Op-Ed: Attorney Bryan Glass, UFT Solidarity, and Francesco Portelos Lead Educators Astray

                                                               Attorney Bryan Glass
 

Team Advocatz believes that UFT Solidarity and Bryan Glass are misleading teachers/educators as well as putting them under scrutiny with the Department of Education, which leads to Discontinuance or 3020-a charges. We present the facts below.

re-posted from ADVOCATZ.com:

Op-Ed: UFT Solidarity Loses The Case To Get COVID-19 Accommodation For Remote Teaching

Considering the amount of press coverage on the PETITION filed by Attorney Bryan Glass for UFT Solidarity members to get accommodations, any reader would think that the case was precedent-setting. In fact, I believe that UFT Solidarity chief Lydia Howrilka even said that it was.  She was quoted in EdSurge:

“Teachers who do not qualify from specific guidelines of medical accommodations—if they do not fall under any of those categories, the only option they have is to take unpaid leave,” Howrilka says. “We are being given a Hobson’s choice of choosing between either our paychecks and livelihood or our own health and safety.”

I support the premise that teachers with disabling conditions, or who have relatives and/or family members whose health is impaired for any number of reasons, or who have particular work responsibilities which require working with children who cannot wear masks or do not keep them on, should obtain remote work accommodations if they apply – with the proper doctors’ notes and support. Many, it is true, are denied for no rational reason. No one trusts what the NYC DOE says about “safety,” either.

Many people – including myself – believe that it would be a terrible idea to trust the New York City Department of Education when promoting “safety” in NYC schools. The definition of safety they rely on is hearsay, often fake, news. Public contractors say that something has been cleaned, and people in the very room that has been “cleaned” can see that it is not clean. I have seen mold, bugs, mice, falling ceilings, and other horrible, unsafe conditions throughout New York City in my many roles as a parent advocate, UFT representative, workplace investigator, and in pictures received from sources who are everywhere. Thank you, all!

Also, as a parent and teacher advocate, I have the facts behind what is really going on in our City schools, stuff that no one wants to know, stuff the NYC DOE keeps lying about, such as two teachers (one general education, the other special education) certified to teach in the content area in every ICT (Integrated Co-teaching) classroom; another is that charges against an educator are always rational. Anyone who really wants information should go to the school, work or walk inside, and see for him/herself, or ask someone inside to take pictures and secretly tape conversations (New York State is a one-party State). I am certainly not alone in this knowledge, we live in a City where everyone should assume that all conversations have someone secretly taping everything, and sharing the tapes online when the "right" time comes along. The "right" time is, I believe, defined by an individual or group; all people everywhere certainly do not have the same definition of "right", or "good", "bad", "wrong", or "fake", etc. 

By the way, I do not secretly tape anyone with whom I work, and have never, nor will I ever, secretly tape anyone in 3020-a hearings or Court. So don't believe anyone, and I mean UFT Solidarity folk if they say I do. 

But I write VERY good notes and read every transcript thoroughly.

I believe that everyone can have their own opinion about anything as long as they do not maliciously and intentionally lie to harm anyone.

That being said, I do not believe that Bryan Glass was the right choice for an Attorney. He did not do an adequate job in the TRO case for remote teaching accommodations. Indeed, after winning the temporary injunction, which the press picked up, he signed up 20 new Petitioners, who may or may not have been aware that the first Judge had vacated the TRO. It seems that the Judge was not satisfied with Bryan Glass’ argument to Amend his original Petition, or withdraw it:

ORDER___TRANSFER_MO_28

Here is the relevant part:

“Accordingly, the imminent harm and balance of the equities presented to the Court in the initial application are no longer the same. This is particularly true because Petitioners have now raised the possibility of a secondary, “comfort” accommodation policy, not mentioned in the Petition, which Petitioner’s counsel was unable-despite numerous Court queries, hundreds of pages of submissions, and two arguments-to discuss as it applied to Petitioners; that is, whether Petitioners had applied, on what basis, and what the result was. 1 

It is therefore

ORDERED that the TRO is vacated.”

Here is the response from the New York Law Department, the Amended Petition, and the final Order of Judge Edmead:

LETTER___CORRESPOND

PETITION__AMENDED

ORDER___INTERIM

FINAL DECISION- CASE DISMISSED

TRANSCRIPT

Francesco Portelos started UFT Solidarity to promote attacks on NYC Department of Education Administrators, despite the fact that he was charged with 38 disciplinary charges and found guilty of 11 of the most serious, including internet misconduct, harassment of personnel, and the girlfriend of the UFT Chapter leader, and videotaping a student without permission. In 2011 the Arbitrator, Delice Busto, did not terminate him but warned him to stop his harassment and abuse of co-workers. He did the exact opposite.

My lack of confidence in Bryan Glass is many years in the making. In 2015, Francesco Portelos and Lydia Howrilka created a video wherein Jim Callaghan, a very disliked former reporter at NY Teacher, speaks about his hatred for the UFT and his former boss, Randi Weingarten. Jim spoke about how Randi believed I was a homophobe but hired me anyway to work on the rubber rooms as part of the UFT SWAT TEAM with him and Ron Isaac. This lie was promoted to make me look bad after discovering that Francesco’s new website “ANOI” and his threats to principals posted online in 2015 was getting his UFT Solidarity members noticed at the NYC DOE, charged, and fired.

You can see my opinion about the wreckage UFT Solidarity and Francesco have done here:

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

I posted his 3020-a decision by Felice Busto in that post, but here is the Busto decision in full, sent to me by Francesco Portelos:

Portelos, Franceso advs. New York City Board of Education 

Almost as soon as Francesco received the decision he started UFT Solidarity, to get other people to do what he wanted to do, but couldn't. Let them get in trouble. Lydia Howrilka is just one example. See the Department’s lawsuit against Ms. Howrilka, using Francesco’s ANOI website as evidence of defamation of the Principal who terminated Howrilka in Jue 2013. counter-lawsuit

Jim made my life at the UFT very hard, by everyday emails taunting me, belittling me, and creating a bad place for himself. The UFT did not like him, so Jeff Zahler, former staff Director before Leroy Barr, told me to ignore him. So, I did or tried to. Since that video, which I told Francesco was a lie, Francesco has lied about me, just like he posts defamatory stuff about principals.  Bryan Glass supports Francesco Portelos, defended him in his losing  Federal Court case against IS 49 and the Department of Education, and called me a snake oil salesman, hoping that I would be squashed into silence.

Yet members of UFT Solidarity continue to follow them.

In 2017, I read that Bryan Glass filed a class-action lawsuit for age discrimination on behalf of ATRs (Absent Teacher Reserve). Francesco Portelos posted the Complaint “How 30 ATRs Are Fighting for Over 100,000 on his website and added that he was joining the lawsuit too.

I am not an attorney, as everyone knows. But I don’t believe that a class action can be filed at the Division of Human Rights. Also, Francesco was only 39 years old in 2017, I believe. He had no grounds to be in an age discrimination lawsuit.

So, I filed a Combier FOIL 30-Day letter for the paperwork. The response to me was startling: Bryan Glass never filed this Complaint. I Appealed, thinking that this must be a mistake. Combier FOIL Response. I also received a call from the Human Rights FOIL officer, who told me there was no Complaint filed for ATRs, and she did not care what was written on any websites or blogs. In December 2019 I received all the closed cases at DHR with Bryan Glass as the Attorney, 2016-June 2019, plus:

DHR Complaints 2016-2019

I then sent Bryan an email asking for any information, and he never responded:

“Dear Bryan,

I am sending this second email to add to my request sent yesterday (see below):

I want to inform you that I filed a FOIL request for your Complaint as well as the outcome, and the Division of Human Rights told me that the Complaint was never received. Is this true? If not, please send me the information no later than January 16, 2020. If it is true, did you return any money to the complainants who paid you to file their lawsuit?

Thank you for your attention and cooperation,

Betsy Combier, betsy.combier@gmail.com”

January 11, 2020:

“Dear Bryan,

I am writing an article on your DHR Complaint as publicized in the post below:

How 30 ATRs Are Fighting for Over 100,000 NYCDOE Employees

Please give me your stamped filed Complaint and the decision made by the NYS Division of Human Rights by Thursday, January 16, 2020. I will post my article on Friday, January 17, 2020.

Thank you, I very much appreciate your information and cooperation.”

He did not respond, so I decided to contact Reporter Crystal Lewis at The Chief Leader, who wrote the article praising Bryan and Francesco: ATR Instructors Claim Age, Pay Led to Bias. I asked Ms. Lewis if she had seen the filed lawsuit. She told me no. Then I asked her if she knew if it had been filed, and she told me she believed that it had, as Francesco Portelos had posted on his website the Complaint, and she had interviewed him. I asked her to call Bryan Glass and ask him whether a class action had been actually filed, and she told me that she would do that, and get back to me.

Several days later Ms. Lewis told me that ‘someone in Mr. Glass’ office’ told her that no class action was filed, but 29 individual complaints had been filed. I thanked her.

The information given to Ms. Lewis by "someone in Bryan Glass' office"  was false, according to the Division of Human Rights. But Ms. Lewis wrote her article anyway, without checking the facts.

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog

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

Termination is the Penalty If a Charged Employee Retires While Proceeding With 3020-a Arbitration

The point I would like to make is: if you retire after receiving 3020-a charges, you will be terminated.

See Jefferson v NYC DOE, below:
"the plain language of paragraph 24 of New York City Board of Education Chancellor’s Regulation C-205 provides that a New York City teaching license shall be permanently terminated if the license holder retires while charges are pending pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a."

Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department 
D50816 N/ct AD3d Submitted - November 3, 2016 

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. LEONARD B. AUSTIN SHERI S. ROMAN FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ. 2015-11195 

DECISION & ORDER

In the Matter of Wayne Crawford Jefferson, appellant, v New York City Board of Education, respondent. (Index No. 6002/15)

Wayne Crawford Jefferson, Hazleton, PA, appellant pro se.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to reinstate the petitioner’s New York City teaching license, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler J.), entered August 3, 2015, as, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner was employed by the New York City Department of Education, sued herein as the New York City Board of Education (hereinafter the DOE), as a teacher until he retired on October 27, 2014.

At the time he retired, charges were pending against him pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a.

Pursuant to paragraph 24 of New York City Board of Education Chancellor’s Regulation C-205, the petitioner’s New York City teaching license was permanently terminated since charges were pending against him pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a at the time he retired. The petitioner was apprised of the termination of his license by an attorney from his union. The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the DOE to reinstate his teaching license. The DOE moved to dismiss the petition.

The Supreme Court, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, and denied the motion as academic.

The petitioner appeals.

“A special proceeding under CPLR article 78 is available to challenge the actions or inaction of agencies and officers of state and local government” (Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d 724, 725; see Matter of Hollander v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., Child Support Enforcement Bur., 140 AD3d 1064, 1065).

When a petitioner challenges an administrative determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing, the court must consider whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, or arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d at 725; Matter of JP & Assoc. Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 122 AD3d 739, 739). A determination is arbitrary and capricious when it is without sound basis and reason and generally taken without regard to the facts (see Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale and Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231; Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d at 725).

“Pursuant to Education Law § 2590-h, the Chancellor has the authority to promulgate regulations ‘necessary or convenient’ to the administration of the public school system” (Matter of Springer v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 27 NY3d 102, 106). “The tenets of statutory construction apply equally to administrative rules and regulations” (id.). Such regulations should be construed in accordance with their plain language (see id. at 107; see also Matter of Vaccaro v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 139 AD3d 612; Matter of Brennan v City of New York, 123 AD3d 607).

Here, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding since the plain language of paragraph 24 of New York City Board of Education Chancellor’s Regulation C-205 provides that a New York City teaching license shall be permanently terminated if the license holder retires while charges are pending pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a. The petitioner’s contention that he was unaware of this regulation, which was issued on September 5, 2000, and posted online on the DOE’s website, is unavailing, as he was “deemed to be on notice of the DOE Chancellor regulation[s]” (Matter of Benjamin v New York City Dept. of Educ., 119 AD3d 440, 441; see Salamino v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 85 AD3d 617, 619).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court
               January 11, 2017

129 A.D.3d 724 (2015) 10 N.Y.S.3d 542 2015 NY Slip Op 04645

In the Matter of CRAIG GOTTLIEB, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents.

2014-01086

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Decided June 3, 2015.

Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Barros, JJ., concur.

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Office of Child Support Enforcement dated November 14, 2012, denying, in effect, the petitioner's request for a recalculation of the amount of child support debt owed by him, and action to recover damages for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 USC § 1681 et seq.), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gross negligence, and for an injunction, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated October 1, 2013, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, and granted the respondents' motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the causes of action alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, gross negligence, and for an injunction.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On January 23, 2009, the wife of the petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter the petitioner) filed a petition seeking, inter alia, child support from him. On February 24, 2009, a Support Magistrate entered a temporary order of support directing the petitioner to pay child support in the sum of $100 per week to his wife through the New York State Support Collection Unit (hereinafter the SCU), commencing on February 27, 2009. In an order dated July 7, 2009 (hereinafter the July 2009 order), entered upon consent, the petitioner was directed to pay the sum of $1,215 per month in combined child and spousal support, payable through the SCU, commencing on July 30, 2009. The July 2009 order further provided that the petitioner was "additionally responsible for the support so ordered from January 23, 2009 to July 30, 2009," and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of $8,440. The SCU was directed to "[c]redit all payments made [by the petitioner] since 1/23/2009 to reduce the retro amount."

In March 2012, the petitioner admittedly withheld payment 725*725 and, in April 2012, only remitted the sum of $50.79, based on his contention that he was owed a credit by the SCU for payments made by him between February 28, 2009, and July 30, 2009. Enforcement measures were taken by the New York City Human Resources Administration Office of Child Support Enforcement (hereinafter OCSE), including the issuance of restraining notices to two different financial institutions holding the petitioner's bank accounts. On October 9, 2012, the petitioner submitted a "Mistake of Fact" form to the SCU, claiming that his account was not in arrears and, instead, that he was "due a credit of $18.08." On November 14, 2012, the OCSE denied the petitioner's claim that the SCU "has made an error in the amount of child support debt that is owed," and determined that "there is an amount past-due and owing."

The petitioner commenced this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the determination dated November 14, 2012, and action to recover damages for a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 USC § 1681 et seq.), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gross negligence, and to permanently enjoin the respondents/defendants (hereinafter the respondents) from reporting any derogatory information related to his support collection account to credit reporting agencies, and directing the respondents to take steps necessary to remove any derogatory information from his credit file at the credit reporting agencies. The respondents moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the petition/action.

A special proceeding under CPLR article 78 is available to challenge the actions or inaction of agencies and officers of state and local government (see Matter of Luczaj v Bortnik, 91 AD3d 872, 873 [2012]). The standard of judicial review in the instant matter is whether the administrative determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of JP & Assoc. Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 122 AD3d 739, 739 [2014]). An arbitrary determination is one that is without a sound basis in reason, and is made without regard to the facts (see Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280 [2010]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]).

Here, the determination of the OCSE to deny the petitioner's claim that the SCU erred in calculating the amount of past-due support owed by him has a rational basis in the record, 726*726 and was, thus, not arbitrary and capricious. The payment history for the petitioner's support collection account established that, at the time the petitioner submitted the "Mistake of Fact" form, his account was in arrears. Moreover, the payment history flatly contradicted the petitioner's claim that the payments made by him from February 2009 until July 2009 were not credited to his account (see Matter of Kirkpatrick v Wambua, 117 AD3d 739, 740 [2014]; Ford v Department of Social Servs., 41 Misc 3d 1237[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52045[U], *7-8 [Sup Ct, NY County 2013]; Ward v NYC Human Resources Admin., 2011 NY Slip Op 33162[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2011]; Matter of Ovalles v New York City Human Resources Admin., 2008 NY Slip Op 33635[U], *2-4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]). Further, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the OCSE was authorized, upon determining that his account was in arrears, to attach and seize his assets for the purpose of collecting the overdue support obligation (see Social Services Law § 111-t; 18 NYCRR 346.11), and offset any refund of income tax by the amount of overdue support owed by him (see 42 USC § 666 [a] [3] [A]; Social Services Law § 111-b [7], [8]; 18 NYCRR 346.9). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

The Supreme Court also properly granted the respondents' motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the causes of action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, gross negligence, and for an injunction. On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), all of the allegations in the pleading are deemed true and the petitioner is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference (see Matter of Kar-McVeigh, LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Riverhead, 93 AD3d 799, 800 [2012]). Although the facts pleaded are presumed to be true, "bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by the record are not entitled to any such consideration" (Riback v Margulis, 43 AD3d 1023, 1023 [2007]).

The substance of the cause of action alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act was, in essence, a challenge to the determination by the OCSE that the petitioner's account was in arrears, which authorized the OCSE, pursuant to Social Services Law §§ 111-b, 111-c and 111-t, to take enforcement action and report his arrears to the credit reporting agencies. This cause of action essentially constituted a request for relief pursuant to CPLR article 78, regardless of the form in which it was pleaded and, thus, was properly dismissed (see Hertzel v Town of Putnam Val., 121 AD3d 641, 643-644 [2014]; Kickertz v New York Univ., 110 AD3d 268, 272 [2013]).

727*727 "[P]ublic policy bars claims sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress against a governmental entity" (Lauer v City of New York, 240 AD2d 543, 544 [1997]; see Dillon v City of New York, 261 AD2d 34, 41 [1999]). Here, the individual respondents were only sued in their official capacities. Therefore, the petitioner could not and did not state a cause of action against them for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, that branch of the respondents' motion which was to dismiss this cause of action was properly granted.

Finally, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the respondents' motion which were to dismiss causes of action alleging gross negligence and for injunctive relief. Even if the allegations contained in the petition are assumed to be true, they do not state a cause of action to recover damages for gross negligence or supporting the issuance of a permanent injunction (see Vilella v AT&T, 35 Misc 3d 1224[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50853[U], *10 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012]; Josey v Sallie Mae, Inc., 2009 WL 2518643, *8, 2009 US Dist LEXIS 72157, *24-25 [SD NY, Aug. 17, 2009, No. 09 Civ. 4403 (SHS) (AJP)]).