street in the offices of Appeals and Reviews , leave thinking one or the other of the statements below are true:

1. Gosh, my UFT/DC37/CSA Rep. did a great job!! I'm sure that I won!!

2. There is something wrong with this process, the principal/AP/Respondent didn't show up and just spoke by telephone, and I was not allowed to speak/enter documents/have witnesses.

And then, after several weeks or months, you find out you lost.

The grievance procedure is a scam, charade, theatrical performance, etc., played out by all parties excluding you, the grievant, who may be thinking that all due process rights are being honored. Nope, not at all, sorry. The reps and hearing officers know this. But no one challenges the status quo. I want to add that this is in no way an attack on the individuals who hear/represent/testify at these hearings. They do their job. I expose the process they use, and the rules or policies they use to justify their actions.

See Marcel Kshensky, Susan Holtzman, and "Sham Closings"

Here is what the public knows about Hearing Officer Pedro Crespo: 
An Investigation Into Misconduct in Community School District 7

Susan Vairo

In 2013 I was hired as the paralegal at a 3020-a of a UFT Chapter Leader at C.S. 133 who was charged with 3020-a after the principal, Susan Vairo, took all employees off of the ATS and allowed access only after classes were over for the day. A teacher with a full program was given the duty of getting on the ATS for any employee who needed to view the information. This was a severe hardship for everyone. My client, the Respondent, spoke to the Principal as the Chapter Leader, and he questioned this policy. He was retaliated against and charged with 3020-a.

The arbitrator, Roy Watanabe, asked us - the attorney (Fred A.) and paralegal (me) to provide him with a brief on the Chapter Leader's First Amendment rights to speak within the school as the elected Chapter Leader, and we did this. Watanabe did not agree that the CL had any right to question Ms. Vairo, who was removed from the school by Superintendent Gale Reeves


Superintendent Gale Reeves

 and given a desk job at Tweed. The CL was given a fine and made an ATR.

Before the CL was charged with 3020-a, he grieved what the Principal was doing to him as the CL, and was shocked to find that he lost the grievance. He testified that he was not allowed to have any witnesses.







Marcel Kshensky

The DOE Attorney at the 3020-a, Lisa McFadden, (49-51 Chambers Street, Room 604, 212-374-4204)

brought in the Hearing Officer as a rebuttal witness. The Hearing Officer was Marcel Kshensky, a person who, in my opinion, should not be a hearing officer.  Ms. McFadden asked Mr. Kshensky to testify about how the grievance procedure worked.

I uploaded Kshensky's testimony at the CL's 3020-a on January 7, 2013 (I re-formatted the testimony so that it would not be in columns).

His testimony was that he is a consultant for the Office of Labor Relations but he does not work for the Department of Education.

Huh? I really don't get that. So who pays him?

And there are several shocking bits of information in the pages below which Grievants probably don't know.

1. Karen Solimando, Deputy Director of the Office of Labor Relations under David Brodsky, signs the Chancellor's name on all decisions after she writes them. The paperwork for every part of the grievance is done at OLR, and never leaves the building or goes to anyone outside of the Department of Education .In my opinion, this is not fair to the grievant, because Ms. Solimando does not attend the hearings, cannot determine credibility, and has only the scribbled notes of the hearing officer to work with. It seems to me that the decision is made in an arbitrary and capricious manner, without basis in the facts, only the paperwork submitted by the DOE Principal.

And then there is Hearing Officer Pedro Crespo.

Labor Relations

The Office of Labor Relations (OLR) provides daily support and guidance to both school-based and non school-based supervisors citywide concerning all labor relations matters including contract interpretation and employee performance/discipline. OLR advocates on behalf of principals and other DOE supervisors at contract arbitration hearings, as well as administers the Expedited Time and Attendance Process, which is an effective tool for principals to address tenured pedagogues in their schools with problematic time and attendance records.

David Brodsky

•  David Brodsky, Director
     (212) 374-7954
  DBrodsky@schools.nyc.gov

Karen Solimando, Deputy Director
(212) 374-7990
KSolimando@schools.nyc.gov

• Dimitrios (Jim) Gounelas,Deputy Director, Arbitration
  (212) 374-7926
  DGounelas@schools.nyc.gov
  
  

2. The Department of Education, Office of Labor Relations, and the UFT all know that the UFT Collective Bargaining Agreement does not allow anyone to grieve a letter to file, yet all of the above parties allow the grievant to go to Step 3(2?) at 49-51 Chambers Street, anyway. What a waste of time and money.

I have spoken to several UFT Reps who are not happy with this grievance procedure, but tell me, "that's the way it is".

Also, there is a limited number of grievances allowed to be heard each school year. I heard that the number is 200. If you are 201, forgetaboutit.

Francesco Portelos has also written about this process, see:

UFT and DOE agree: If it’s not in the contract, you could be made an ATR at anytime. Francesco writes about Marcel Kshensky:

Listen carefully as Marcel Kshensky asks “Where is that written?” in reference to the statement that a teacher cannot be made an ATR based on a 3020-a hearing.  When my rep states it’s “not in the contract,” Marcel responds “Right, but it doesn’t prohibit it.” <——-?

Again, the chancellor’s representative is basically saying if the contract doesn’t say the DOE can’t do something, then therefore it can.

Make sure you catch the so-called "signature" of Carmen Farina on his grievance. That is not her signature, it's Karen Solimando, writing Carmen Farina's signature. Betsy Combier

Carmen Farina Arbitration Advocacy - Excerpts

UFT VIP Paul Egan is Ousted From His Job

 Paul Egan, a well-known and unliked UFT bigwig, is now through with his nine lives. He no longer works for the UFT.

Many people, including myself, have wondered for many years why the UFT hired him in the first place.

On May 3, 2000, the New York Times reported his cheating and threats of students at PS 113:

"9 Educators Accused of Encouraging Students to Cheat

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLISMAY 3, 2000

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More

A seventh-grade teacher was accused of leaving a sheet of answers to a citywide math test near a pencil sharpener, then urging the class to sharpen their pencils and leaving the room. More than half the students marked the answers correctly.

A fourth-grade teacher was accused of sneaking a peek at the state English test, discovering that the essay question concerned Cubist art, and giving her students a lecture on Cubism on the eve of the test.

They were among nine educators -- seven teachers, one paraprofessional and one librarian -- at eight schools in New York City accused of encouraging students to cheat on standardized tests, in a report issued yesterday by the special investigator for schools, Edward F. Stancik.

What made yesterday's report particularly striking was that it was issued four months after Mr. Stancik, to great fanfare, issued a similar report that suggested that cheating on standardized tests was almost epidemic throughout the city's public schools. That investigation, which covered five years, implicated 52 educators at 32 schools, made headlines as far away as Scandinavia and hastened the ouster of Chancellor Rudy Crew just two weeks later.

Half the new cases occurred after the first Stancik report, and after the Board of Education took steps to strengthen security.

The new report ranges from dramatic accounts of teachers' erasing wrong answers and aggressively luring students to cheat, to more ambiguous instances, such as a teacher who changed the tone of her voice while reading a passage out loud during a test. Mr. Stancik contended that the modulation in the teacher's voice was a cue for her students to take notes highlighting important points they would need to write an essay.

Mr. Stancik said there were more than 100 allegations, mainly by parents and teachers, about cheating on standardized tests administered from the spring of 1999 to March 2000. He said the allegations were substantiated in eight schools scattered through every borough but Staten Island, and on three tests: a city English test, a state English test and a city math test.

The number of tests affected and the geographic diversity, he said, suggests that cheating is more widespread than just in the small number of cases detected.

Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, who criticized the last report as flimsy, said yesterday that this latest report was more restrained and documented, and that if the charges were upheld, ''there should be serious consequences.''

The eight schools affected are about 1 percent of the city's 675 elementary and 197 middle schools. No high schools were implicated.

The report raised several gray areas between legitimate test preparation and flagrant cheating. For instance, Joohi Chun, the fourth-grade teacher at Public School 150 in Queens, who was accused of giving children an unfair advantage by modulating her voice, said in her defense that she was reading with expression to keep the material interesting. Her students told investigators they had not been coached to listen to her tone of voice.

Steven Hodas, executive vice president of the Princeton Review, a national company that prepares students to take standardized tests, said that although he was not familiar with this particular case, reading with expression is a natural way to help students understand material.

Ms. Chun was scrutinized after teachers scoring her class's exams noticed that her students took especially thorough notes. Ms. Chun told investigators that she had worked intensively on note-taking, teaching children to use bullets to mark short phrases or words.

Harold O. Levy, interim chancellor, said yesterday that he had ordered intensified monitoring tomorrow when elementary and middle schools administer a citywide math test. He also invited Mr. Stancik to send his investigators to the schools during testing.

Ms. Weingarten said she was heartened that in six of the nine cases, educators were turned in by their own colleagues, suggesting, she said, that most teachers have no tolerance for cheating.

Paul Egan, a teacher at I.S. 113 in the Bronx's District 11, was the teacher who allegedly left the answers to 11 questions near the pencil sharpener. Nineteen of his 32 students got answers right. After the exam, Mr. Egan told students: ''Don't tell anyone that I helped you or you'll be the ones that will get into trouble,'' Mr. Stancik said. Nonetheless, he was reported by one girl and her mother.

Jane Nevis, a teacher at P.S. 7 in Queens District 24, not only gave her students a lesson on Cubism, but said that they should remember the words ''motivation'' and ''inspiration,'' Mr. Stancik said. Both words were important to the essay the children had to write the next day. Before being given copies of the state exam, teachers were required to sign an agreement promising to keep the contents secret.

Mr. Stancik urged the dismissal of seven of the nine educators: Paul Egan, Paul Zomchek, Alice McNally, Jane Nevis, Virgilio Rivera, Fritz Alexandre and John Paizis. He recommended counseling for Luz Rodriguez, a paraprofessional, and Ms. Chun, because, he said, their intent to cheat was less clear cut.

The affected schools are P.S. 92 in Brooklyn and P.S. 161 in Manhattan, both in the Chancellor's district for failing schools; P.S. 40 and P.S. 163 in Manhattan, I.S. 113 in the Bronx, P.S. 191 in Brooklyn and P.S. 7 and P.S. 150 in Queens.

The cheating allegations involved the state's fourth-grade English test and the city's Performance Assessment in Mathematics and Performance Assessment Language tests."

From Betsy:
Mention of 113 in the Bronx reminds me of PS 113, also in the Bronx. Do you know who I heard was Principal of PS 113? None other than Marcel Kshensky, who was sued by my friend and teacher George Lawson, and then Kshensky was moved to a new role as Hearing Officer for grievances:

"And there are others suing the NYC BOE for re-assigning the "rubber room". George Lawson sued Marcel Kshensky, the Principal of 113, where George worked. What did the NYC BOE do then? Move Mr. Kshensky to the Administrative Trials Unit, where he does Grievances!!!!"
See:
David Pakter, a NYC Teacher and Whistleblower of the NYC Board of Education's Corrupt Practices, Sues in Federal Court
David Pakter changed my life in 2003 when we met at a TV show where we were speaking on camera, and he started talking about the "rubber room" he was sitting in at 25 Chapel Street, Brooklyn. He invited me to visit, and I did.

Bye Paul!

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, Advocatz.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Paul Egan

NYC teachers union honcho ousted in office sex scandal: sources

| NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |

By JANON FISHER  and BEN CHAPMAN

A burly teachers’ union official with a taste for naughty behavior has been fired for carrying on messy sexual trysts with junior staffers, sources say.

Former United Federation of Teachers Political Director Paul Egan, a political powerbroker whose influence once extended from lower Manhattan to Albany, was let go from his high-flying post Feb. 15 amid jealous accusations hurled by one of his spurned paramours, according to sources with knowledge of the matter.

Egan, 52, who worked in city schools before joining the UFT more than a decade ago, first grabbed headlines after city officials accused him of encouraging his students to cheat on standardized exams in 2001.

In 2011, he made the news again for throwing a fit during a boozy lobbyist dinner in a swank Albany bistro, claiming the quail he was served — and finished — wasn’t a generous enough portion, sources said. Police were called to quell the quail fracas, but Egan still held onto his high-paying gig.

A source familiar with Egan’s final ouster said that he had been carrying on a passionate inter-office affair with a comely UFT lawyer.

The couple used UFT cell phones to sext and office computers to relay saucy photos of each other. The relationship soured, according to the source, when Egan started some sex-tracurricular activities with another union staffer.

The two-timed lawyer went to union officials with the information about her affair and the lurid pics on union equipment, prompting them to fire Egan for his philandering.

“They found the photos on the UFT equipment,” the source said.

Egan, who earned a salary of $192,102 in 2018 plus $25,757 in expenses, according to union filings, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

He was a seventh-grade teacher at Bronx Intermediate School 113 when he allegedly left the answers to 11 questions near the pencil sharpener in his classroom in an attempt to boost pass rates on a citywide math exam, according to the special schools investigator.

“Teacher Paul Egan used several different methods to cheat,” the investigator reported.The probe found he would tell students before a test to sharpen their pencils — and then depart, leaving the answers to the first 11 questions near the sharpener.

“Don’t tell anyone that I helped you or you’ll be the ones who get into trouble,” one student quoted Egan as telling the class.

But one girl ratted Egan out to her mother, who told school officials.

 

 

Lawmakers said the incident should’ve been enough to cost Egan his job.

But Egan held onto his city paycheck until 2005 when he joined the union as a special representative.

He was promoted quickly in the union, earning four promotions over the next decade, according to his LinkedIn profile. He was working as the UFT’s Director of Legislation & Political Action when his next brush with notoriety occurred in an alcohol-fueled banquet at Albany’s posh Marché bistro in 2011.

Big-eater Egan got rowdy while ringing up nearly $2,000 on dinner and drinks at the posh restaurant, which is now closed. A patron at the bistro said restaurant staffers complained that the UFT group took up three tables in the the outrageous dinner involving the portly rep and 24 union comrades.The liquored-up educators “were yelling and screaming the whole night,” a source said at the time.After devouring his quail dinner, Egan — who was listed in the 1990 Guinness Book of World Records for the longest after-dinner speech — began yelling about the small portions in his three-course prix fixe meal, and refused to pay the group’s bill.

When the owner couldn’t calm him down, cops were called. The restaurant eventually chopped the group’s bill from $2,000 to $1,500. Reps for the influential teachers’ union, which represents roughly 118,000 current members, confirmed Egan’s departure to the Daily News this week but wouldn’t give a reason.

Founded in 1960, the UFT is a local division of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers and wields a powerful political force across New York, often serving a foil to Gov. Cuomo and friend to Mayor de Blasio.

News of Egan’s departure prompted confusion among the union’s membership. “Rumor: Paul Egan is out at UFT – Everyone is Mum,” read the headline of an item published March 19 in city education blog Ed Notes.

“It would be a funny time to remove Paul,” the blog post mused. “Maybe someone will contact Ed Notes with the full story.”Attempts to glean more details of Egan’s ouster were unsuccessful, with union members refusing to speak to a News reporter who approached staffers outside UFT headquarters at 52 Broadway in lower Manhattan.

With Molly Crane-Newman

Francesco Portelos,: My Reassignment Grievance

Update 2020:

I posted the information below in 2012, when NYC teachers thought that Francesco Alexander Portelos was the UFT member  who would save everyone from the doom and gloom of the rubber rooms. Turns out that any teacher whose name is connected with him becomes a target for the Department of Education to charge and terminate. My source, a principal, says that Francesco Portelos is the messenger of news on disgruntled employees who principals need to target. 

See 

Editorial: Is Francesco Portelos a Danger to Tenure Law? by Betsy Combier

Francesco Portelos' Poison - Threats To Principals

Francesco Portelos: "A Troublemaking, Combative, and Disgruntled Employee", Loses His Federal Case by Editor Betsy Combier

Francesco Portelos and His "Victim Complex"

OP-ED: Why Cyberstalker Francesco Portelos and His Bully Mob, UFT Solidarity, Failed

Parents against teacher tenure say they're being harassed by educator

EDITORIAL: Cyberstalker Francesco Portelos and His Blame Game Must Be Stopped

Teacher’s tweets threaten kids in tenure suit: parents

Contact me if you are being charged with 3020-a, have had a bad experience with Francesco Portelos, or have been in a "new" rubber room at betsy.combier@gmail.com.

Betsy Combier

UFT President Mulgrew and Chancellor Walcott to decide fate of some “Rubber Roomed” educators.

Protect Portelos, Posted on November 20, 2012

LINK

As of November 20, 2012, I have been removed from my position, as a classroom STEM teacher, for:

209 Calendar Days and 99 School Days (39 days past 60day time limit agreed upon)

…and I’m not the only one of the 220+ educators who is passed the time limit. Just ask Andrew Gordon, HR Director email agordon13@schools.nyc.gov or you can call Andy at 718-935-3790

On April 15, 2010, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and the NYC Department of Education (DOE) signed an agreement to close the Teacher Reassignment Centers, also known as “Rubber Rooms“. These were large rooms where about 800+ teachers were detained around the city. The agreement was praised by all sides as it was supposed lead to a speedier process. The issue was thought dead for about two years until they reassigned the wrong guy…. This guy (as I stop typing and point two thumbs at myself). As I stated in the many TV news interviews I did, “They didn’t close the Rubber Rooms down, but more like restructured them.” However, there were some who knew the 2010 agreement was destined to be a failure just days after it was signed: http://iceuftblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/rubber-room-agreement.html

In any case, I exposed that the Rubber Rooms still exist, just like I exposed that the School Leadership Teams are a sham and have no say in million dollar school budgets or school goals. Just like I will expose the kangaroo court that is the 3020A teacher termination hearing process, should the department want to go down that road. Trust me, from what I have seen, they are not ready to take me on at a 3020A. It’s not only because I’m innocent, because many innocent educators have been terminated, but because…well let’s just leave it at that for now.

My Reassignment Grievance

On October 4th and 5th I pulled what many thought was a well planned publicity stunt. ILive Streamed myself in the Rubber Room. Trust me when I tell you that was a no brainer. The public should find it interesting that on the 4th, the DOE stated that there were no Rubber Rooms and on the 5th I said “Oh yeah?…then what is this?” as I streamed for hours with no work and no supervision. A common day.

A week or so later, Rosanna Scotto surprised Chancellor Walcott, on Good Day NY, by asking “What about the Rubber Rooms?” As he was stating that there are no rubber rooms and everyone is assigned administrative duty, the producers go ahead and superimpose my video next to him.

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/19851552/schools-chancellor-dennis-walcott

It reminded us of the Iraqi Information Minister who went on Iraqi TV to tell everyone they are OK as Baghdad was in flames behind him (2003).

If you know my story, then you know that all my trouble started after I alleged financialmisconduct at my school, Berta Dreyfus IS 49, Staten Island, NY. Actually, a paper trail ofdisciplinary notices, Unsatisfactory rating and allegations started only 4 days after my allegations were submitted to the Special Commissioner of Investigation. When the attacks started, I thought all I had to do was call my union for protection. It was wishful thinking. Throughout my whole battle, I have secretly criticized the UFT for what I feel was a lack of strong support for me and it’s members. I have countless of unanswered emails from UFT to brass. Even the NY Teacher newspaper emailed me they wouldn’t run a story on what’s really happening. However, after my first day of live streaming (Day 75) I received the following statement from the UFT attorney:

“The April 15, 2010 agreement between the DOE and the UFT states that if an employee has not been charged pursuant to Education Law section 3020-a within 60 days of being reassigned, the employee must be returned to his prior assignment, except where the reassignment was caused by (i) an allegation of sexual misconduct being investigated by SCI, (ii) an allegation of serious financial misconduct involving more than $1,000, (iii) criminal charges pending against the employee, (iv) an allegation of a 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.   I am telling the DOE that it must return you to your school assignment unless the DOE informs both you and us which one of the exceptions mentioned your case falls into.“

A few days later, as my story went viral, I also received this notice from Michael Mendel, UFT Secretary:

“We have demanded that the DOE put you back in your school. If they do not we will be looking at all other remedies“

I thought “Great! Let’s get this going together guys! Better late than never.” A few days later I received this from UFT Attorney Adam Ross:

“Mr. Portelos, Following up on my email below, the DOE notified me today that it believes you fall into the exception to the 60 day limit for “an allegation of tampering with a witness or evidence, where the allegation of tampering is being investigated by SCI.”  If you believe that this is incorrect based on your interactions with SCI, then we recommend that you immediately speak to Emil so that he can assist you in filing a grievance about being reassigned more than 60 days in violation of Article 20 and the April 15, 2010 agreement. “

So I did just that and my Reassignment Grievance was held this past Friday, November 16, 2012. Pause and get some popcorn for the rest of this.

If you are an avid follower of my blog or have experienced grievance hearings at the NYC DOE Office of Labor Relations (OLR) yourself, you already know that the process is a bit of a Kangaroo Court. Evidence that can help a teacher’s case is dismissed and evidence that can harm a teacher can be made up. This is process is widely known and somewhat accepted even from the union’s standpoint. Grievances are denied and hopefully go into unbiased arbitration, but why? Why deny all these violations committed by admin and DOE officials? That’s a great question, but unfortunately I am still researching the answer. My research has me leaning towards “Teachers are the enemy. They make too much money and don’t retire, so let’s force them out and cut the numbers down.” Actually something like this was left on the board of one of the hearing rooms and someone took a picture of it.

“I will testify that I saw on the chalkboards at 49-51 Chambers that the room had been used to go over the policy and that the goal was to reduce average teacher pay by 10K and they were supposed to do so by encouraging retirement, unpaid leaves and bringing 3020-a hearings” -Anonymous

The person representing the principal or DOE side always works with the chancellor’s representative hearing and deciding the case. Not only works with, but next to them. Imagine going to court and seeing the judge and the opposing lawyer coming out of the judges chambers right before your case is heard….everytime! They probably rehearse the skit right before they come out of the office that is marked “Authorized Personnel only”. It’s the same door I saw their boss, Director of OLR, David Brodsky hurry into as I sat front row in the waiting room. I was star struck as I have followed the puppet strings to him and listened to his video seminars. Part of me thinks that he may actually be a nice guy, but does the bidding of others above him. I hope that is the case. I’ve emailed him and left many messages and even invited him and Larry Becker, HR Chief, to attend my hearings, but unfortunately no response. If I had a $1 for every time I emailed DOE and received no response, I would have enough to buy a new set of tires…expensive ones.

David Brodsky

I digress…

The admin rep, Susan Mandel, representing Principal Hill and Marcel Kshensky, the chancellors represenative deciding the case, come out to meet my union rep, John Torres, and I. In my usual cordial and professional manner, I introduce myself and put out my hand. Marcel shakes it, but Susan has her hands full of papers. She states “You don’t want to shake my hand anyway…I’m the enemy.” I quickly respond that I too am going for my administrator’s licences and “…perhaps one day you will be representing me.” Enemy? Her words..not mine.

We walk into a small room that looks like this:

Relax DOE!…this is not from a hidden camera I installed.

I say that because it seems every meeting I now have with DOE starts off with “I just want to make sure that this conversation is not being recorded” Hmmm…I believe NY is a one consenting party state. Meaning at least one party involved in the conversation has to know. I’m just speaking hypothetically of course.

We sit down and Susan Mandel calls Principal Linda Hill on speakerphone. This is the same method I have tried to use to partake in meetings I cannot physically attend, like School Leadership Meetings (SLT) and UFT Consultation meetings. I have been denied everytime. It was like music to my ears to hear Linda Hill’s voice. A sound I have not heard in over 200 days. I wondered who else sat in her office with her quietly? I should have asked.

My rep, John Torres, starts by read the 20+ allegations against me. Marcel attempted to stop him and ask “What’s the relevance? Can you just give me a copy?” on at least two occasions. John remained steadfast and read all of them. “Relevance?” I thought to myself. “What’s more relevant in a reassignment hearing then the reasons I was reassigned?” I chuckled, inside, as I often do when I read them and at Susan and Marcel’s facial expressions. John finishes by stating “Do the right thing and return Mr. Portelos back to the classroom.”

Again, to recap, the 60 day time limit exceptions are:

(i) an allegation of sexual misconduct being investigated by SCI,

(ii) an allegation of serious financial misconduct involving more than $1,000,

(iii) criminal charges pending against the employee,

(iv) an allegation of a 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.

Now it’s Susan’s turn and I don’t remember word for word but she said nothing about “tampering with evidence or witness” add the DOE previously stated and instead said the following “There may be an allegation that could possibly lead to criminal charges”. Instead of being worried, I smiled. I asked John to step outside and had him ask flat out “Is there or isn’t there a criminal investigation on Mr. Portelos?” The exception does NOT state “Well kinda sort perhaps there may be something that will eventually lead to kinda sorta potentially something criminal.”

The response from Susan was, as it has been for months, vague. “Well, we don’t know.” It’s like playing poker and it’s me and one player left. I’m all in with my high stack of chips and pocket Aces, while I wait months for the other player to decide to call or fold and all they have is a 2 and 7 unsuited.  Seriously, that is what I feel like.

Ready for this?

Susan Mandel finishes by saying that she does not think that the chancellor’s rep, Marcel Kshensky, “has the authority to decide this case.” Whaaa? Why have I been sent here then? Remember that this is all scripted and the two work together so it’s even funnier when he asks “What do you mean?” As if he didn’t know this was coming.

Susan reads off the following lines from the 2010 agreement. The very same ones I asked UFT Staff Director Leroy Barr about the day before.

“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.“

So there you have it… My union sends me to a grievance held 97 days after my reassignment only to be told “Sorry…It’s not on us…It’s up to Chancellor Dennis Walcott and UFT President Michael Mulgrew.” Do I feel like Monkey in the Middle? Yes, and who really loses out in this game…..the children…remember them?

Update: A brand new investigation was started on me over 160 days after I was removed. An SCI investigator came to visit me on October 26, 2012. My attorney, Bryan Glass, inquired and we were told it had to do with routing a website. I can think of only two things that it could be. Again nothing illegal and no hacking. I’ll keep you posted. Seem like they are looking for anything and they have nothing.

I’ll keep you posted. Follow me on Twitter
@MrPortelos
Additional Resources:

Video of 2010 Closing of Rubber Rooms

My Rubber Room Solution