UPDATE on NYC DOE HR Manager Peter Ianniello's Worst Mistake Ever - Sending Out 400 Social Security Numbers

Below is the latest email from Peter Ianniello to the 400 paraprofessionals whose identities and private information (social security numbers) were sent out on February 15, 2017 to all 400 paraprofessionals who are taking courses from various educational institutions as part of the Career Training Program.

Mr. Ianniello insists that the social security numbers of the 400 paraprofessionals were sent only to the 437 paras, and were not posted on any website.

Sigh.

I think you should find another job. Private sector maybe. There must be some entry level or middle management employment opportunity you would be qualified for. Or, you can retire and make cabaret shows your full-time gig.

Betsy Combier

From: "Career Training Program" <CareerTraining@schools.nyc.gov<mailto:CareerTraining@schools.nyc.gov>>
Date: Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:29 PM -0500
Subject: URGENT Career Training Program Matter *PLEASE READ CAREFULLY - IMPORTANT - ACTION REQUIRED*
To: "Career Training Program" <CareerTraining@schools.nyc.gov<mailto:CareerTraining@schools.nyc.gov>>


[Division of Human Resources  HR School Support  Scholarship Incentives and Speech Programs  65 Court Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201][cid:image003.jpg@01D28DE7.392518E0]

Dear Colleague,

As you are aware, due to a clerical error, your personal information may have been shared with other paraprofessionals enrolled in the Career Training Program. We notified you of this issue last week, and indicated that we were working to ensure that your personal information was not compromised.  Please note the following:

  *   The information was not published anywhere in the DOE or publicly on any website.
  *   The information was shared within the context of the email sent to a little more than 400 paraprofessionals in the program, and not all paraprofessionals.
  *   We have attempted to contain this information as much as possible from our end.

As discussed in the previous email, the NYCDOE has partnered with  LegalShield, an identity theft protection service, to offer you identify theft protection (IDShield Individual).  We have enrolled you into this program with an effective date of February 15, 2017, the date of the incident at no cost to you.  Any issues relating to credit or identity theft which occur on or after that date will be serviced by LegalShield.   LegalShield has a great reputation of providing quality service that we can depend on to ensure that your personal information is not misused or compromised.

The NYCDOE has provided LegalShield with a limited amount of your personal information – enough to enroll you in their IDShield program.  The program includes a variety of services such as: Identity Theft Protection, Identity Restoration, Privacy Monitoring, and a $5 Million protection guarantee. Additionally,  you will receive another email from LegalShield, to your  DOE email address, which will ask you to complete the full registration process by activating your IDShield account.  This will activate additional program functionality such as: Credit Monitoring, Credit Inquiry Alerts, and a Quarterly Credit Score Tracker. Furthermore, as part of the program, you can benefit from LegalShield’s Member Perks program offering you a number of discounts from a variety of major products and services.  It is imperative that you take the necessary steps to complete this process as soon as possible after you receive the email from LegalShield.  It is expected that you will receive this email by the middle to the end of next week.  However, please be assured that you are already enrolled and protected retroactively.

To view details on the IDShield protection package that the NYCDOE is purchasing on your behalf, please visit:

https://www.idshield.com/best-id-protection

Please feel free to contact the Scholarship Incentives and Speech programs office via telephone at (718) 935-2449 with any additional questions or concerns regarding this matter.  Thank you for your patience as we resolve this issue, and on behalf of the NYCDOE, please accept our most sincere apology.

Yours truly,
Peter Ianniello, PhD
Executive Director
HR School Support

posted on February 19, 2017

NYC Department of Education Human Resources Manager Peter Ianniello Sent 400 Names, Social Security Numbers and Other Private Information Via Email on February 15, 2017

re-posted from Parentadvocates.org:

I believe it is time for Peter Ianniello to retire or be fired.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
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

Peter Ianniello

Mr. Ianniello, a cabaret singer wanna be, may pay dearly for his office error., sending out via email 90 pages with the names, social security numbers, and other private information of 400 paraprofessionals who are currently matriculated at various colleges in the New York City area . All the people whose private information was sent out are students in a Career Training Program (CTP) to help them improve their skills.

NYC Department of Education Human Resources Manager Peter Ianniello Sent 400 Names, Social Security Numbers and Other Private Information Via Email on February 15, 2017 to each of the 400 paraprofessionals listed.

He made a big mistake.

We know that the NYC Department of Education is not very good at keeping private information, private. The way they treat any information is random. If they decide they want to keep something secret, they will. If someone files a Freedom of Information request for public records at a school, like a personnel file, number of students who graduate, etc., the requester of this information will most probably wait two or more years to get the data. Personal whims matter, evidently.

On February 18, 2017, I received a call from a paraprofessional in the DOE Career Training Program at 65 Court Street in Brooklyn. Peter Ianniello is in charge, a man who really wants to be a cabaret singer. Paraprofessionals who work for the Department must, according to new rules in place since September 2016, matriculate into a degree bearing program after completing 60 credits as part of the Career Training Program. (CTP).

The problem is, a para told me, the rules keep changing all the time, and many are disgusted. Paras must do 100 hours in 5 years, and pay $30 for each two hours., I was told.

This para was very upset that she and 400 other paras had received an email with 90 pages of names, social security numbers, matriculation information with course work, money paid, and schools at which the matriculation occurred. 
What they were supposed to receive were the new rules for the Career Training Program. Below is the email sent by Adrienne L. Gilyard at the NYC DOE Scholarship, Incentives and Special Programs. The attachment does not have the 90 pages, only the first page, broken into 3 parts, with the names and social security numbers redacted:

From: Gilyard Adrienne 
Date: Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:30 AM
Subject: Letters of Matriculation
To:

Please see attached correspondence and respond as indicated.

Kindest regards,
Adrienne L. Gilyard, MSA
Tuition/Default Coordinator
Scholarship, Incentives and Special Programs
NYC Department of Education
65 Court Street, Room 508
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Office 718-935-4272
Fax 718-935-4262
Email: AGilyard2@schools.nyc.gov

paras-socialsecurity

Peter ianniello realized the huge mistake and sent out a letter telling the 400 paras to kindly delete the email containing personal information, and "sorry that this may have caused you some concern". He added that he has set up all 400 paras with Legal Shield to protect their identities. Do you hear desperation? I do. Paras that believed him, called Legal Shield and were told that no information has been received and they should call some other time.

Adrienne Gilyard also sent an email urging everyone to delete the email sent in error.

Here is the email Ms. Gilyard SHOULD have sent:
CTP Matriculation Letter

Then there are the hiring practices at the Department....you have to know someone, or have to prove your worth by keeping any wrong-doing secret. Managers and principals are required to keep their schools and underlings "doing well". failure means your job. Yet hiring practices often use the same managers, even if they have proven themselves to be unethical or worse. Take NYC Chancellor Carmen Farina, for instance. In 2000 I asked her where the $225,000 was that the children at PS 6 (where my youngest daughter was a student) and PS 198 were supposed to get from the Annenberg Challenge For the Arts. She verbally attacked me (I wish I had taped it!) , I reported her, and she was removed as principal in 2001. She then became Superintendent of District 15 in Brooklyn, where she made people angry, then she was moved to Deputy Chancellor of the Department, when she was exposed as part of two scandals. She was told to retire or be fired. She retired. Then Bill de Blasio, NYC Mayor, brought her back and appointed her Chancellor. What the heck?

So, most administrators and managers fudge the data. A class has bad grades? After the teacher is sent to a rubber room on his/her way to a 3020-a trial, grades are changed in order to reflect "improvement" and/or excellent work. The people who know that this goes on but say nothing, stay in their jobs, and get promoted up the ladder. They are the "in" crowd. Until, that is, they whisper the truth to someone, and then they are whisked away to a rubber room.

That is exactly where Peter Ianniello belongs.

The paras are preparing Notices of Claim. Stay tuned, DOE!  

The Talented Peter Ianniello, Executive Director of Human Resources at the Department of Education, and Also Cabaret Singer

Aren't we all excited to see that Dr. Peter Ianniello also sings?

Please let me know when your next gig is, Peter, and I will bring friends and family -

All the best,

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice

NYC Life: Shows, Discounts, Conferences, Good Causes

BY WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND TOWN · OCTOBER 23, 2015

LINK

We love autumn in New York and there are so many great things going on right now our head is spinning. Here a few events – shows, discounts, conferences, and good causes –  we’ve handpicked just for you tomatoes.  

OMG! Then there is:

I was a Teenage Substitute

“I Was a Teenage Substitute”: What does Substitute Teaching Mean Today?

Peter Ianniello, PhD, Executive Director of Human Resources at the New York City Department of Education, as a teenage substitute.

LINK

By: Amy Vracar, Partnerships Manager

Recently, at TeacherMatch’s Solutions Summit 2015 in Miami, Florida, I had the pleasure to hear keynote speaker Peter Ianniello, PhD, Executive Director of Human Resources at the New York City Department of Education (DOE), discuss substitute teacher hiring in his presentation titled “I Was a Teenage Substitute.”

With his opening sentence  “Once upon a time in a land known as the Bronx, a cute, Italian 16-year-old teenager longed to be a substitute teacher,” the audience had a good laugh. But more importantly the audience was engaged in discovering the answer to the question, “What do we know about substitute teachers?”

With Peter’s experience, along with our own knowledge of K-12 HR, we can provide meaningful insight into today’s substitute teachers.

Not just a warm body.According to ERIC Digest, members of the K-12 school community view substitute teachers as baby-sitters, objects of pity, or just a warm body in the classroom. Rarely are substitute teachers seen as effective educators.

Credentials for substitutes may include certificates, criminal background checks, college transcripts and health certificates, but vary between school districts. Yet, U.S. teachers take off an average of 9.4 days each school year and the average student has a substitute teacher in the classroom for more than six months of their entire school career.

As a result, it is critical to hire substitute teachers that will positively impact student achievement in the classroom. School districts do this by hiring full-time substitutes that fill classrooms in the same district schools, or fill in for a specific subject area. Sometimes these substitutes may assist with curriculum development and lesson plans

Support systems for substitute teachers.According to “Expectations and experiences of Substitute Teachers,” an article from The Alberta Journal of Educational Research that explores the expectations of support for substitute teachers, “Not only are substitute teachers kept on the margins in schools, they also encountered barriers building communities of support among other substitutes. As outsiders, these substitute teachers were marginalized and isolated in the school, which translated into them being denied access to vital knowledge of school culture.”

While a substitute’s work often goes unnoticed, substitute teachers fulfill a central role in K-12 classrooms. Districts that make substitute teaching exciting and provide personal satisfaction for subs create a more enriching working environment, which can and often times is reflected in their performance in the classroom.

Peter presenting at TeacherMatch’s Solutions Summit 2015 in Miami, FL

At the New York City DOE, Peter and his team assessed the needs of their substitute teachers. They surveyed approximately 6,920 substitutes and the results indicated areas of professional development (PD) requested by their subs. These areas were classroom-related education workshops, personal growth and development, and professional and behavioral courses. Consequently, New York City DOE will use this information to create professional learning programs and a PD library that includes relevant and current articles, classroom management tools, policies and procedures, and research, which support the needs of their substitute teachers.

All told, substitute teaching today is about utilizing the strengths of substitutes to fill classrooms with individuals that are just not a warm body, and to provide substitutes support programs that develop their personal and professional growth. To learn more about how Peter Ianniello, and his team are accomplishing this in one of the U.S.’s largest school districts, download Peter’s presentation from our 2015 Solutions Summit.

ALERT: Peter Ianniello Makes All His YouTube Videos Private

Suddenly Peter Ianniello doesn't like to be on YouTube as much as I thought. Or, he doesn't want to be on MY blog on YouTube. Or whatever.

Anyway, all of Dr. Ianniello's YouTube appearances are now private. (By the way, is this you, Peter?)

Peter, we enjoyed watching you describe Department policy!! C'mon, be brave. Put them back out to the public. I guess I will have to file a FOIL request. Below is my former post with the live YouTube videos.

Many of his comments are included in his Substitute Teachers Handbook from the National Council on Teacher Quality:

LINK



Here is an updated version 2011 with Lawrence Becker:

LINK

and the latest version.

In The Road To Broad, this is what Dr. Peter Ianniello and Vicki Bernstein had to say about teacher quality and training in NYC:

"New York City Department of Education
Leaders in New York City have similarly reformed the department's human resources office to align with its school improvement efforts. "In the past, HR was kind of an 'add on' department," says Vicki Berstein, deputy executive director of the division of human resources. "We had responsibilities for finance, administration, facilities, safety—HR was one of more than 10 things we were responsible for." Since 2003, however, Chancellor Joel Klein and his leadership team have recast the role of the human resources office to reflect a keen focus on strategic human capital.

Over the past four years, the office has worked to shift from a transactional entity focused primarily on filling vacancies to a "quality broker" that works with schools to find the best person for a specific job, whether a teacher or a principal. "For a long time, the focus had been on hiring and placing teachers ourselves," says Berstein. "We wanted to focus instead on serving the school. So we've had to change our systems to help us do a better job of matching candidates with schools." New York started by re-staffing the central recruitment office with recruiters who had teaching experience rather than a civil service background.

The HR office also established a new placement process to allow principals more authority over who works in their school. Instead of reviewing applications only for basic eligibility, HR staff now screen each new teacher applicant according to a common rubric that was developed based on input from principals across the city.

"We make sure candidates have all the proper credentials so that principals aren't wasting their time interviewing people who they can't actually hire," says Peter Ianniello, director of recruitment and selection. "But we are also more selective about the teachers we are bringing in and recommending to our schools." Each candidate who passes the initial screening is placed in a pool that is made available to school leaders online. Based on candidates' strengths and interests, principals can schedule interviews only with those applicants who they believe would be good matches for their schools.

NYCDOE's human resources office is also analyzing data about new recruits to help improve the department's future recruitment and selection strategies. HR staff have begun surveying new teachers and principals about which elements of the hiring and placement process work for them and which need to be improved. HR is also collecting information about new teachers—from how they came to the DOE and were placed, to their college GPA and matching this information with the teachers' impact on student learning to gain insight about the characteristics of recruits who are most effective in the classroom. In the future, this information will allow the HR office to more strategically target recruitment efforts and refine screening and selection to help ensure that all schools are staffed by the highest-quality teachers.........

New York City Department of Education
In New York City's early stages of reform, many department-wide initiatives—such as required curricula in reading, writing and math and school-based parent coordinators—were designed to stabilize and bring coherence to a fragmented system. But with the evolution of the department's reform efforts, Chancellor Joel Klein has now deliberately transferred authority from a central bureaucracy to the school level. New structures within the department, innovative support systems and contract relationships with individual schools are all designed to support the department's vision of empowerment and accountability.

"Our goal has been to move from a system that had been very centrally managed to a system that is built on a backbone of accountability," says Klein. Between 2003 and 2006, 10 regional centers supported schools across the city, helping to unify the system of more than 1,400 schools. In 2007, these regions gave way to a network of school support organizations and service centers, nimble organizations that provide schools with many of the same services and supports that had previously come from the central bureaucracy.

School support organizations across the city now compete to offer schools help with instruction, educational programming, scheduling of the day and year, and professional development. Business service centers offer schools assistance with operational issues such as payroll, vendor contracts, facilities issues and budgeting. "Principals can look around at different systems and purchase the one they want," explains Lawrence Pendergast, a high school principal. "The district literally gives us money and says, 'you pick out the support that you think will work best for your school.' That's real honest empowerment for a principal."

NYCDOE's leaders have taken empowerment one step further through new performance contracts with principals across the city. The contracts spell out specific performance goals—for academic progress, student behavior, and financial health—that schools must meet each year. Those that have consistently low student achievement over time may face leadership changes or closure. In return for this accountability, principals can exercise greater autonomy over instructional methods, assessments, professional development, the school day and the budget.

New York's new organizational structure—together with a dynamic support system and greater autonomy at the school level—combine to create an environment that allows effective leaders to do what is necessary to achieve the next level of dramatic improvement in student achievement."

*******

Below is my previous article, with the links to Dr. Ianniello's YouTube videos which were suddenly removed from public view:

FACES: Peter Ianniello, NYC DOE Executive Director, Human Resources

  Dr. Ianniello likes being on YouTube.

   www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od2EdY2PLUQ

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2dR7AeUdj4

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=T44eaQsv-Nc

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5e0HPztSH8

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhNVIdV73VA

     www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DtHBC2IkZs

NYC DOE Peter Ianniello	Fordham Preparatory School,    Fordham University
Education	Fordham University

Peter Ianniello

eSchool Solutions | Peter Ianniello - NYC Department of Education | SFE Client Testimonial

Published on Sep 20, 2012

Peter Ianniello from the NYC Department of Education discusses how the features of SmartFindExpress has helped to mandate their special education paraprofessionals. Learn more about eSchool Solutions teacher absence management programs by visiting our website http://www.eschoolsolutions.com/.

  

In 2007, Dr. Ianniello was cited for a violation of the Conflicts of Interest Board rules.

Executive Director, Human Resources at NYC Department of Education

Greater New York City Area

Education Management

Experience Executive Director, Human Resources NYC Department of Education December 1997 – Present (17 years 1 month) Director of Advancement Fordham Preparatory SChool January 2004 – December 2007 (4 years) Director of Alumni Systems Management Fordham University October 1987 – December 1995 (8 years 3 months) Managed all aspects of alumni data, gift records and acknowledgments, and reports for both the offices of Development and Alumni Relations as well as other University users.

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,