Betsy Combier: The UFT Calls the 3-member Panel "Historic" - I Call Them Hypocrites

After I posted on this blog the story of the UFT win and the efforts the UFT made to have a 3-member panel to decide grievances, I received many calls and emails from teachers who were very
 happy with this new procedure, and the fight that the UFT made. The UFT bigwigs said that this is an "Historic Rating Ruling" and that the UFT had fought "so hard " to get it:

"PS 90 Chapter Leader Vicky Giasemis Wins Her Grievance to Change Her "Ineffective" Rating Given by Bully Principal Greta Hawkins

PS 90 Chapter Leader Vicky Giasemis (right), whose Ineffective rating from her principal was overturned by an
arbitrator, and delegate Betty Matos outside the Brooklyn school.

Historic rating ruling

Brooklyn principal forced to change Ineffective thanks to appeals process UFT fought for"

Indeed, the article goes on to say:

"UFT General Counsel Adam Ross said the new protection against supervisory harassment was a major milestone.

“We never got ratings reversed on substance under Bloomberg, but now we have secured due-process rights for teachers in state education law,” he pointed out." 

Rubbish.

Balderdash.

The grievance process has been a scam for years. Everyone knows that.

When I worked for the UFT 2007- 2010, my office was on the 16th floor at 52 Broadway, sandwiched between Gene Rubin and Amy Arundell, both of whom gave me all the ins

Amy Arundell

and outs of UFT trials and tribulations. Randi Weingarten had hired me in August 2007, and told Adam Ross to write my agreement - to work for the UFT 14 hours/week (my choice - I did not want to work full-time). My duties were to help members, particularly those who were re-assigned (in the "rubber rooms").

UFT Attorney Adam Ross

I loved my job, and believed that I was in the right position, as I had been advocating for UFT members since 2003 in the rubber rooms of Brooklyn and Manhattan. Adam told me that I should know the UFT contract, so the staff Director at the time, Jeff Zahler gave me his copy. I memorized it.

Betsy Combier and Chris Callagy (photo by David Pakter)

How did this all start?  A former teacher at the High School of Art and Design, David Pakter, and I ended up speaking on a cable TV show moderated by a mutual friend, Dean Loren. David told me an unbelievable, but fascinating story of hundreds of teachers sitting in rooms called "rubber rooms" awaiting "trials" called 3020-a arbitration. David sneaked me into the rubber room at 25 Chapel Street, and I started talking with the teachers there. David asked me to attend as a member of the public his 3020-a, where he was represented by NYSUT Attorney Chris Callagy.

PICTURED: Back row, from left, are Greenburgh 11 stalwarts Milt Cobb, Richard Rowlands, Hedwig Broetz, Goetschius, Chris Sartory, Matt Magee and Kevin Burns. Missing from photo is Dennis Mosblech. In front row are NYSUT attorneys Chris Meagher, Chris Callagy and Conrad Lower. Photo by Deidre Drohan Forbes.

The arbitrator was Martin Scheinman (see the warm and fuzzy picture below). I like Martin, by the way.

UFT President Mike Mulgrew, Arbitrator Martin Scheinman, NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio 

David's hearing went on for months, and I missed only one hearing day. I sat against the wall and made notes on what the attorneys were saying and doing. I wanted to learn everything there was to learn about this process. Soon, more and more teachers charged with 3020-a asked me to sit in on their 3020-a, and I always said yes. Before this time, almost no one had an open and public hearing. After I started attending, I told everyone to make their hearings public so I and anyone else could attend. More about this later in another post.

One of the rules for 3020-a arbitration hearings if charged with incompetency, was that if you asked for a 3-member panel within 10 days of being charged, you could have a 3-member panel.

On July 4, 2008, a teacher who had just been charged with 3020-a came to my office at 52 Broadway and told me that he wanted a three-member panel. I said, "Great!!"
"You received your charges 9 days earlier, so let's ask Claude Hersh, Assistant General Counsel of NYSUT, for the 3 member panel!! I was very happy to help the member get a 3-member panel, as not many people actually asked for this, and it is a right to have. I looked at his chrges, and they were for incompetency (contrary to what Claude Hersh says in his emails below)

We composed a short letter request for Claude Hersh, got into the elevator, went to the 9th floor, and tried to reach Claude. The receptionis said that he was not in, so we left the envelope and went back upstairs to my office. The member went home soon after.

Approximately 1 hour later, all hell broke loose. Claude sent me a scathing email, telling me that I violated a thousand million unwritten laws (I exaggerate to see if you are still reading) telling the member that he could have a 3-member panel. He sent this email to Randi, Adam, UFT Attorney Carol Gerstl, Mike Mulgrew (being groomed to be President), and Chief of Staff Leroy Barr, for effect.

I was stunned, but I basically am not afraid of anyone, so I wrote Claude back, challenging him to a duel. (not really). My point is, the UFT fought to remove the 3-member panel from 3020-a hearings in order to expedite teacher trials and get the guilty removed from the DOE.

I was told by the UFT VIPs that my advocacy was creating a liability for them, as everyone charged is always guilty.

This is why I don't work for the UFT anymore. I refuse to agree and not fight for rights.

Betsy Combier

Here are the emails:

Myths of Teacher Tenure and 3020-a Hearings

Let me add some more thoughts about my team ADVOCATZ and Education Law 3020-a Teacher Tenure Hearings -
this is not legal advice, as I am not an attorney:

MYTHS

The MYTHS about 3020-a hearings in NYC (not all of them) are in bold black:

1. When you are charged with incompetency, inefficiency and failure to provide adequate pedagogy, etc., you will be terminated and lose your pension

While no one can guarantee the outcome of a 3020-a proceeding, this mantra of NYSUT and some private Attorneys is absolutely false. When you reach the years to get your pension, you get it. period.

The way you win your 3020-a for incompetency is by providing a strong defense.

A strong defense requires:

* written rebuttals of all U-rated observations (mini-observations, formal, informal, and snapshot) created within a few weeks of receipt and emailed to the principal. Edit to make sure the grammar is correct

* transcripts made of any and all secret tapes which provide relevant and necessary facts to support your position.

*case law and correspondence received under FOIL that there are no facts in observations - Elentuck v Green

* submission of documents and testimony on events seen by you that prove misconduct by others at your school, especially if committed by the principal and/or the assistant principals (for a case of retaliation or whistleblowing)

* any and all incidents of non-compliance with special education laws, rules, and procedures

* any and all incidents of non-compliance with laws, rules, and policies governing Title 1 funding and fair student/school funding guidelines

* submission of APPR S-ratings from school years outside of the charged years

* bringing in at least 3, but hopefully more, witnesses to testify for you, your work, and/or your character. Give subpoenas to anyone who is a student, or who works for the NYC DOE.

2.   When you are charged with incompetency, inefficiency and failure to provide adequate pedagogy, etc., you must only discuss the charged years and the specifications, nothing else

This is NYC DOE/NYSUT gobblygook, and not a defense strategy at all. Some private attorneys buy into this plan, but we at ADVOCATZ do not. We bring in WHY the principal made the charges (had to get rid of tenured teachers, wanted to get rid of expensive teachers, retaliation, make a spot for a relative or friend, etc). There are any number of reasons to charge an employee with tenure, none of which have anything to do with what the teacher is actually doing in the classroom

3. NYSUT defends you

An urban myth, that proves "you get what you pay for". NYSUT is free, therefore you get nothing. Actually, there are many NYSUT attorneys who I do like and respect (see #4 for the others), but all must abide by the policy of "stay within the agreed upon boundaries". In my opinion, trying to say that a teacher gave in a lesson plan when a principal says they didn't is not a defense. The legal team must show that the principal said that "there was no lesson plan" (they were not interested in seeing it and didn't ask for it) because they were intent on getting the employee charged with 3020-a and because the principal didn't want him/her in the school, and there are no facts in observations anyway. This is a good defense strategy - in our opinion at ADVOCATZ. Sometimes NYSUT wins. Sometimes everyone wins.

Again, a good defense at 3020-a is submission of all the facts, hearsay, witness testimony and Respondent's papers, rebuttals, tapes, transcripts, notes, and anything else.... and having an arbitrator who will consider these submissions. Several arbitrators currently on the 3020-a panel are absolutely under the control of the NYC DOE Gotcha Squad. You know who you are. So do we.

4. Betsy Combier is an "ambulance chaser, all arbitrators hate her, and everyone who has her on his or her case is terminated" (Maria Elena Gonzalez Lichten to a Respondent assigned to her)

C'mon, Claude (Hersh - Assistant General Counsel at NYSUT - see below) these claims are totally false....I asked you several years ago to stop your attorneys at NYSUT from talking about me as if I was a criminal. I have a CD made especially for me by a Respondent in which Maria Elena started screaming about me and how the Respondent was never to talk with me, never, never, never. He fired her and hired me and one of the ADVOCATZ attorneys for his 3020-a. Then there is the time that I was walking down the hallway where the hearings are held, at 49-51 Chambers Street, 6th floor, when I saw an arbitrator who I liked very much, and I put my hand up to wave hello as I walked by his hearing room. I was looking behind me, so I did not see Maria Elena walking in the opposite direction. Suddenly my hand was smacked so hard it hit the wall. Maria Elena didn't even look back or say she was sorry for hitting me. I think she needs anger management!!! Evidently she despises me for putting a picture of her husband, Stuart Lichten, on this blog. Too bad. See his picture below.

Attorney Stuart Lichten

By the way, I feel a little uncomfortable knowing that the lawfirm of Lichten & Bright P.C.

(formerly Schwartz, Lichten & Bright, but Arthur Schwartz joined Advocates For Justice)

Attorneys Stuart Lichten and Daniel Bright

represents NYSUT's Claude Hersh in the Federal 1983 action filed by teacher Lisa Guttilla. She was forced into resigning by NYSUT Attorney Steve Friedman before her 3020-a hearing began.

And then there is Paul Brown, who, when he saw me on the 6th floor hearing office, told his client that she was never, ever to speak with me and NEVER take my card. She had it already, and fired him that day. And then there's Keith Gross.....

So tiring to have to write about NYSUT attorneys, even more tiring to keep reading about them. The fact of the matter is, I and my team at ADVOCATZ put 100% effort into every single case: seeking witnesses, documents, statistics, outcomes, grades, SOHO reports, and anything else that could be used as a defense to 3020-a charges - which are almost always an exaggeration of the truth or severely wrong and false. It's most certainly a challenge providing assistance at 3020-a, but I cant imagine doing anything else.

Betsy Combier

Three Myths of Teacher Tenure

November 20, 2014 / Samantha Winslow

In my five years organizing with non-union health care workers who wanted to join the union, job security was always one of their top issues.

Firings were arbitrary, they said. Evaluations were based on favoritism. Experienced employees were fired just because they were more expensive.

So it always surprises me to hear regular people repeat the smears against teachers’ job security. They’re parroting the message of those trying to weaken one of the largest remaining sectors of unionized workers in this country.

When it comes to teachers’ right to job security, you have to look at why management wants to get rid of it—if you want to tell fact from fiction. A few common myths:

Myth #1: Teacher tenure means a job for life.

Teacher tenure is not like academic tenure, which is set up through each university. Faculty members jump through many hoops before becoming tenured.

But maybe the differences are beside the point. Both systems lay out clear grounds for dismissal. A teacher or professor can be fired—for cause.

K-12 teachers first won tenure rights over 100 years ago, but it wasn’t through collective bargaining agreements. The push for tenure systems came out of the desire to protect teachers and districts from the politically motivated firings that came with patronage politics.

It became a way to protect women, pregnant teachers, and people of color from discrimination. Also teachers with controversial views—read, “pro-union.”

In fact, today charter school teachers are organizing unions so they too can bargain for, you guessed it, job security.

Myth #2: It’s impossible to fire a tenured teacher.

Research shows teachers are fired more often than federal workers—above 2 percent, compared to .02 percent a year. These figures come from Dana Goldstein’s new book, The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession.

Goldstein also looked at comparable private sector data. These jobs too were more secure than teaching.

If teachers violate policy or can’t do their jobs, it’s up to administrators to make a case to remove them. That’s what due process means.

Myth #3: Teacher tenure is too protective—unlike other sectors’ union protections.

Sure, the process could be tweaked—for instance, expedited, so it doesn’t punish the unfairly targeted and doesn’t draw out the appeals of those not equipped to do the job. (See Union Fights Teacher Jail to read how Los Angeles teachers get caught in a legal limbo.)

But that’s not what they want, the people pushing to get rid of due process.

Look at Chicago, where the unionized teaching force has shrunk by 20 percent, and black teachers dwindled from 45 to 29 percent. Teachers are facing layoffs year after year, while non-union charters grow.

Hard to make the case that teachers have too much job security, isn’t it?

Emboldened by anti-tenure rhetoric, Philadelphia, Chicago, and L.A. have been bypassing seniority provisions in district policies and in union contracts. When budgets are squeezed, districts push to replace veteran teachers with inexperienced hires at the bottom of the pay scale—or not replace them at all, and make remaining teachers do more.

That’s not about what’s best for students. It’s what bosses do, when they can get away with it, in any industry.

When people say, “Teachers may have needed tenure back then, but now things are different and they have it too good,” remember: you could easily replace the word “tenure” with “union.”

Samantha Winslow is a staff writer and organizer with Labor Notes.samantha@labornotes.org

- See more at: http://labornotes.org/blogs/2014/11/three-myths-teacher-tenure#sthash.dyMG5syK.cRFVil0K.dpuf