I wrote this article originally in October 2010, I am re-posting here:
Therefore an argument can be made that the arbitrator does not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine Just Cause and the hearing must be delayed, thus effectively dismissing the charges. I have a Motion To Dismiss written by NYSUT New York Counsel Claude Hersh and Attorney Neil Dudich which says just that. Why wont NYSUT Attorneys bring this up at 3020-a hearings?
By the way, what happens to this clause when the person appointed to the title of Chancellor doesn't have a contract, as Joel Klein does not, and yet Education Law 2590-h says that he MUST? Read this:
"* § 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....."
Please review my articles:
Look at Article 61 in A Personal View From Betsy Combier On NYSUT And What The Attorneys Do Wrong In The 3020-a Process;
I filed a freedom of information request for Mr. Klein's contract in 2005 and again in 2007:
The "Who Are You Kidding??" Award Goes To: Joel Klein, New York City Board of Education Pretender
NYC Teacher Hipolito Colon Makes History and Sues the NYC BOE, The Panel For Educational Policy, and NYSUT For Violating His Rights
Mayor Michael Bloomberg as Co-Partner in Chief of the New York City Department of Education: Performance Review
Editorial: The New York City Department of Education is a Sham and Mike Bloomberg is the Flim-Flam Man (7/7/2007)
Betsy Combier Speaks Out on the Constitutional Mess Created by Mayoral Control of the New York City Board of Education (7/22/2007)
Another issue that the NYSUT attorneys ignore is the right a teacher has to an open and public hearing. While this decision is a right given to the Respondent not only in 3020-a but also in the UFT contract, if the teacher going through the 3020-a does not ask for an open and public hearing at or before the pre-hearing conference, then he/she does not get it. The hearing will be closed. No NYSUT attorney discusses this unless the teacher brings it up. More often than not if a teacher brings up the issue, the NYSUT Attorney will say, "You better not have an open hearing because then the NYC DOE will bring in the press, and your story will be in the news."
Baloney. Press almost never comes to the 3020-a hearings of any teacher, unless asked by the teacher - aside from Steve Brill who was told by Joel Klein to attend the 3020-a hearing of teacher Lucienne Mohammed because she had filed a federal lawsuit against the NYC DOE and needed to be put into her place [of shame]. So, what is so scary about the press arriving at your hearing if you are innocent of all charges?? If you are innocent, and the news is that you are guilty, then you can take action and get damages. David Pakter just sued the New York Post and won release of the name of the person who told the newspaper that he was charged with "sexual misconduct". He is about to pursue an action against the person who was the source for the false claim.
Or, the NYSUT Attorney will say, "you shouldn't have an open hearing because I dont feel comfortable. (So? What are you trying to hide?) Or, "The arbitrator wont like you and will terminate you or give you a worse penalty than you would have had if you did not have an open and public hearing." (WHAT?? This is crazy).
Most people - including me - believe that an open and public hearing is the best way to honor your due process rights. If you have observers in the room with you, you have an extra set of eyes on what is going on, and this is always good. Of course, all people who attend the 3020-a should be silent at all times while the hearing is on the record, and should never make any movement that might seem in any way suggestive of comment. There is no passing of notes. But any lawyer who tries to keep a hearing closed is, we believe, saying, I want to hide something. In fact, on friday morning I was at 51 Chambers Street for a hearing and a NYC DOE attorney told me, "Betsy, are you coming to my hearing? All my hearings should be public, because I have nothing to hide." Exactly.
It is interesting to note that about two weeks ago I was asked to attend a hearing with a new arbitrator, Leona Barsky. I walked in the room with the Respondent and the private Attorney, and Ms. Barsky came up to my face and screamed, "Who are you? What is your name? Who sent you here? Who do you work for?" My replies were that I was a member of the general public, my name is Betsy Combier, and no one sent me, I am just an observer. She was not convinced. As it turned out, she immediately made the hearing a "pre-hearing" (which is closed) and I went to the hearing of another teacher who had asked for me to attend, starting at the same time. I wonder what Ms. Barsky is worried about. I'll be probably following her cases on this blog, as she seems clearly worried about the public watching her.
Even more important to the issue examined here is my suggestion (not legal advice, because I'm not an attorney) that if you are not guilty of any of the charges preferred against you, DONT SETTLE. Go through your 3020-a. This way you preserve your right to sue the New York City Department/Board of Education for actionable misconduct relevant to your specific circumstances (you should discuss this with a private attorney). Many teachers are discussing a class action and I have began searching for a large law firm.
By not settling you are establishing your rights to complain about the process that brought you to the 3020-a hearing in the first place, because this is where the NYC DOE fails. They created a mess by ignoring laws, rules and regulations that prevent angry principals from throwing false claims at people who work in their schools and have them stick. The New York City DOE knows this. For example, a teacher who was charged started his 3020-a and then was scheduled for "mediation." Simultaneously he decided to fire his NYSUT Attorney (Mitch Rubenstein) and hire a private attorney, who was going to accompany this teacher to the "mediation". The mediation was cancelled.
Too few teachers are saying "Sorry, no" and walking out.
A private attorney probably would see immediately how wrong this is. Also, if a document is signed under duress, after extreme harassment or other actions that compel, then the document can be rescinded.
If you are a teacher who is extremely afraid of your 3020-a and all the threats that you have heard start making sense to you, take a deep breath and go into your alpha level and try to get back the sensibility to go through with your hearing to the end. A settlement may be good for a short while, but it may not be. Think about this:
- Does your settlement/deal include a clause that says that you will be immediately removed from the ineligible/inquiry list? Get this into your final settlement!
- Does your settlement/deal say that all charges will be removed from your file and will never be used at another hearing in the future?
I will give you an example:
In 2002 or thereabout, teacher X taught swimming at a school. He was tenured, and taught for many years. He typically started races by shooting a starter pistol. On one particular day a student who disliked him complained that he had shot a pistol in the school. He was brought up on disciplinary charges, and his attorney told him to just pay the fine and the charges would be dropped, and only a letter would be placed in his file. He agreed. (why, I dont know). In 2010 he was accused of saying something to a girl, thrown into a rubber room, and brought to 3020-a. His charge was saying something improper to a student, which he fervently denied, but then the NYC DOE handed in the prior charge of shooting a pistol in a school in 2002, and the arbitrator terminated his employment saying that these TWO wrongs showed a history of bad character. Yet the pistol event was never adjudicated at a 3020-a, this teacher only got a letter to file, and it was to end there.
Settlement is admitting guilt. If you are not guilty, why are you paying a fine and admitting that you did something wrong? What are you paying for?
The question of where the fines go remains unanswered, at least publicly. No one is answering this question - which I, for one, ask all the time. And, please tell me, all you NYC DOE readers, what District 65 is?
I'll find out eventually. Here is a funny story: a teacher went through her 3020-a and was fined by arbitrator Howard Edelman $8500. Only, he found her not guilty of any misconduct, he only wanted to stop her from turning around quickly in the classroom ever again. She appealed, and Judge Paul Fineman overturned Edelman's decision as "shocking to the court's conscience". However, before the decision came down, the NYC DOE demanded the money. Cheryl Smith, the NYC DOE Attorney on the case, told this teacher, "You can pay us in cash or by money order, but you cannot give us a check."
What did this teacher do? Paid her fine by check, and gave me a cancelled copy so that I could see what the Bank account of the NYC BOE was. I'm still seeking information on District 65, so please email me at betsy.combier@gmail.com if you have any information. I dont need your name.
To sum up, NYSUT attorneys are now trying to rush all their clients through the system, first by "mediation" that in my opinion resembles extortion, then through unfair procedures enacted as part of an expedited 3020-a hearing.
Wikipedia defines extortion as follows:
"Extortion, outwresting, and/or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant."
Everyone should dig his/her heels in the ground and put a stop to this rush to judgment and perfect storm of injustice by hiring an excellent private attorney who will use the law to stop the NYC DOE from taking away your career and stigmatizing your professional life. I have met and can suggest terrific people. Unfortunately, they are not 'free' (you've paid for legal representation with your mandatory dues to the UFT), but I guess I can say that the following applies here: "You get what you pay for".
Betsy Combier
PS: Fidgety, a fellow blogger, posted the following:
May 17, 2010
Why I fired my DOE (oops!) NYSUT Lawyer...
LINK
At our first meeting, I clearly requested an "Open and Public" hearing so that my lawyer could give notice to the arbitrator and DOE lawyer. I followed up on this request with an email asking for confirmation.
By our fourth meeting, I noted that my lawyer had still not solidified my request with the hearing officer and asked her why.
I said, "I sense that you don't want me to have and open and public hearing." "Well, she said, "You sensed right". She then proceeded to paint an ugly picture of an out of control hearing room filled with unruly reporters and friends of the Principal. "If you have an open hearing, the Principal can bring in anyone he wants to. Anyone. That may not be in your best interest. You never know who he might bring in". And, "Do you really want the press distorting your story the way they have done with other cases?"
Armed with the confidence that somehow, "The truth will set me free", I still insisted on an open and public hearing despite the obvious dismay of my lawyer.
I could only reach my NYSUT lawyer through the NYSUT office, that is... when it was open, which meant that I had to call when the office was open, even just to leave a message. The recording said that if you know the '3 digit code' of the person you are trying to reach, please enter it now. As a client, I asked my lawyer for her 3 digit code. Her response was, "Uh, what do you need it for? Has there been a gap in our communication?" "Yes,as a matter of fact. I called you five days ago and this is the first time you have returned my call." "Well...Is there a problem with that? I am very busy."(doesn't want to be bothered)"Yes, there are times when I would like to be able to leave you a message." Her response was, "I think that we've been emailing just fine, don't you?" "No". (Obviously I wouldn't be asking for your code if I was able to reach you, idiot).
After several months of sending emails with scant response from my lawyer,I was beginning to get nervous. When she called me on a Sunday night at 10pm on the last day of spring break, I asked her again for an alternative number. Again, she refused to give me one. Her excuse was that she'd had trouble in the past with clients(teachers) calling her at all hours of the night and had reservations about ever giving out her cell phone number to a teacher again...(I wondered if that reservation included calling her clients on a Sunday night at 10pm.)
When I asked what concerns she had, she responded that she'd rather not divulge that information, and... "Is this the reason you called me?- to pick a fight?"
My paranoid NYSUT lawyer wouldn't allow anyone to sit in on my meetings with her. I found it unusual that I couldn't be accompanied by someone, anyone of my own choosing. Her reason was that she had not established 'confidentiality' with that person. (They were my support system stupid, not yours.)
Before our third meeting, I asked my lawyer why she wouldn't allow me to bring someone in with me for support. Her response was that she didn't feel 'comfortable'. I said that, "It's not about 'you' feeling comfortable. I am the client. This is my case. I am choosing to bring this person in. I trust this person". As a client, I should be able to bring in anyone that I want. (Shouldn't I?) Her response was, "Well, what do you know about lawyers? How much experience have you had with lawyers anyway?"
Does this sound professional to you?
It started to become very clear to me that my DOE-(oops!)NYSUT lawyer was not working in my best interest when she divulged private information to my Chapter Leader without my permission. It seemed that she- my lawyer, needed assurance that the events I had described to her actually occurred the way that I described them. Who was breaching client-lawyer confidentiality now?
My NYSUT lawyer was completely overwhelmed with too many cases and it was adversely affecting the preparation of my hearing. As the amount of documents that I submitted to her grew, so did her disorganization. Each time that I met with her, it was like starting from square one. As we were going through the documents I had submitted to her at previous meetings, I came across one that didn't seem familiar. As I began to read it aloud, her response was, "Oh that's not yours", grabbing it out of my hand. "I was wondering where that document was! I don't know how that paper got in there". That document, that 'confidential document', was from another teacher's case that she was working on. I began to wonder how many of my documents had been mixed up or 'fallen' somewhere that they shouldn't be... And she was the one concerned about "confidentiality?".
It was obvious that my lawyer had her own set of rules which she felt didn't apply to her. I had no confidence that she was working for me and not the DOE or some other ultimate plan. Three weeks before my hearing, I fired my DOE-oops! 'NYSUT' lawyer and hired a private one. I believe that it was the best decision that I have ever made. There was no doubt that the new lawyer had the experience and knowledge that the NYSUT lawyer was clearly lacking. He was one step ahead of the DOE and UFT's tricks which I believe included assigning me a ridiculous and severely inept NYSUT lawyer.
