I don't understand why NYSUT seems not to use the case of Elentuck v Green when defending a teacher going through the process known as 3020-a arbitration:
"MATTER OF ELENTUCK v. GREEN
202 A.D.2d 425 (1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 701
In the Matter of Harvey M. Elentuck, Appellant, v. Richard R. Green et al., Respondents
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
March 7, 1994
Mangano, P. J., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
The petitioner, who is a teacher, sought disclosure, pursuant
The lesson observation reports consist solely of advice, criticisms, evaluations, and recommendations prepared by the school assistant principal regarding lesson preparation and classroom performance. As such, these reports fall squarely within the protection of Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) (see, Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Williams,
We have reviewed the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit."
We at ADVOCATZ always submit this case, as well as the letter NYC DOE General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase sent Harvey when his request for observations of teachers was denied because observations have no facts in them: