Did Dr. Peter Ianniello Make Private His YouTube Videos After Someone Emailed Him About His Statements as Posted On This Blog?

When I posted my article about Dr. Peter Ianniello on this blog, with Dr. Ianniello's email address, a former NYC DOE employee contacted him with the letter re-posted below (posted with permission by the author). I have removed the author's name.

The author of this letter to Dr. Ianniello believes that the email was the cause of Dr. Ianniello's removal from public scrutiny all of his YouTube videos. The author of the letter added,

"the people in the bronx, you know, Marcus Escobar and Margaret Borelli (UFT) were no help to me..."

and,

From:           @aol.com>
To: efields <efields@uft.org>
Sent: Sat, Dec 6, 2014 4:33 am
Subject: Fwd: initial 24hr complaint vs MS228X

"Eileen here is another email that i sent to marcus back in october. Since I asked marcus to respond to me through emails instead of calling me and asking me for the same documents over and over he has not reached out to me at all."

I might as well throw this in:

Peter Ianniello's Dissertation
Keeping Quality Teachers
Best Practice: Strengthening Human Resourcesin Public School Systems

Dr. Peter Ianniello

Please reply, Dr. Ianniello!

Dr. Ianniello on substitute teachers (removed from the public's view)

From:           @aol.com>
To: PIannie <PIannie@schools.nyc.gov>; peterianniello@aol.com 
Sent: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 1:28 am
Subject: re problem code.

Dear Dr. Ianniello:

    My name is                    and I am currently on the OPI ineligible list and can not work as a sub.  This is because a bogus verbal abuse case was initiated against me after I had reported to the assistant principal of the school  a child who had felt agitated by a quote that the dean had placed on the black board during class.  Instead of the dean being investigated for verbal abuse, I was charged with it in retaliation for not only what I observed but also  my  writing up a student later that day who had violated 9 discipline codes.  Instead of the student being suspended I was punished.

     Before this incident, I was working as a sub in good standing from May of 2012 until I accepted a job for ONLY ONE DAY at MS228X in the Bronx. During this time period I had been working continuously at MS80X since October 31 2013, working as a sub, running an after school chess club and working at the school's saturday academy, teaching ELA and Math.  I really didn't have to work at any other sites.  It's very unfortunate that I chose to accept a position when I never should have.  I'm paying for it now. 

     I understand the limitations under which you have to work.  I know that even though you may believe everything I am telling you, with respect to my case, your job is limited to receiving allegations, running discipline meetings for those accused of wrong doing, and giving out whatever corrective action you see fit.

      When I received the write up on May 6, 2014, I filed a grievance on May 9 regarding the procedural aspect of the letter in that the principal never called OSI and that  she and the legal dept at 1 Fordham Plaza did not follow the proper procedures. They not only  altered statements but also tried to submit 8 new statements at my step 1 grievance on June 3 AFTER OSI INFORMED ME MY CASE WAS CLOSED. Those bogus statements are included in my file. 

      The grievance is in it's final stages of appeal with the UFT.  I met with a group of 8 at 50 Broadway on December 1, 2014.  I went to your office to visit you a couple of months ago and I spoke to Elenor Rollins who showed me my file.. In my file there were statements which had never been given to me....... Only two statements were read to me during my initial meeting with the principal.  When the principal rendered it into writing they changed what had transpired in the meeting to something worse and the charges were upgraded to corporal punishment by a Mr. Jeffrey Gamils, whom I had met at Fordham Plaza when I signed for the letter. [Jeff Gamils was a DOE Attorney prosecuting DOE employees at 3020-a arbitration - Editor]

        Your office sent to my attention back in May of this past year a summons for me to meet with you for a disciplinary meeting based on the contents of the letter written to me dated april 25 which I received on May 6, 2014.  Once again I understand that your job is limited to addressing the substantiated allegations of verbal abuse.  I took the route that I felt and still feel was the right one.  I filed a grievance and submitted a copy of the grievance to one of your assistants in May when I visited your office. I also had requested to Ms. Rollins that the disciplinary hearing be held in abeyance until the grievance process has been complete.

      My question to you is why was I allowed to file for a renewal of my substitute license on June 13?   If I really couldn't work until the disciplinary hearing was held?  Another item I have issue with was an email that I received from your unit dated July 29th 2am in the morning where it was stated that because I hadn't worked the 20 day minimum days, I could not serve as a sub for the 2014-15 academic year.  I did receive a follow up email from your unit almost immediately and it stated that your unit was in error and that I had indeed worked the minimum days.  But it left me with a strange feeling that your unit was looking for a way, any way to keep me from working. My suspicions were borne out on September 3, 2014 when I received another email from your unit saying that since OPI has an eligibility issue with me, I can not work as a sub until this issue is cleared up with OPI.  It meant that I was put on the infamous "do not hire" list.

      As of the writing of this epistle, my main focus is CLEARING MY NAME, subbing is the furthest thing from my mind.  I need to have that problem code taken off because I applied for the principal's pool back in June, and you know where that goes, They won't call me for an interview unless the problem code is removed.

     I tried calling OPI and I received a curious voice message from them.  They stated that they no longer accept phone calls unless it is from a law enforcement unit.

     When I received the letter for the file I immediately called SCI reporting the principal for doctoring up the statements.  They gave me a case number and kicked it to OSI. They declined to investigate my allegation saying it was a UNION MATTER. When you summoned me in May I was almost sure that it was to fire me.  However, after seeing youtube videos of you explaining the entire subcentral process and the fact that you went to Fordham as I did, I said to myself, "he's not such a bad guy afterall".   I am in limbo right now. I can't work, not even for a schoool vender that wants me to work for them.  I received a job offer from Dance Academy in the Bronx from the AP. Mr Papas. offering me a half a year of subbing at their school. I had to decline.

     In closing, Dr. Ianniello, Id like to ask you to check something for me.... In one of your youtube broadcasts you stated that because subcentral is now automated you can keep track of all calls.  On April 3 2014 Thursday night I received something from subcentral it was a job offer to work at the very same school for the entire week of April 7 to April 11 at MS228X in the bronx. it was a type of offering that stated "details" and that i could accept it on line.  This was an offer from the very same school which had called me on March 31st Stating that a verbal abuse charge had been leveled against me.  Now, if OSI had really been called would I have been able to work that week or the following week, my answer is no.

Wish you and your family a very happy holiday

 From:             @aol.com>
To: efields <efields@uft.org>
Sent: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 9:19 am
Subject: letter to Marcus Escobar
Subject: The Setup of a Substitute Teacher
Marcus, I received a call to my cell phone from you this morning, in the message you asked me to call you back because you have a few questions.  Please ask me the questions through the email and I will respond.  I have a few questions for you.  Did you contact Daisy Santiago and ask her for a copy of her notes for the meeting convened on April 23 with me and the administration at ms228x  as i've ask you to do. Her notes will indicate that they read 2 statements to me. Her notes will also show that they said, "you held a sign over the girls head that said big trouble and you  said big trouble little china". This is at variance with what was in the April 25th determination. In that letter I received it was said, "you held a piece of paper over her head that said big trouble and you said Big K        Little China".  

        I received the letter on  May 6, 2014 and signed for it  when I went to 1 Fordham Plaza and met the Field Consultant, Jeffrey Gamils who advised the principal since they didn't have a strong case against me, that they should change the statements to make it look worse than what had actually not occurred and the allegations were upgraded to corporal punishment. Mr Gamils defended the letter as if he had written it himself. he also lied stating that weekends count in  48 hour notices. This was disputed even by a representative of Dr. Ianniello's office Director of Substitute Central. After I received the letter I called Ms Morales and asked her what next.  She stated that she didn't know because she gets guidance and directions  from legal, further implicating Mr. Gamils. 

 

         My question is why have a 48 rule if you're not going to enforce it. I received a certified letter on April 14 while we were on the Easter break The letter arrived to my p.o. box on April 11 the Friday before we broke for Easter break.  Let's pretend that I had signed for the letter on April 11, 2014.  The school still would have been out of compliance on the 48 hour notice since April 11th was the last school day before April 23rd, the day I was summoned to the meeting.

 

        The administration in the person of Maria Morales A.P. summoned me to a meeting on April 23, 2014 which translates to no 48 hour notice at all. Nor was there a case number appended in the notice, further proving that OSI was never contacted.   In order for them to be in compliance with and within the 48 hour time frame they should have summoned me on Friday April 25 which would be two school days after I received the notice.  The administration still could have been in compliance if they had requested that I sign for a 48 hour notice waiver at the April 23 meeting.  But they did not do so.

 

         In the substitute teachers contract this is clearly a violation of Article 9 C-3 which states, "Teachers summoned to a meeting get a 48 hour notice.  An interview which is not held in accordance with these conditions shall not be considered a part of the employee's personnel file or record and neither the fact of the interview nor any statements made at the interview may be used in any subsequent Board proceeding involving the employee."

 

         Also I need a statement from Daisy regarding her summoning the girl to the main office after dismissal and the conversation she had with her where she asked her "why did you leave the classroom without permission?" and the girl's response  was, "because I thought I was gonna be in trouble".  This proves that the girl  never made an allegation against me and that this case was fabricated by the administration at ms228x to punish me for writing up the principal's monitor who violated 9 student discipline codes.

 

        I still have not received any communication from UFT Rep. Saul.  Our case has merit, they didn;t give me a 48 hour notice, no case number was entered for me until April .  NO Call was made to OSI by the principal within the 24 hour time frame.  If a call had been made downtown they would have summoned me properly through the 48 hour notice in writing.  Instead they tried to summon me verbally over the phone the entire week from March 31 through April 4th.  They even sent me on  Thursday night April 3rd  via subcentral an offer to sub there for the entire week from April 7-to April 11. If they had indeed called it in to OSI, would they have offered me a one weeks assignment? NO.  It was a ploy to lure me into their school, for what? To conference with me regarding my informing the Assistant Principal Maria Morales on March 28 that a student had felt that she had been singled out by the dean via something that he wrote on the black board (alleged verbal abuse vs Dean Mr. Soler).  I wasn't making any allegations against the dean. I was simply stating what had happened and it aftermath. The principal never gave me a copy of chancellor's regs. 420/421 to read and sign off on thus making her in violation of chancellor's reg 421/420 whereby any staff first coming to the school must be given a copy of both regs and sign off on them that they received them and read them.

 

         They saw it differently.  That's why they summoned me verbally and fabricated the verbal abuse case.  I informed Ms Morales in our phone conversation on April 1st that if she was not happy with my performance she could put me on the no call list and i would have to go to a hearing downtown to sub central, effectively suspending me.  But Ms Morales stated, No, we want to resolve this" further proof that this was never called down to OSI.

  

        Principal never asked me during the initial meeting on April 23 if there was anyone who would back up my claim that nothing happened in the classroom. There was a Ms. Turner who they refer to as KT.  She was in the room. On March 28 at dismissal Ms. Turner had approached me and asked me if the principal had spoken to me. I told her, No. She then said "give me your email i got your back." and left

 

         At a meeting convened between myself, [UFT] Vinnie Gaglione and Margaret Borelli on June 6  on the basis of the principal not asking me if there was anyone to back my claim nothing happened, Mr. Gaglione, in the presence of Ms. Borelli and myself stated, "That's it we are going to step II. You were waiting outside the cubicle and heard what he said You then told me to wait outside your office but you never called me in. I waited over an hour and then left. when I returned on Monday June 9th Mr. Gaglione said you were absent . When we finally spoke you changed your stance and told me "an 18 person committee" would hear my case. This is at variance with what Mr. Gaglione had told me

 

       The principal knows full well what Daisy Santiago asked the girl and what the girl's response was because I brought it up at all three meetings ( initial meeting April 23, step 1 grievance June 3 and the security breach meeting (24 hour complaint) on June 3rd.

 

   At the conclusion of the June 3rd SECURITY BREACH MEETING Brenda Gonzalez attempted to submit for the record 8 new statements from students and 2 new statements from adults against me, saying i had to sign a privacy notice.     She tried to submit these documents AFTER  OSI had informed me that  the verbal abuse  case was closed. I refused to accept these bogus statements, nor did i sign any privacy notice. telling her the case was now closed. 

 

As I left she slipped me certain documents unbeknownst to Daisy Santiago. 

 

          I did not notice these documents until I got home and looked through my papers. Ms. Gonzalez had given me a copy of the girl's statement much different than the one that was read to me on April 23rd.  The letter was a point by point rebuttal of my  May 23 email that I sent to the Mayor, the Governor, the Public Advocate and Catherine Nolan. It was not written in March but in May or there after.  I suspect the bogus letters were written behind closed doors on the same day of the june 3rd meeting because instead of submitting them during the grievance meeting she tried to submit them at the conclusion of the Security Breach meeting, almost two hours after the commencement of the step one meeting. as if they had just been manufactured.  Surely that was plenty of time for them to fabricate such letters.  And why are all the letters dated 3/31/14 when the principal interviewed all three girls (two of whom she pulled out of the class at the same time, violating procedure of questioning witnesses).  She also violated procedure by not getting statements from the students on March 28. This is further proof that OSI was not contacted.

 

         Clearly the documents are  either a forgery or worse yet,  pre written documents  which were placed in front of the students so that they could  copy them word for word. I know if I were the parent of these students I'd be outraged that the administration was using them as pawns to do in a teacher.

 

         Ms Gonzalez also surreptitiously gave me  the intake sheet at OSI. I noticed that the case number was not generated in March as it should have been.  It was generated in April because I compared the case number to one I had seen in an online blog belonging to Francesco Portelos.  His case number 14-02468X had been generated in April and was before mine which is 14-02767 which means my case came 299 cases after his.

 

          Mr Joseph Baranello at Foil downtown confirmed in an email to me that ALL CASES ARE  SEQUENTIAL BY CALENDER YEAR AND THAT ALL CASES END WITH X. At my June 6th meeting Margaret Borelli, after being shown the OSI intake document by me, wrongly stated that X stands for the Bronx and that cases are not sequential.

 

         The purported day on the girl's statement is 3/31/14. But there is no way that this statement is authentic.   It was written in direct response to my complaint.  They even repudiate my witnessing  what happened in the class the dean was teaching.  and instead say that I did something wrong to the girl who made the complaint about the dean.   In the statement it is alleged that  I also held a sign over the same girls head whom I had reported to the Assistant Principal as being agitated by what the dean had written on the board.  If this was really true then why wasn't I under another investigation.  I'll tell you why.  this bogus document was never sent downtown to OSI.  It was manufactured in direct response to my complaint to the Mayor so that I would back off and not continue to pursue the matter any further.  The statement was given to me to intimidate me into silence.

 

         I felt that these documents that the principal had given to me out of Daisy Santiago's sight was a subtle message to me to back off, that they had a ready answer for everything that I was saying in my favor and that they were telling me to keep quiet.   What is stated in the OSI intake form is at variance with both what was read to me onApril 23rd and the principal's write up to me dated April 25.   So there is a discrepancy between all three documents: The initial statements read to me, the principal's letter for the file and now the OSI intake form.. They can't seem to get it right.  ON THREE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS THEY SAY I DID  THREE DIFFERENT THINGS.

 

        I am about to go to PERB with my findings because it looks like your unit in the Bronx will not help me.. I know I'm retired and getting a pension but my substitute paychecks still indicate that union dues are being withheld.  I'm entitled to the same unbiased union representation  that any active member is entitled to.

 Fraternally yours,