Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community
Showing posts with label General Counsel for the NYC Department of Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Counsel for the NYC Department of Education. Show all posts

Saturday, July 31, 2021

NY State Commissioner Betty Rosa Suggests Remote Schooling For Children and Their Relatives With Health Issues

Education Commissioner Betty Rosa wrote in a Thursday memo that districts
 “may work with students and families to offer remote options if it is deemed to be
 in the best educational interest of the student.”

Children with special needs have accommodations on their Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) which are funded by the state and federal governments. Having been a parent advocate for 22 years and a parent to four children all of whom graduated from the NYCDOE (one with an IEP), and after winning almost $1 million for parents to attend private schools or programs at Impartial Hearings, I can give an informed opinion on the Department's latest false statement that these students possibly will be staying home and doing remote schooling.

The fact is, the Department wants/needs/spends the federal and state funds, and must monitor these funds closely, for audits and accountability purposes.

I and many other advocates for parents of children with disabilities know very well the fraud going on in NYC public schools in the area of giving the proper services to the kids who need them. Take ICT classes, for instance. ICT classes are supposed to have two teachers in the core subjects: one certified in special education and the other certified to teach general education students. Many principals give the ICT classes only one teacher, or one teacher and a substitute/paraprofessional. It's cheaper to do this. Also, when a parent gets let's say OT (Occupational Therapy) on their child's IEP and their child is supposed to get 3X30 (three sessions/week for 30 minutes) I tell the parent to have the therapist jot down a note of how their child did after each session, or ask the child every day what happened in school. Parents can keep track of missing dates of therapy.

But most parents don't do this, so principals, always mindful of keeping the school budget in the black (not over-spending available funds), may take away one or two days/week of the therapy and give the child one OT session/week, while telling the therapist not let the parents know. This is a business model of special education where the child comes last.

Children don't matter.

We posted this in 2008: DOE Violates Special Ed Law

What happens if the parent finds out? The principal is "horrified", and disciplines the OT person with a letter-to-file, discontinuance, or 3020-a charges. Then it is up to the OT person to defend his/her work, his/her schedule, career, character and life.

There are many, many stories that are the same, with the common denominator being "how much can I get away with"?

In the NYC DOE you can get away with a lot, considering there is no accountability nor investigators to uncover the truth. I have written about this many times before:
NYC Public Advocate Letitia James Sues The NYC Department of Education for Denying Special Education Children Their Services and Accommodations

Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara Scolds the NYC Department of Education For Not Making Schools Accessible To Disabled Children

The only way this might work is to give each parent of a child with an IEP the money for remote schooling, so the parent can use it as they see fit, with proper monitoring.

NYC fights family of disabled Bronx student over pandemic school ‘age-out’ policy by Michael Elsen-Rooney, NY Daily News, July 31, 2021

Ivelisse Ramirez (left) and her daughter, Maria Torres. (Wes Parnell/for New York Daily News)

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, Advocatz.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


DOE mulling remote schooling options for kids in special circumstances

Julia Marsh and Selim Algar, NY POST, July 31, 2021

City officials are considering a remote schooling option for kids with immunocompromised relatives, a source told The Post Friday.

The Department of Education previously said that students who themselves are vulnerable could learn from home — but the city may now extend that offer to kids with family members at elevated risk, the City Hall source said.

News of the proposal drew skepticism from some educators. A Bed-Stuy middle school teacher warned that expanding remote learning eligibility could complicate the resumption of classes in September.

“It’s going to be difficult to know where to draw the line,” she said. “I can see that becoming a headache for principals if it’s not handled properly or clearly.”

Meanwhile, state Education Commissioner Betty Rosa wrote in a Thursday memo that districts “may work with students and families to offer remote options if it is deemed to be in the best educational interest of the student.”

She also urged administrators to “consider the value of online capacity developed in response to the pandemic” in crafting their curriculums this year.

Rosa stressed, however, that state officials “will not require schools that are open for full-time, in-person instruction to provide online or remote instruction” to students.

Some families and teachers union factions have called for the retention of a remote learning option for the upcoming school year.

Asserting that screen learning is inferior to in-person instruction and isolates kids, others have demanded an unrestrained return to classrooms.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has been adamant in proclaiming the end of widespread remote classes — but the emergence of the Delta variant has induced fresh parental jitters about the upcoming year.

“While the nature and extent of COVID-19 and its variants are still dynamic, it is essential that schools receive whatever guidance the Governor and the DOH intend to offer about the 2021-2022 school year as soon as possible …,” Rosa wrote in her letter to superintendents.

Parents and staffers have also been at odds over City Hall’s requirement of masks inside DOE schools in the fall.

Citing ongoing coronavirus concerns, some have backed the mandate and argued that the pandemic remains a threat inside classrooms.

Others have resisted the push, countering that COVID-19 cases in city schools were minimal last year and that masks hinder learning and socialization.

The DOE insisted Friday that the remote format introduced last year was completely defunct.

“As we announced in May, we will welcome back all students in September and there will not be a remote option,” said spokesperson Katie O’Hanlon. “Our home instruction program, which benefits a small number of children who are medically unable to attend school, will continue as it did pre-pandemic and as always, we will work with families to tailor the instruction based on the medical needs of each child.”

Backers include City Council education chair Mark Treyger, who said the “DOE should offer a fall remote option for kids not of vaccination age” earlier this month.

Sunday, October 11, 2020

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

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

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