District 21 Acting Superintendent Erin Lynch-Reyes' Path To a Permanent Position In Trouble After Her Husband Attacks UFT Rep

A group of teachers at P.S./I.S. 225 wore black last week to show their support for teachers at P.S./I.S. 99. (Courtesy of UFT)

From Betsy Combier:

Speaking up against a principal or Superintendent can be dangerous (actions may lead to 3020-a charges and termination/retaliation), but if there is enough support by staff and employees, removal can happen.

See the stories of principals who have been removed and, the particularly disturbing story of Heather Jansen and her student Rat Pack:

Jansen claimed in a pending race-discrimination lawsuit against the DOE that Wilson unfairly removed her as principal of mid-island PS 46 in June 2023

Former Principal of PS 46 Heather Jansen and Her Student Rat Pack

I met Ms. Jansen when she testified at the 3020-a arbitration against my client, a teacher at PS 46. Jansen set my teacher client up by using what we ended up calling the "Rat Pack", and refused to listen to any evidence that the charges were frivolous and false. We won the case, the teacher was not terminated.

Jansen was so hated by staff and parents that a no confidence vote led by the UFT got her removed. She was given a job as a teacher at  PS 54 Charles W. Leng school.

Betsy Combier, Editor

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

Husband’s alleged online attacks against union rep spark calls to oust Brooklyn superintendent

 By Cayla Bamberger, New York Daily News, March 1, 2026

Calls to remove a south Brooklyn schools superintendent are mounting after her husband allegedly 
posed as someone else on social media to attack a union rep for local teachers.

Erin Lynch-Reyes

The saga began to unfold when Acting Superintendent Erin Lynch-Reyes’ bid to become the permanent 
leader of District 21 seemed to hit a roadblock over public acrimony between teachers and their 
principal at a school in her district. A key voice in that labor dispute was Adam Shapiro, the 
district representative for the United Federation of Teachers.

While not the direct target of the complaints, Lynch-Reyes found herself in the crosshairs. After 
the setback came to light, her husband, Miguel Reyes — according to the UFT’s general counsel, Beth 
Norton — allegedly struck back. Falsely claiming to be a staff member at the Midwood school named 
Jose Tricoche, he made a series of social media posts personally attacking Shapiro, the union 
claimed.

“The UFT has a good faith basis to believe that ‘Jose Tricoche’ is Ms. Lynch-Reyes’ spouse, Miguel 
Reyes,” Norton wrote in a Jan. 13 letter to Liz Vladeck, the top lawyer for the city’s public 
school system.

“The UFT demands that the department immediately cease and desist from engaging in fraudulent and 
defamatory online attacks of UFT representatives, including Adam Shapiro, and from unlawfully 
interfering with the union’s representation function in District 21.”

A spokeswoman for the public schools and Lynch-Reyes did not comment, and attempts to reach Reyes 
were unsuccessful. Alison Gendar, a UFT spokeswoman, said the letter “proved effective” and the 
“activity has stopped” since it was sent.

A local conflict spirals

When Lynch-Reyes, a 24-year veteran of public education, was tapped at the start of this school 
year as the interim superintendent of District 21 — from Coney Island and Brighton Beach to 
Bensonhurst and Midwood — it seemed like a perfect fit.

Before stepping into the role, Lynch-Reyes was the top deputy to Isabel DiMola, the local 
superintendent for 16 years until DiMola was promoted last summer to former city Schools Chancellor 
Melissa Aviles-Ramos’ second-in-command.

As deputy superintendent, Lynch-Reyes oversaw sweeping changes to the district’s reading 
curriculum. She also had experience as the principal of Intermediate School 096 Seth Low in 
Bensonhurst.

“I am committed to ensuring that every school in our district is a place of opportunity, 
innovation, and joy,” Lynch-Reyes wrote in a letter, introducing herself as the new temporary 
leader.

But months into the new job, Lynch-Reyes had a major problem on her hands.

At PS/IS 99 Isaac Asimov School of Science and Literature, teachers accused their principal, 

Hrysoula Niarhos, of micromanagement and mistreatment. The nonprofit education news source Chalkbeat 

New York reported six complaints have been filed about Niarhos with the city over allegations of 
improper behavior, while Lynch-Reyes continued to stand by her.

Soon, teachers across the district — then the city — were talking about PS/IS 99 and District 21.
Last December, teachers from 30 schools districtwide wore black to work one day in support of the 
PS/IS 99 staff. Michael Mulgrew, the United Federation of Teachers president, personally spoke out 
against the working conditions at PS/IS 99, which also cast a shadow over the district.

DiMola told UFT representatives — according to the union’s letter — that the attention received by 
PS/IS 99 and, in turn, District 21, had delayed Lynch-Reyes’ permanent appointment.

After the UFT was made aware of the delay, a social media user identifying themselves as “Jose 
Trioche” went on the attack, the letter alleges.

“I work at this school,” Trioche commented on a Dec. 16 Facebook post of the Chalkbeat article. 
“Adam does not like his truth to come out all he does is post lies.” The user continued by making 
troubling personal allegations about Shapiro.

When a teacher disputed that Trioche worked at the school and asked him, “Why hide who you really 
are??” the user responded: “Cause I finally have a platform where I can speak freely.”

Adam Shapiro, District 21 UFT Rep

Norton, the UFT’s lawyer, wrote that the union has a “good faith basis” to believe that “Trioche” 

is Miguel Reyes based on a review of his posts, residence and employment. Trioche also followed 
Lynch-Reyes’ friends and family on social media. The Daily News could not independently verify 
Trioche’s identity.

The fallout

In the aftermath of the UFT’s formal notice, a letter campaign was launched that asked city Schools 
Chancellor

Kamar Samuels not to appoint Lynch-Reyes to the permanent superintendency.

“The actions of Lynch-

Reyes and her husband do not reflect the values of our community nor do they model the core values 
of the [New York City Public Schools],” read the predrafted memo, which had resulted in 256 letters 
sent as of Friday. “We are asking you to refrain from appointing Erin Lynch-Reyes as District 21 
superintendent and find alternative candidates.”

Union members also came to Shapiro’s defense. “That’s not the man I know,” said Randy Adelson, a 
paraprofessional and UFT chapter leader at PS/IS 226 Alfred De B. Mason in Bensonhurst.

“Whether it was done with or without knowledge of [the] superintendent, I don’t know,” he added. 

“But it’s embarrassing, and it’s below the station of a superintendent. And I would really hope 
that’s not the case. … I don’t want our kids to see the adults supposed to be their role models 
fighting.”

Jay Brown, the president of Community Education Council 21, said he was aware of the allegations, 
but would not share or sign the petition, given the parent-led school board’s positive experience 
with Lynch-Reyes, whom he credited as an experienced educator. He pointed to efforts by the acting 
superintendent to make parents aware of math curriculum changes coming to the district.

“We just had a tragedy: A student killed by a yellow school bus in our district that’s a horrific 
situation,” Brown said. “But it’s the sort of thing where people are tested, and we were working 
very closely and at the school together with the mom of the deceased student. My own personal view 
of it is she excelled in that role in that moment.”

Lillian Crespo, a teacher and chapter leader at PS 216 Arturo Toscanini in Gravesend, lamented that 
PS/IS 99 teachers’ allegations against their principal had been “muddled” because of the 
allegations involving the superintendent’s husband.

But Crespo said she would still feel comfortable with the permanent appointment of Lynch-Reyes, 
given her “extensive knowledge” of the district having worked “hand in hand” with DiMola.

“She doesn’t have to let this tarnish her reputation — she just needs to handle it,” Crespo said. 
“I would like to see her live on in this role.”

NY Supreme Court Rules That Teachers Accused of Submitting Fake Vaccination Cards Must Be Placed Back on Salary

 

re-posted from Advocatz.com:

Court Says “No” To NYC DOE Injunction That Keeps Teachers With Alleged “Fake” Vax Cards Off Salary

by Betsy Combier, Advocatz.com, July 8, 2022

Judge Arlene Bluth made an important precedent-setting decision today in the matter of the 82 teachers who were suddenly removed from salary on April 25, 2022  because the NYC Department of Education “believed” they had submitted fake vaccination cards when told to send proof of vaccination in September 2021 under the Citywide Vaccine Mandate. Why do I say precedent-setting? Because Judge Bluth said STOP to the Board of Education of the City of New York after they blatantly violated public policy, the UFT and CSA contracts, Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Education Law, as well as countless other state and City laws and rules, by placing 82 people off salary because of a “belief” in their guilt.

Imagine the angst of an employee being accused of committing a felony crime and suddenly placed on leave without pay without any proof or any other information, including when you will be able to tell someone you are innocent and get back on salary.

When I first heard about this I did not believe any of it. Also, Education Law 3020 is very clear on the Constitutional rights to due process:

” No person enjoying the benefits of tenure shall be disciplined or removed during a term of employment except for just cause and in accordance with the procedures specified in section three thousand twenty-a of this article or in accordance with alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement.”

This tenure law was created to stop any principal from suddenly terminating anyone for some nonsensical petty reason.

When Mayoral control took over the NYC Department of Education, Mayor Bloomberg rented huge spaces in District offices around the City ( there were 8 in total, in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx) where tenured educators were reassigned and suspended WITH pay sometimes for up to 15 years, while awaiting a 3020-a hearing or after being found guilty but not terminated at a hearing. These rooms became what is known as the “rubber rooms”. People sat in these rooms ON SALARY but suspended from their teaching duties.

On April 25, 2022 the NYC Department of Education went a step further and unilaterally placed 82 teachers on unpaid leave who had received one or two Pfizer vaccine shots at Wild Child in Amityville. Simply and astonishingly, these 82 people seemed to have been picked randomly and found guilty of the same allegation of wrong-doing as the people cited in a sting operation by the Suffolk County DA – see arrest in Suffolk County of Julie Devuono – because they went to the place of the crime.

This seems to me to be similar to someone going to a bank to withdraw money, and suddenly robbers arrive and try to rob the bank. The police see the innocent person and make a connection to the robbers, and arrest the person trying to get a withdrawal.

Beth Norton, UFT General Counsel

As soon as the April 19 notice of  pending leave without pay on April 25 was received, the UFT General Counsel Beth Norton (pictured above) wrote Liz Vladeck, General Counsel (pictured below) an email letter that basically said, “stop this ridiculousness immediately, and put all people back on salary until a due process hearing has been held.”

Liz Vladeck, NYC DOE General Counsel

On May 3 Beth Norton asked Arbitrator Martin Scheinman to intervene, and he agreed. He issued his Scheinman Award June 27 (see below) saying that the Department must put everyone back on salary until “guilt” is established:

“Leave without pay is an unusual outcome. Yet, I decided it was appropriate for employees whose requests for a medical or religious exemption were denied. This is because such employees intentionally decided to disregard the mandate they be vaccinated by September 27, 2021, the date established by Commissioner Chokshi and Mayor de Blasio.

Implicit in such a designation of leave without pay is the individual failed to comply with the vaccine mandate. Here, there is a dispute whether the employees did or did not comply. Without that being assessed, or at least submitting evidence to show a high likelihood of non-compliance, the predicate for placing an employee on leave without pay does not exist.”

The DOE immediately filed an Article 75 Appeal to keep all 82 teachers suspended without pay and without any due process, but on July 8, 2022 NY Supreme Court Judge Arlene Bluth decided the DOE was wrong. The DOE and UFT will have another chance to make their arguments to Judge Bluth on July 19, 2022.

Meanwhile, 30 of the 82 teachers could not wait for the UFT or DOE to give them the relief they desperately needed, to be placed back on salary. They sued the NYC DOE in Kings County Supreme on June 30, 2022. I helped them put the case into the very amazing hands of Attorney Chad Laveglia who I asked to comment on all of this and the Scheinman Award issued June 27. He said,

“These teachers followed every instruction they were given. They uploaded their vaccination cards as required. Seven months later, the DOE had the audacity to send them an email placing them on leave without pay.  Significantly, they did so in abrogation of the due process that these teachers are constitutionally and legally entitled to. Due process protects the innocent from determinations of guilt based on nothing more than the whims of the accuser. The DOE has no basis in fact or law to summarily discipline these teachers. The DOE’s arbitrary and unlawful actions will be rectified in court.”

Chad, I, and all the unfairly suspended teachers are awaiting the next Court date, and we are hopeful that the denial of Law by the DOE will be stopped, and everyone will placed back on salary with back pay and any other relief that is just. and proper – including their jobs back!

See the papers in the Article 75:

Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al v. United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO, et al

Index No. 451995/2022

PETITION

Vaccine Mandate August 24

April 19 email

Scheinman Sept 10 Award

Declaration of Impasse

UFT April 21 letter

DOE April 22 letter

UFT May 3 letter

DOE May 4 letter

UFT MAY 6 letter

DOE May 10 letter

UFT May 11 letter

Teachers CBA

2018 Memorandum of Agreement

Scheinman Sept 15 Award

DOE-ORDER_TO_SHOW_CAUSE

DOE Affirmation of Good Faith

Proof of Notice to Respondents

UFT MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW

Bluth signed-ORDER_TO_SHOW_CAUSE

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

New York Education Hearings Suddenly Are Cancelled Due To Ransomware Attack

Howard Friedman, NYC DOE General Counsel

The New York City Law Department and NYC Department of Education have many hearings going on at any one time: the 100 Gold (3rd floor) Manhattan Office of Legal Affairs (3020-a/3012/Time and Attendance) arbitration, 65 Court Street (Office of Appeals and Reviews, OAR) and 131 Livingston Street (Impartial Hearings) in Brooklyn. All hearings are recorded and the transcripts are given to each party, usually within two weeks of the date the testimony was heard. Ubiqus, a global company located at 61 Broadway in New York City, has been on contract to prepare the transcripts for more than ten years.

At least there were many hearings at any of these offices before they all shut down from March to October 2020 due to the coronavirus. The transcripts are the lifeblood of any hearing. Any party who appeals a decision or sues in State or Federal Court cannot use anything that is not on the record. When the pandemic hit NYC and hearings at 100 Gold Street in Manhattan were put on hold, I was wondering what would be the game plan.

The problem in NYC is that all hearings in 3020-a cases are held on the 3rd floor of 100 Gold, filled with city agencies, with usually long lines waiting to go through the security in the lobby. Also in the lobby are Section 8 tenants or people looking to obtain Section 8 housing. Social distancing would be practically impossible to manage. Also, the hearings all take place on the third floor, where each hearing room is small, with a conference table filling up most of the space. The windows do not open. There is only one room that is large enough to consider placing 4+ people in safely, but the windows do not open there either. 

In October, we heard that Zoom would be the platform used to allow us to do our cases. We resumed two of our current 5 3020-a cases, now heard by an arbitrator via zoom. I have posted the new Memorandum signed by the UFT and the DOE, below. The arbitrators, we were told, went through training with the Department of Education on how to conduct Zoom 3020-a cases, create breakout rooms, and have the hearings taped from start to finish by two Ubiqus transcriptionists, one in New York City, and the other upstate.

We had dates scheduled for witnesses in December, but suddenly all hearings were canceled. Why? Because on December 4, 2020, Ubiqus was hacked, and all their data held as ransomware.

A ransomware attack is a form of malware attack in which an attacker seizes the user’s data, folders, or entire device until a ‘ransom’ fee is paid. Ransomware attack exploits the open security vulnerabilities by infecting a PC or a network with a phishing attack, or malicious websites.

Ubiqus issued a statement on the cybersecurity incident at Ubiqus Group:

December 4th

The Ubiqus Group was hit by a ransomware-type cybersecurity incident in the morning on the 4th December 2020.
As a precautionary measure, we have shut down all our IT systems across all our operating sites.
Ubiqus is in close contact with the competent authorities as well as our clients and partners.
We are working on a technical recovery plan with key IT-partners and cybersecurity specialists.
We continue to assess and manage the situation to minimize the impact on our operations, clients, and partners from the current situation.

Update: December 11th

To ensure secure email exchanges with our clients, we have chosen to use an email service that is hosted on a professional platform with enhanced security measures.
This new inbox has been in operation since Tuesday 8 December 2020. It is secure and nothing has been retained from the previous version.
All emails received from Ubiqus from 8 December 2020 are completely secure: replying to them or opening attached files does not present any risk.

To investigate further, I called the NY State Education Department (NYSED) where I was told that a forensic cyberteam was investigating what happened and by whom, but since the beginning of December, no hearings have been held. This event has affected 3020-a hearings throughout New York State, not just NYC, and is very serious, as the transcripts hold people's lives and careers in their clutches. Transcripts don't clutch, of course, but anyone that speaks into the record and/or reads each transcript cover to cover as I do knows how important this record evidence is when an educator is charged.

We have no updates, but we have been told that no data already given has been lost, even though we do not have the transcripts. 

Gosh, I sure hope this is accurate information, that no data has been lost! The two cases we are doing right now have had the testimony of the Respondents and their witnesses, and we got really good stuff.

I'll let you know what the deal is. Hopefully soon.

Susan Edelman at the NY POST posted this today:

Ransomware attack cripples NYC DOE’s teacher disciplinary system

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

Agreement Signed by NYSUT and NYC DOE General Counsel On How To Proceed With 3020-a Hearings During COVID-19 Danger

                          NYC DOE General Counsel Howard Friedman         

Memorandum of Agreement between the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York and the United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO

1. 3020-a Hearings:

a. Nothing in this Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) shall constitute a waiver or modification of any provision of any memorandum of agreement, collective bargaining agreement (and the documents incorporated therein by reference), letter, or other agreement between the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (“DOE”) and the United Federation of Teachers, Local 2 (“UFT”), or past practice except as expressly set forth herein.

b. This MOA is intended to address the extraordinary conditions presented by the novel coronavirus pandemic and the risk of COVID-19. This MOA will sunset on June 30, 2021, unless both parties agree to extend, in writing, this MOA no later than May 1, 2021, or upon such time as school resume full in-person instruction, whichever is earlier. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this MOA for cause on 10 days’ notice, provided however that, prior to provision of such notice, the party seeking to terminate must have first raised the issue in question in consultation under Section 1(d) of this MOA and have escalated the issue to the General Counsel of the DOE and the General Counsel of the UFT. If no agreement is reached, the Chancellor and the UFT President will decide. For the purposes of this MOA “cause” is defined as either (a) an order issued by the Governor of New York in which all 3020-a hearings are held in abeyance; (b) an order or directive issued by the Chancellor pursuant to which schools are closed and staff are not working remotely, or (c) the Chancellor and UFT president agree that hearings cannot proceed in a manner consistent with this MOA and Education Law Section 3020-a.

c. The parties acknowledge that the situation regarding reopening offices is fluid and that New York City began Phase One reopening as described in Governor’s Executive Orders on June 8, 2020, and has proceeded and may proceed through reopening phases, or not, depending on a number of factors including the rate of new infections of the virus. The parties agree that as they transition back to holding hearings in person, there may be a need for one or more of the participants to appear remotely, resulting in a hybrid in-person/remote hearing. To the extent possible and permitted under all existing DOE safety rules as determined by the joint DOE/UFT Central Committee, the parties will proceed with in-person hearings. However, if in-person hearings are not possible then the parties will proceed remotely for the term of this MOA, whether with a hybrid model or completely remote.

d. The Director of the Administrative Trials Unit (“ATU”) and the Director of the Teacher Performance Unit (“TPU”) shall meet monthly with the UFT or the UFT’s designee to consult regarding the implementation of this MOA.

2. Remote Hearings (Process and Protocols)

a. The parties are committed to having these cases heard in an expeditious manner. The parties agree to conduct remote hearings according to the protocols set forth in this MOA so that all issues are fully and fairly litigated.

b. If a Respondent requests, the UFT will make every effort to provide a private and secure location for Respondent to participate in the remote hearing with the appropriate computer equipment and abiding by all health and safety requirements. If the UFT is unable to provide a Respondent with a location on a given hearing date, counsel for the Respondent will make every effort to provide the DOE with two (2) days’ notice and the DOE will make every effort to provide a private and secure location for Respondent to participate in the remote hearing with the appropriate computer equipment and abiding by all health and safety requirements. If UFT and the DOE are unable to provide a location to the Respondent, the hearing will be canceled, and the parties will split any cancellation fees. If a hearing is scheduled within 48 hours of the hearing date (e.g., as the result of a settlement of another matter), and the UFT is unable to provide Respondent with a location, the UFT will notify the DOE as soon as possible. Under these circumstances, should the DOE be unable to provide a private and secure location the parties agree to mutually reschedule the hearing date?

c. The parties agree to make every effort to pre-mark exhibits, identify witnesses, stipulate to undisputed facts, and minimize the issues of fact to be tried remotely.

d. Remote hearings for both ATU and TPU cases will resume and proceed in the order of their case queues/case assignments before their current hearing officers in a manner that is consistent with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. To the maximum extent possible the parties agree to ensure that the cases are managed timely.

e. In the event, a hearing is canceled or interrupted as a result of an individual party’s technical issues, including but not limited to the party’s failure to have the proper equipment, that party will bear the cost of any cancellation fees for the hearing date.

3. Platform:

a. The parties agree that all remote hearings will occur on a single platform: Zoom Pro.

b. The Hearing Officer (hereinafter “HO”) will be responsible for costs of using the Zoom Pro platform.

4. Procedures:

a. Subject to paragraph 2(b), each party shall be responsible for ensuring their own equipment is properly functioning prior to the hearing date.

b. The HO shall ensure that the court reporter can access the hearing to make the transcript of the hearing.

c. The HO shall be the only “host” of the proceeding on the chosen platform and will ensure that each party has a confidential virtual break out room.

d. The HO as host will ensure that the following participants will have access to virtual breakout rooms and that additional breakout rooms are made available for other participants/parties as needed, including:

o Respondent and Counsel

o Counsel and Witness

o Counsel and Counsel

o Counsel and HO

e. A party shall be allowed to disconnect from the hearing to attend to administrative matters and the amount of time by a party spent off the record shall be in accordance with the CBA.

f. Counsel shall make every effort to minimize any delays attributable to inadequate familiarity with the chosen platform or inappropriate equipment.

g. The parties shall take all practicable steps to ensure the confidentiality of the proceeding. No person should have access to the live video and/or audio feed of the proceeding other than disclosed participants with a right to such access.

h. The SED official transcription service shall be the sole method of transcribing the proceeding. The SED official transcription company shall only access the audio recording feature of the platform and shall be prohibited from accessing the video recording feed of the platform.

i. No party, witness, or other participant in the hearing may record via audio or video, transcribe, or photograph the proceeding.

j. No party, witness, or other participant in the hearing shall use any chat feature of the chosen platform.

5. Exhibits:

a. Proposed exhibits in the format in which the exhibit will be entered shall be emailed, using a secure platform, to opposing counsel five (5) days in advance of the entry of the exhibit.

b. Counsel for the parties shall confer two (2) days prior to the hearing date to make best efforts to stipulate to the exhibit’s entry. If the parties agree to the entry of an exhibit, the exhibit shall be pre-marked. If the parties are unable to stipulate to the entry of the exhibit, the proposed exhibit shall also be pre-marked.

c. Prior to the hearing, counsel responsible for entering the exhibit shall email, using a secure platform, to the HO and opposing counsel, any exhibits which have been pre-marked and/or stipulated to. The provision to the HO of a pre-marked exhibit for which the parties have not agreed to entry shall be without prejudice to arguments or objections as to admissibility, weight, and/or relevance. Nothing herein prevents either party from introducing an exhibit or witness that was not pre-marked or identified.

6. Mediation:

a. The parties agree to mediate as many cases as possible or appropriate from ATU and TPU.

b. The mediations shall also be remote and shall be complete by December 21, 2020. A second round of mediation will take place in 2021. Once the first round of mediation has concluded, the DOE will make every effort to identify additional cases for mediation to begin in March 2021.

c. The arbitrators will be chosen by mutual selection of the parties.

9/22/20 

Beth Norton, NYSUT General Counsel 

 Howard Friedman, General Counsel, NYC DOE

NY POST January 3, 2021:

The New Memorandum of Agreement For Proceeding With 3020-a Hearings

                          NYC DOE General Counsel Howard Friedman

I just posted on my  blog "Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials" 

(URL https://rubberroom3020-a.blogspot.com/) the new Memorandum of Agreement signed by NYSUT and the NYC Department of Education on how they will proceed with 3020-a disciplinary hearings while COVID-19 concerns are still being discussed.

See my re-posted article and the full MOA, below.

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

 

Agreement Signed by NYSUT and NYC DOE General Counsel On How To Proceed With 3020-a Hearings During COVID-19 Danger

I am a paralegal who has completed about 110 teacher trials (known as "3020-a arbitration"), settled about 20, got withdrawal of all charges for four educators, and won exoneration for nine educators over the past nine years. Before I started actually working on these trials/arbitrations, I spent eight years sitting in hearings as a volunteer observer in my own time, writing notes on everything that was said and done. I taught myself the ropes.

The UFT legal arm is NYSUT, or New York State United Teachers. In this group are Attorneys who represent educator members throughout New York State whenever charges are filed against an individual member. These Attorneys are free, and you get what you pay for, in my opinion. I know almost all of them, having worked for the UFT and meeting them in the hearing offices. NYSUT attorneys will not work with anyone outside of NYSUT. 

In NYC, both NYSUT Attorneys and the prosecuting Attorneys at the NYC DOE Office of Legal Affairs under the direction of General Counsel Howard Friedman want to remove outside counsel from representing charged educators, basically to maintain control of the hearings themselves and to make sure that the outcome is "agreed" to by the school board/DOE. However, any charged educator may choose anyone he/she wants, to represent him/her at 3020-a arbitration. Many - in fact, increasingly - members choose to remove NYSUT and pursue the defense with a private legal team. Thus, when the pandemic hit NYC and hearings at 100 Gold Street in Manhattan were put on hold, I was wondering what would be the game plan.

Two days ago the hearings went into full start again, but not a single private attorney with whom I work on these cases would agree to go into the building and the small hearing rooms of the Legal Unit at 100 Gold 3rd Floor. Turns out, NYSUT and the NYC DOE had made a deal (that was not sent to any private attorneys) to put all hearings on Zoom until whenever.

This should be interesting. Arbitration by zoom has its' pros and cons. I currently have five cases to put on, and you all know I will let you know what happens after the hearings are over. 

For now, see the MOA signed by Beth Norton, General Counsel of NYSUT, and Howard Friedman, General Counsel of the NYC DOE. Enjoy.

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

Memorandum of Agreement between the 

Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York and the

United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO

               1.      3020-a Hearings:

a.       Nothing in this Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) shall constitute a waiver or modification of any provision of any memorandum of agreement, collective bargaining agreement (and the documents incorporated therein by reference), letter, or other agreement between the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (“DOE”) and the United Federation of Teachers, Local 2 (“UFT”), or past practice except as expressly set forth herein.

b.      This MOA is intended to address the extraordinary conditions presented by the novel coronavirus pandemic and the risk of COVID-19. This MOA will sunset on June 30, 2021, unless both parties agree to extend, in writing, this MOA no later than May 1, 2021, or upon such time as school resume full in-person instruction, whichever is earlier. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this MOA for cause on 10 days’ notice, provided however that, prior to provision of such notice, the party seeking to terminate must have first raised the issue in question in consultation under Section 1(d) of this MOA and have escalated the issue to the General Counsel of the DOE and the General Counsel of the UFT. If no agreement is reached, the Chancellor and the UFT President will decide. For the purposes of this MOA “cause” is defined as either (a) an order issued by the Governor of New York in which all 3020-a hearings are held in abeyance; (b) an order or directive issued by the Chancellor pursuant to which schools are closed and staff are not working remotely; or (c) the Chancellor and UFT president agree that hearings cannot proceed in a manner consistent with this MOA and Education Law Section 3020-a.

c.       The parties acknowledge that the situation regarding reopening offices is fluid and that New York City began Phase One reopening as described in Governor’s Executive Orders on June 8, 2020, and has proceeded and may proceed through reopening phases, or not, depending on a number of factors including the rate of new infections of the virus. The parties agree that as they transition back to holding hearings in person, there may be a need for one or more of the participants to appear remotely, resulting in a hybrid in-person/remote hearing. To the extent possible and permitted under all existing DOE safety rules as determined by the joint DOE/UFT Central Committee, the parties will proceed with in-person hearings. However, if in-person hearings are not possible then the parties will proceed remotely for the term of this MOA, whether with a hybrid model or completely remote.

d.      The Director of the Administrative Trials Unit (“ATU”) and the Director of the Teacher Performance Unit (“TPU”) shall meet monthly with the UFT, or the UFT’s designee to consult regarding the implementation of this MOA.

2.      Remote Hearings (Process and Protocols)

a.       The parties are committed to having these cases heard in an expeditious manner. The parties agree to conduct remote hearings according to the protocols set forth in this MOA so that all issues are fully and fairly litigated.

b.      If a Respondent requests, the UFT will make every effort to provide a private and secure location for the Respondent to participate in the remote hearing with the appropriate computer equipment and abiding by all health and safety requirements. If the UFT is unable to provide a Respondent with a location on a given hearing date, counsel for the Respondent will make every effort to provide the DOE with two (2) days’ notice and the DOE will make every effort to provide a private and secure location for Respondent to participate in the remote hearing with the appropriate computer equipment and abiding by all health and safety requirements. If UFT and the DOE are unable to provide a location to the Respondent, the hearing will be cancelled, and the parties will split any cancellation fees. If a hearing is scheduled within 48 hours of the hearing date (e.g., as the result of a settlement of another matter), and the UFT is unable to provide Respondent with a location, the UFT will notify the DOE as soon as possible. Under these circumstances, should the DOE be unable to provide a private and secure location the parties agree to mutually reschedule the hearing date.

c.       The parties agree to make every effort to pre-mark exhibits, identify witnesses, stipulate to undisputed facts, and minimize the issues of fact to be tried remotely.

d.      Remote hearings for both ATU and TPU cases will resume and proceed in the order of their case queues/case assignments before their current hearing officers in a manner that is consistent with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. To the maximum extent possible the parties agree to ensure that the cases are managed timely.

e.       In the event a hearing is cancelled or interrupted as a result of an individual party’s technical issues, including but not limited to the party’s failure to have the proper equipment, that party will bear the cost of any cancellation fees for the hearing date. 

3.      Platform:

a.       The parties agree that all remote hearings will occur on a single platform: Zoom Pro.

b.      The Hearing Officer (hereinafter “HO”) will be responsible for the costs of using the Zoom Pro platform. 

4.      Procedures:

a.       Subject to paragraph 2(b), each party shall be responsible for ensuring their own equipment is properly functioning prior to the hearing date.

b.      The HO shall ensure that the court reporter can access the hearing to make the transcript of the hearing.

c.       The HO shall be the only “host” of the proceeding on the chosen platform and will ensure that each party has a confidential virtual break out room.

d.      The HO as host will ensure that the following participants will have access to virtual breakout rooms and that additional breakout rooms are made available for other participants/parties as needed, including:

o   Respondent and Counsel

o   Counsel and Witness

o   Counsel and Counsel

o   Counsel and HO

e.       A party shall be allowed to disconnect from the hearing to attend to administrative matters and the amount of time by a party spent off the record shall be in accordance with the CBA.

f.       Counsel shall make every effort to minimize any delays attributable to inadequate familiarity with the chosen platform or inappropriate equipment.

g.      The parties shall take all practicable steps to ensure the confidentiality of the proceeding. No person should have access to the live video and/or audio feed of the proceeding other than disclosed participants with a right to such access.

h.      The SED official transcription service shall be the sole method of transcribing the proceeding. The SED official transcription company shall only access the audio recording feature of the platform and shall be prohibited from accessing the video recording feed of the platform.

i.        No party, witness, or other participants in the hearing may record via audio or video, transcribe, or photograph the proceeding.

j.        No party, witness, or other participants in the hearing shall use any chat feature of the chosen platform.

           5.      Exhibits:

a.       Proposed exhibits in the format in which the exhibit will be entered shall be emailed, using a secure platform, to opposing counsel five (5) days in advance of the entry of the exhibit.

b.      Counsel for the parties shall confer two (2) days prior to the hearing date to make best efforts to stipulate to the exhibit’s entry. If the parties agree to the entry of an exhibit, the exhibit shall be pre-marked. If the parties are unable to stipulate to the entry of the exhibit, the proposed exhibit shall also be pre-marked.

c.       Prior to the hearing, counsel responsible for entering the exhibit shall email, using a secure platform, to the HO and opposing counsel, any exhibits which have been pre-marked and/or stipulated to. The provision to the HO of a pre-marked exhibit for which the parties have not agreed to entry shall be without prejudice to arguments or objections as to admissibility, weight, and/or relevance. Nothing herein prevents either party from introducing an exhibit or witness that was not pre-marked or identified.

6.      Mediation:

a.       The parties agree to mediate as many cases as possible or appropriate from ATU and TPU.

b.      The mediations shall also be remote and shall be complete by December 21, 2020. A second round of mediation will take place in 2021. Once the first round of mediation has concluded, the DOE will make every effort to identify additional cases for mediation to begin in March 2021.

c.       The arbitrators will be chosen by mutual selection of the parties.

9/22/20 

Beth Norton                                                       
General Counsel                                               
United Federation of Teachers,                       

Local 2                                                                     

AFT, AFL-CIO   

Howard Friedman

General Counsel

Board of Education of the City School District                                                      of the City of New York