Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community
Showing posts with label NYSUT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NYSUT. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

The Unlawful Randomness of Arbitration in NYC


How does it happen that teachers are being fired for not getting the COVID vaccine, no exceptions?

Oh, I know everyone reading this says "Wait! She is incorrect, teachers can have a hearing on religious exemptions and medical accommodations."

Yes, everyone - we are all right. The arbitration won by the UFT to have the medical and religious exemptions put into place is only as good as its implementation. What happens if the outcome of all hearings on the exemptions for any employee is denied? This is called constructive denial and ends up in the same pile as those applications which were denied without any hearing. Except, a couple of attorneys and arbitrators made some money.

What if...indeed.

Then there is the winning CSEA  (Civil Service Employees AssociationPetition filed on behalf of 5,600 members who work in the State's court system, to PERB and the Supreme Court, which has just decided that a mandatory vaccine requirement without proper negotiation is contrary to the rights of the members:

CSEA Wins Improper Practice Charge Against the NYS Unified Court System For Unilateral Imposition of a COVID-19 Vaccine Requirement Without Proper Negotiation

When there is something that just doesn't seem right, there is probably something that isn't right, like employer bias in arbitration.

Just sayin'...

Betsy Combier

President and Founder, ADVOCATZ
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

The Unlawful Randomness of Labor Arbitration 3020-a in New York City

ADVOCATZ, October 17, 2021

From Editor Betsy Combier:

When I started my voluntary study of the compulsory arbitration known as “3020-a” in 2003, I believed right from the start and still do believe, that the procedures used to prosecute the charges violate the accused person’s Due Process rights to a fair and complete hearing. This egregious action is compounded by the biases and lies of the lawyers and their witnesses brought to testify or promote false “evidence” under the color of law. 3020-a arbitrators, one in each case, sit in judgment of a tenured employee of the NYC DOE and can exonerate, fine, suspend from employment without pay or terminate any charged person brought before them. The United Federation of Teachers, their legal adjunct agency NYSUT, and the New York City Department of Education run these hearings in such a way as to deny the charged employee their rights under New York State law. See more

and,


Education Law 3020-a Arbitration Up-Close and Personal: The Case of Teddy Smith

Saturday, May 13, 2017

The Unlawful Randomness of Labor Arbitration 3020-a in New York City

re-posted from Parentadvocates.org:


From Editor Betsy Combier: For 14 years I have observed and worked on the labor arbitration known in New York City as 3020-a. 3020-a arbitrators, one in each case, sit in judgment of a tenured employee of the NYC DOE and can exonerate, fine, suspend from employment without pay or terminate any charged person brought before them.The United Federation of Teachers and the New York City Department of Education run these hearings in such a way as to deny the charged employee their rights under New York State law.

On this website I have reviewed countless cases of arbitrator abuse and worked as a paralegal to overturn some of the worst (see the cases of Lisa Broad, where I assisted Attorney Candace Deamer, and David Suker, where I assisted Attorney Maria Chickedantz; see here as well). These are two of the 35 Appeals I have assisted with where New York State Supreme Court Judges overturned the decision of the arbitrator based on this decision being "excessive" for the crime or misconduct sustained at the hearing.

The trouble with all of this is that the process is random.

Every hearing is unique. I know, because I have attended/worked on at least 60 if not more, and I have reviewed hundreds of decisions of arbitrators and, before 1994, the Commissioner of New York State Department of Education. I find the randomness fascinating. How did one arbitrator find that a teacher was guilty of slamming a child against a wall to remove them from a fight in the classroom and give a $7500 fine, while another gets terminated for the same act, or less?

The fines, suspensions and terminations are not uniform or set to any standard. This is unlawful, because tenure in New York State is protected, public policy. There is a high standard for termination, and the arbitrators write their decisions often to get away with doublespeak on how egregious the charges were, to try to reach a justification for termination that they were told by a DOE person before the hearing began that they had to find. The case of Peter Principe went to the Court of Appeals on the issue of bias by Arbitrator Stuart Bauchner against him, and, as Peter insisted he was innocent of the misconduct, he would not be remorseful. Peter won .

Oh yes, folks, the permanent panel in New York City lends itself to all kinds of legal abuse. In other parts of New York State outside of New York City, when an tenured school employee is charged, these charges immediately go to a vote in an Executive Session of the school board on probable cause. As tenure is a property and liberty right in New York State, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment covers any unlawful seizure (I am not a lawyer, this is my opinion). have you been re-assigned, and told you must leave the school building immediately, leaving all your personal possessions in your classroom or elsewhere? You must get your belongings back or this is theft, and you should file a complaint with the police, not with the principal.

"C. Seizure of Property

A seizure of property, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in the property."


The Fourteenth Amendment:

"Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Try your best to find out if your stuff has been moved, where its been moved, and what is there. Request a visit to gather up your stuff, and if denied, file a grievance and then go to the police with a list of your property you dont have.

Any arbitrator who agrees to take a case handed to them, randomly - not - by the NYC DOE and the UFT, knows that they must meet a Constitutional Standard in their decision for/against penalty in each case.

Many arbitrators don't care, and do what is fair. My favorite arbitrator of recent years is Eugene Ginsberg. I believe that he was the most thorough, fair arbitrator on the panel. He was fired in September 2016.

He told me that if that was because of his decisions, so be it. See his decision in the case of Ann Legra.

Where some arbitrators will terminate anyone with so-called "excessive" absences, Arbitrator Ginsberg did not.

As I wrote above, some arbitrators have a problem being fair, and go along to get along with the Department of Education in order to stay on the permanent panel. When you are in a hearing, you can spot these arbitrators a mile away. I will write about them in a later post.

New York State Supreme Court Judge Lucy Billings has a problem with the randomness of the New York City 3020-a arbitrators in their penalties, as she wrote in the case of Moreno-Lieberman, which I use in all my closing arguments:

"IV.THE INVITATION TO ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES

In fact, the absence of any specific guidelines for the imposition of fines in teachers' disciplinary proceedings shocks the conscience and is a deficiency to be addressed by respondents or a legislative body. While respondents and their designated Hearing Officers unquestionably are authorized to impose fines on teachers for disciplinary offenses, the decisionmakers must do so fairly, not arbitrarily. General Elec. Capital Corp. v. New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, Tax Appeals Trib., 2 NY3d 249, 254 (2004); Abraham & Strauss v. Tully, 47 NY2d 207, 213-14 (1979); 164th Bronx Parking, LLC v. City of New York, 20 Misc 3d 796, 804 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2008). Neither the Education Law, nor the Chancellor's Regulations, nor any other code fixes any "primary standard" or articulates any objective test or gauge, General Elec. Capital Corp. v. New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, Tax Appeals Trib., 2 NY3d at 254; Nicholas v. Kahn, 47 NY2d 24, 31 (1979); 164th Bronx Parking, LLC v. City of New York, 20 Misc 3d at 805, to guide respondents' or Hearing Officers' exercise of authority and discretion in their assessment of monetary penalties. Big Apple Food Vendors' Assn. v. Street Vendor Review Panel, 90 NY2d 402, 407-408 (1997); Nicholas v. Kahn, 47 NY2d at 28, 33-34; 164th Bronx Parking, LLC v. City of New York, 20 Misc 3d at 805. See Big Apple Food Vendors' Assn. v. Street Vendor Review Panel, 90 NY2d at 405-406. Their assessment of penalties that they are charged to administer may be upheld if the assessment is rational and not excessive, e.g., Goodwin v. Perales, 88 NY2d 383, 392 (1996), yet no statute or interpretive regulation articulates a standard or gradation against which to measure the rationality or excessiveness of a monetary penalty. Nicholas v. Kahn, 47 NY2d at 33-34; Levine v. Whalen, 39 NY2d 510, 518-19 (1976); 164th Bronx Parking, LLC v. City of New York, 20 Misc 3d at 805-806.

In sum, the absence of any statute or implementing regulation to guide the evaluation of fines to be imposed allows unfettered, standardless, arbitrary administrative decisionmaking. 164th Bronx Parking, LLC v. City of New York, 20 Misc 3d at 806. By delegating unbounded latitude to respondents and Hearing Officers in these administrative actions, the statutory and regulatory scheme leaves their decisions subject to untrammeled discretion. Big Apple Food Vendors' Assn. v. Street Vendor Review Panel, 90 NY2d at 408; Nicholas v. Kahn, 47 NY2d at 28, 33-34; 164th Bronx Parking, LLC v. City of New York, 20 Misc 3d at 806; Dawson v. Village of Spring Val., 151 Misc 2d 128, 134 (Sup. Ct. Rockland Co. 1991). See C.P.L.R. § 7803(3)."

So what is a teacher supposed to do who is charged with 3020-a? Fight. Don't  settle, resign or disappear. The charges will follow you for the rest of your career. But be wary of anyone who belittles you, your charges, or does not have experience in NYC 3020-a. NYC is a minefield with bizarre statements made on a consistent basis, which must be addressed on the spot, at the hearing. The DOE wants their witnesses to lie, if that is what it takes to terminate a charged employee. Catch the lie, and have your representative squeeze out the truth in cross examination. The record made is what you work with on appeal.

In my opinion there are NYSUT attorneys who know what to do, but don't do work on any case if at all possible; some NYSUT attorneys do a minimum amount of work but are reluctant and must be pushed, and then there are NYSUT attorneys who seem to work diligently, but nonetheless will not get all your requests (medical, witnesses, exculpatory evidence) into the record, which in my mind is absolutely required, if you are to win at the 3020-a or in appeal.

The process in NYC starts out on the wrong foot when, in the charging papers, the Notice of Determination of Probable Cause Pursuant to Education Law 3020-a, has no date for the Executive Session of the school board (in NYC the Panel For Educational Policy) required by Education Law 3020-a(2)(a). The reason is that the NYC Department of Education never allows or schedules an executive session for the NYC school board, because they don't want it.

Really,  and they get away with this in NYC because.

Just because you don't want to do something does not mean that you can allow a law to be ignored, but that is exactly what the NYC DOE does, and has done. In every case that I work on, we - the Attorney and I - submit a Motion To Dismiss the charges based on this procedural error. The arbitrator always dismisses this motion. But we use this in an appeal to the Supreme Court, and as I wrote above, we have overturned 35 decisions of arbitrators to date.

We have no secret on winning 3020-a. In every case the standard is to be respectful to the arbitrator but not to accept any Department nonsense without vigorously objecting, pointing out lies, submitting documentation about violations of law and UFT rules (there are always many in every case) and submit a dynamite closing argument that shows the arbitrator that the legal team - the Respondent, Attorney, paralegal - mean business, and will take any penalty seriously (and appeal, get media coverage of the arbitrator, etc.).

In sum, what I'm saying is that NYC 3020-a is a random and arbitrary mess, but it is entirely possible to clear the name of a charged employee , or avoid termination, by going to a decision of the arbitrator. The Respondent (charged employee)'s legal team MUST work together, sharing the transcripts as the hearing moves forward, and constantly working through the lies and violations of law and contract presented by the DOE. Then you can win.

Consultations are always free, and confidential.

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


Thursday, April 13, 2017

The NYC Department of Education Teacher Observation Scam, Redux

The NYC Department of Education Teacher Observation Scam 
by Betsy Combier, Editor, Parentadvocates.org. (original posted 2013)
LINK
        
In the United States, there is very little respect for public school teachers and their abilities, and even less respect for tenure rights. For many years, the media painted a picture of a person with tenure as sitting in a classroom asleep, reading a book, knitting, etc, because they had a "job for life".

UFT Contract: Shackling Principals

Politicians and media went on the offensive to end tenure.

One of the biggest changes that were seen in New York City was the criminalization of what the New York City administrators called "incompetency", by setting up a panel of arbitrators and attorneys whose job was to put on trial an educator who forgot a lesson plan, whose skills at engaging students was less than 100% perfect, and/or the educator was not able to control the little angels in his/her class. This group, created in 2007, is called the Teacher Performance Unit ("TPU") and handles all cases where an educator is charged and served 3020-a arbitration papers for incompetent service.

What all the characteristics of "incompetency" have in common is that these are subjective judgments and opinions, not facts. (See Elentuck v Green, Supreme Court, Second Appellate Division, 202 A.D.2d 425; 608 N.Y.S.2d 701; 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1956 (1994))

When an educator receives the charges, or specifications, he/she has already been determined by the Department as guilty. The Department pursues the charges as if the 3020-a were a criminal trial, and the educator a convicted criminal. In order to win these proceedings, an educator must fight well, as pro se or with an attorney who knows how random and arbitrary the hearings are. NYSUT is not always willing to do the work to provide an adequate defense, unfortunately.

I have watched and worked in 3020-a hearings for 14 years, and I am fascinated by the Attorneys for the Department. They try, sometimes successfully, and sometimes not, to argue that any administrator can enter a classroom at any time, unannounced, stay for 15 minutes and draw up a report on the teacher which could get him/her fired, based on what was supposedly seen in the classroom. Principals lie, knowing they will never be held accountable for what they say except if they DONT follow the prepared script.

Under the Danielson Rubric, a set of standards where educators must be perfect in all classes, every day, and every minute, anyone can be found guilty of anything if an arbitrator makes the subjective opinions gathered in 15 minutes into "facts". That is the problem.

The defense at 3020-a consists of arguing bad faith, malice, and budgetary concerns as a way to unravel the lies in the observations. This is hard to do, but doable nonetheless. Never resign under any circumstances. And, if you read
"resign in order to retire", ask the DOE what that means before you retire.

Teacher Tenure rights - which in New York State remain public policy - no longer exist if we let this type of "subjective evaluation in order to terminate" to continue.

Why Observation Reports Should Not Be Used To Terminate a Tenured Employee by Betsy Combier


A useful guide on the evaluation process is below:
"Legal Aspects of Evaluation" by James Rapp, 1985.

And see Teacher Discipline by Katharine B. Stevens, PhD.

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

Here is the article I posted in 2013:

When a NYC DOE employee is served 3020-a papers, the moment is traumatic. Often, the specifications are false claims of absences which were due to many valid reasons, claims of extreme misconduct and/or incompetency, all created by some attorney at the Gotcha Squad.

For years, Mayor Mike Bloomberg and the NYC DOE he controls, with the full knowledge and consent of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), have pushed out all teachers with tenure who are disabled, too tall, too black, too outspoken, too....something, with "U" ratings which are meaningless. The DOE will, in fact, change all these "U"s to "S" ratings if you irrevocably resign from the DOE within a very short time.

What they dont tell you, the tenured teacher, is that you are already on the "Ineligible/Inquiry List" or No Hire List, so you will never be hired by anyone anyway, whether or not you take the deal and exchange a fake U for an S on your record.

The city has a secret weapon to rub out incompetent teachers — an eraser.
NYPOST
LINK

If a teacher who is deemed a dud agrees to quit or retire before a termination trial, the Department of Education will wipe out all of her “unsatisfactory” or U ratings and — voilĂ  — change them to S for “satisfactory,” thus helping her land a job elsewhere.

In an e-mail obtained by The Post, a DOE lawyer offers the deal to a teacher with U ratings two years in a row, grounds for dismissal.

“The department will provide, upon request, a neutral letter documenting her employment with the DOE and will convert her U ratings to S ratings in the DOE computer system.”

It adds, “Thus if she were to seek employment outside the DOE, her computer employment records would show only ‘satisfactory.’ ”

The teacher is accused of failing to carry out lessons, sloppy record keeping and poor classroom management, among other charges.

Former Chancellor Rudy Crew once called the shuffling of lousy principals from school to school “the dance of the lemons.”

Some educators share a disgust for a likewise dirty deed — the U whitewash.

“They’re making a mockery of the entire system,” a veteran teacher said. “If someone is found incompetent, it should go on their permanent record. The DOE should not be Monty Hall on ‘Let’s Make a Deal.’ ”

Betty Rosa, a member of the state Board of Regents and a former Bronx superintendent, called the document doctoring “unethical . . . a lie.”

But a hearing officer, who recently oversaw many such deals for suspect teachers idling away in departmental “rubber rooms,” hailed the method.

“It saves time, it saves money, and it gets guaranteed results,” he told The Post. “It’s morally right, because New York kids will not have to suffer with a teacher who’s allegedly incompetent. She’s out. She’s gone.”

Future employers, he said, can probe a teacher’s past.

The debate comes as the DOE and the United Federation of Teachers wrangle over a new evaluation system to rate teachers from “highly effective” to “ineffective.”

If they don’t agree by Jan. 17, the city will forfeit $250 million in state funds, Gov. Cuomo has warned.

In the 2010-11 school year, the DOE charged 78 teachers with incompetence, it says. Hearing officers agreed to terminate 18 after long administrative trials. Other teachers kept their jobs with lesser penalties, such as paying a fine or taking a course

But 49 settled and resigned or retired, bringing the total booted to 67.

Last year, the DOE charged 88 teachers with incompetence. It won just 11 dismissal cases but tossed 39 teachers who quit in settlements.

Betsy Combier, a paralegal who helps defend teachers in discipline cases, blasted the backroom maneuvers.

“It says to teachers, ‘We didn’t mean it when we brought you up on charges. Let someone else worry about how bad or good you are. We just want you out,’” Combier said.

But educators grab the deal to avoid the risk of being found guilty, which becomes public record.

A teacher who recently quit in exchange for erasing her two U ratings was accused of weak instruction, a lack of lesson plans and a disorganized classroom.

“She’s looking for work right now — anywhere. She’s going on interviews,” Combier said.

The DOE did not answer repeated requests for comment.

susan.edelman@nypost.com

COMMENTS

Betsy Combier · Advocate/Paralegal at Advocatz · 405 subscribers
The Bloomberg process was set up so that a Supervisor could "observe" a staff member, say he/she is not competent, not "effective", not (blank), and give him or her an unsatisfactory rating without any accountability for whether it is true or not. Then the so-called 'incompetent' is brought to 3020-a, where the same observations are accepted as facts, and boom the teacher is fired. The Gotcha Squad doesn't want to spend time and money giving these people due process, so they dreamed up the settlements in order to get them out faster, while still keeping total control. The goal is to get people out, not evaluate.

Jeff Kaufman · 89 years old
You have only a part of the story. What about supposed "U" rated teachers who are hired back to the DOE under different licenses? Or teachers who agree to transfer to becoming an ATR in exchange for the removal or guarantee that a U rating will disappear. In a large system you would always expect to find anecdotal evidence of wheeling and dealing but a large part of the U rating system is institutionally corrupt. When you can be given a U rating for reasons other than being unsatisfactory you can see how deep the corruption is. I fear whatever new evaluation system is in place as the hidden schemes will be more deeply embeded.

Joel Moss · Top Commenter
You constantly write about a teacher evaluation system by Jan.17 or all that state funding will be lost. So what, N.Y. won the ridiculous Race to The Top funding a couple of years ago and no one really knows what happened to the money nor is there any evidence it improved education in any way.You constantly blame the UFT for wanting a fair evaluation system, but the mayor and his cronies want a system which relies on state test scores when many teachers in the system are not involved in state wide testing in language and math. How are they to be judged?
In a system in which your mayor, supposedly in charge of education, compares the UFT to the NRA there is no real chance for fair agreement on anything.

Carol Wolf · Mason Gross School of the Arts
It takes two years of full-time study to earn a teaching credential, at a cost of about $20K, and then there's that year of teaching for no pay under a mentor. So, during that time no one notices that the teacher isn't competent? And can you promise that this evaluation system won't be used simply to cashier a teacher (say, the ones that have made it to the top of the pay scale)? That's what the tenure system was created for: to keep administrators (who make three times the salary, by the way) from firing experienced teachers because they now cost more money to pay. Or simply because they were annoyed by them. Schools full of cowed teachers, wow, who thinks that is a good idea?

Got a teacher you don't like? Load her class with all the worst kids (it's called a "loaded class") and then charge her with not keeping order, and being incompetent because she doesn't teach them anything. This system is ripe for abuse. Guess why tenure was such a good idea when it was put in place?

So, okay, if this is such a good idea, where is the equivalent evaluation system for doctors, lawyers and other professionals? Police, for example? Or, hey, I know, how about school administrators, and Congressmen? I know there's some kind of secret law these days that you can't even look at evaluating bankers, not even when they commit egregious fraud. But hey, we sure can beat up on the teachers!

So, under this kind of system, what kind of people are going to enter this former "profession" now?

Vincent Powell · Top Commenter
It's the system set up by teachers unions. if in fact incompetency was fired at will....like so many other jobs, then no rubber rooms, no administrative trials. Money spent on this foolishness would go toward educating our youth. And as the unions have always said..."its for the children".

Doreen Meyer · Top Commenter · Servite HS Detroit, MI
I've seen this happen not in schools, but in hospitals...where subpar nurses and doctors get shuffled around and edged out with the promise of an 'adequate' rating...and this was in an 'open shop'. It really has nothing to do with unions, but with the incompetence of supervisors, administrators (and their supporting boards of directors) who have neither a clue about how to examine workers nor how to document problems so that they'll 'stick' at termination. Without that, litigation begins...union or not. What we need is more training and 'gumption' in the upper echelons, which would get them out without 'bargains'.

Michael Reed · Top Commenter · Owner/ President at Self-Employed Consultant/Writer
Doreen - Doesn't make sense. Why would "open-shop", at-will employers (incompetent or not) shuffle around subpar med-pros? If there's no penalty for firing, what is their motivation - cash bribes or something? It seems they would be doubly motivated to fire because of potential legal liability to their business/employer and being held personally responsible & liable too? Please explain.

Doreen Meyer · Top Commenter · Servite HS Detroit, MI
Despite having an 'open-shop' hospitals are risk-averse. Physicians, particularly, will litigate terminations or 'lockouts' as being damaging to their 'good name' or as a 'trade restriction.' It takes a tremendous amount of documentation; most hospitals don't want this information to potentially end up in an open court, as it may also open them up to liability for continuing an MD whose practice has been known to be subpar. Nurses will also litigate, and often know where institutional secrets are 'buried', giving them leverage. It does sound as if they should be able to terminate at will, but they don't.
Good administrators--ones who know how to handle the process with little to no 'fallout'--are few and far between. Such actions are also usually highly 'political' and require a high level of skill and commitment to pull off.

Peter Goodman · Indiana University
Between 80-90% of cases in the civil and criminal courts are resolved through a plea bargain, why should teacher discipline cases differ... accusations do not mean a finding of guilt...

Ron Archetti · Top Commenter
Peter Goodman - The difference is that I'm not paying the defendants in civil and criminal courts to educate my children nor do I trust them with my child's care. It is exactly that kind of twisted mentality which you display with that ignorant comment that is the problem.

Park Windsor · Top Commenter
Can't wait till Bloomberg is over his ill gotten 3d term.

Glenda Barker · Top Commenter
As if this is the first lie told by these people... just get rid of them. They do more harm, then good.

Denise Fryburg · Top Commenter · Hunter College
Teachers are being given U ratings for just that reason, to make them resign. It has little to do, in most cases, with performance, but how much they make. No one should buy into this.

Robert Dunn · Top Commenter · Fordham University
This is just like the Catholic Church recycling pedophiles. If a teacher is not proficient, passing them off to another district is a disservice to the families of the next school.

Michael Reed · Top Commenter · Owner/ President at Self-Employed Consultant/Writer
Catholic Church and Peds? How about the NEA/AFT Peds with Teaching Certificates who get passed on by Schools to others? I've seen it twice that I'm certain of, and probably more often when it was better covered-up. News is full of both male and female teachers who've abused their students in mulltiple districts for years.

Ron Archetti · Top Commenter
As an employer, I would now be suspect of ANY applicant that listed the DOE under previous employment on their résumé. Hiring any one of them would be like buying a pig-in-a-poke.

William Lee · Top Commenter
What a system. These "unsatisfactory" teachers can now go somewhere else to "teach". This is what's wrong with unions - always protect the bad members.

Paul Girgenti · Top Commenter
we need to start firing them for failing our children.

Baz Clark · Works at University of Pikeville
Too bad common sense isn't!

Pua Tokumoto
As a retired school principal I can honestly say that an excellent teacher is the biggest indicator of a child's success in school. We are with a child at least 6 hours a day, five days a week, in a structured environment. This is powerful and a great teacher can influence a child sometimes much more than a parent.
Unfortunately, poor teachers hurt not only children but good teachers as well. I've had experience with the union trying so hard to get rid of really poor and incompetent teachers to no avail. Teachers who were passed around from school to school. Teachers who took up a good chunk of my resources when trying to change behavior by sending them to workshops, had mentor teachers work with them, etc. The school districts know this to be so true yet strong unions are there to back them up. We need teachers unions to work for the child as well as for the teacher. The unions must realize that the public is sick and tired of incompetent teachers who are still allowed to "teach" and yet students are not learning. We are headed for disaster as a country unless the unions work with the school district in upgrading the caliber of teachers. Most teachers want to teach and play a strong role in the lives of children.
Work with the school district to keep great teachers and kick out the poor teachers. Our kids deserve no less.

Michael Reed · Top Commenter · Owner/ President at Self-Employed Consultant/Writer
Gotta' love this! NYC is chicagoing! They bribe Education Professionals (NEA/AFT members) into leaving with a promise of passing them on to some other unsuspecting sucker school district with falsified documentation. How nice, how professional and who is being held accountable for this fraud?

Peter Hirsch · Port Washington, New York
I'm sure this was a concession to the Teacher's Union, the most Evil Union On The Planet. Creates the most waste and disfunction of any organization known to Man.

Scott Manlin · Subscribe · Managing Member at Bonvivino Capital, LLC
Gotta love government

Abul Rahman · Rutgers University - College Avenue Campus
Sick

Cindy Right · Subscribe · Top Commenter
They'll just get a job at another school.....just passing the buck again. Libtards will never let anyone fix a problem.....evil butt holes.

Jan Snipes · Las Vegas, Nevada
Doesn't this just perpetuate the problem? This is why good administrators who work to change poor teachers are made out to be the bad guys.

Valerie Hofheins · University of Phoenix
...and then those teachers apply to CCSD..

Katherine Walden · Works at I'm retired
I'm one of those teachers, Val. I had a terrible eval my very first year in Prospect, and I was terrible. When I got hired I told them that it was my first year and that I would need help. I got nothing but a bad evaluation. They changed it to a satisfactory one after I agreed to not return. So when CCSD hired me, I was that teacher. But, I got better. I had help--Vandolah, Christine Jannette, Jan Snipes, even you, Val. Teachers need help being better.

Charlie Riley · Top Commenter · Electronics Supervisor at Uncle Sam
They will qualified to teach honors classes in Chicago or Detroit.

Saturday, December 31, 2016

NYSUT Changes To Tenure and the Tenured Teacher Removal Process in 3020-a....What a Scam

I remain perplexed how NYSUT defends teacher rights. They (NYSUT, New York State United Teachers) say that defending tenure is their goal, yet go along with extending the time for a teacher to get tenure, and make it harder for good teachers to be tenured if these employees are working under a principal from hell who can easily give a rating of "ineffective" based upon nothing but malice.

There are no facts or statistical data in observation reports, says the Court in Elentuck v Green. We use that in our 3020-a arguments.

But in New York City, the Department of Education and NYSUT go along with the process set up by the Department's Office of Legal Services, which we know is mandating a speedy trial, literally. You are charged quickly, then brought to a hearing quickly, told by your NYSUT attorney that one or two witnesses - and no character witnesses - is fine, or that you do not have to testify at all (which will lead to automatic termination in almost 99% of cases), and a quick finish is best. I've written about that, see the "Gotcha Squad" and the 3020-a Arbitration Newswire.

I could not disagree more. Look at the Notice of  Determination of Probable Cause on
Education Law 4020-a Charges, below. I removed the teacher's name from the document, and left the principal's name for a reason. Rushell White "found" probable cause on this teacher at her school, charged her with incompetency, but kept her in her classroom teaching throughout the 3020-a hearing, saying "I could not find anyone to replace her".

All charged employees receive this form, hot off the press in April 2012. Before that, New York State Education Department sent out the entire 3020-a Law in a document titled "APPENDIX A". This single piece of the charging packet is to an independent non-lawyer like myself the most incriminating piece of information in the 3020-a process. If you look closely, you will see in the first sentence "Please be advised that at a meeting in executive session on the above date the school district identified herein has found that there is probable cause for Education Law 3020-a charge(s) against you. But right above this paragraph, in the box where it says "Date of Executive Session", there is no date. Why? Because the Panel For Educational Policy never met, never voted, never found probable cause. Education Law 3020-a has not been followed. New York City's Department of Education does not want any outsiders telling them that they did not find probable cause, so there is no PEP member voting on probable cause. And the Bylaws say that Chancellor Carmen Farina does not have a vote on the PEP, the NYC school board. Therefore, she can NOT delegate a vote on probable cause to anyone. Yet there it is.

Here, Rushell White signed off on the Notice, so she found probable cause. Of course she did. She follows the process I call the "Portelos Way" (named after workplace bully and cybernut Francesco Portelos) where, if anyone challenges her or even says 'hello' the wrong way, zoom, you are charged with something you did not do. In order to support this bizarre violation of procedure and law in order to get a teacher charged, NYSUT and the DOE simply omit all mention in the 3020-a of the procedures mentioned here. If anyone does bring the subject up, as in a Motion To Dismiss which is always submitted in cases I work on, the DOE attorney comes up with the argument that the 3020-a in NYC was changed, so all charged employees are proceeding under Education Law 2590 instead of 3020-a.

No one is told about this, but just look at the paperwork yourself. Many charged employees never do read their charging papers and sadly rely on others, like their attorney. Mistake.

And we hear that the principal/Superintendent "determined" probable cause because they were delegated that right by the Chancellor. Yep, up pops a Delegation Letter, signed by Carmen Farina (and before her, Cathie Black, Dennis Walcott, and Joel Klein). In any random case, where the errors are brought up about the charging process, a delegation letter suddenly is brought in in a day or two signed by the principal or Superintendent. There is a stack in the back. Anything to keep the myth alive. Totally without supporting law. Or, we have heard that the principal/Superintendent has "found" probable cause for charges by having an Executive Session in his/her office, with him/herself.

I wish I could say I was kidding.

Why is the UFT and NYSUT going along with this ridiculous stuff? Your guess is as good as mine.

Here is the TENURE page on the UFT website:
Tenure

Appointment and New York City licensure
When you are permanently hired to fill a vacancy, you are “appointed” to that position. Your appointment must match your state certification by both subject and level.
As part of this appointment process, the DOE automatically generates its own teaching license. This New York City license must match your New York State certificate subject area and, in addition, the grade level of your NYC teaching assignment. The NYC license specifies the area in which you will be considered for tenure decisions and accrue seniority; the latter can be very important if there is excessing in your school. While there are no more New York City paper licenses, there are still license/appointment areas, each with a different code.
When you begin teaching, the DOE notifies you by personal email of your license/appointment area and includes the license code. Make sure you are appointed in the subject area and division level (i.e. elementary, middle or high school) that matches your state certification. You can only be appointed in an area that matches your state certificate. It can be a little confusing, however, as New York State certification often includes different grade ranges than those of a New York City license. For example, a New York State English or math or social studies certificate will state it is appropriate for grades 7-12 (middle and high schools). A New York City license, however, differentiates between high school and middle school, depending on your appointment.
Unfortunately, “out of license” teaching assignments are not unusual. Since some teaching positions are harder to fill than others, newer teachers are often assigned to teach out of their license areas, in a different level, subject area or both. While such “out of license” assignments don’t affect your salary, they could affect your ability to attain tenure and your right to keep your position if excessing occurs. Teachers who have taught “out of license” could find their probation period extended if the principal or superintendent thinks there is not enough experience in, or evidence of effectiveness in, the appointed license area.
You can be appointed under only one license at a time (even if you have multiple certifications), and your license area of appointment determines the area in which you will be granted tenure. Sometimes your certification permits you to be appointed under another license; however, if you agree to switch to a new appointment, you are on probation again, and there may be other ramifications. Contact your UFT borough office before you switch your license. In any case, your salary does not change when your license changes. Be sure to check with your payroll secretary that your appointment date is correctly entered in the computer.
If you believe your appointment, New York City license, or teaching assignment does not match your state certification, speak to your chapter leader at once. Your chapter leader can help you discuss this with your principal and get your program corrected as soon as possible. Or you can call your UFT borough office immediately and ask to speak to an educational liaison.
The probationary period
State law requires teachers and other staff appointed after July 1, 2015 to serve a four-year probationary period after being appointed to a position. During that time, supervisors are supposed to observe you several times a year and evaluate you in areas including planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction and professional responsibilities.
At the end of four years of acceptable service and depending on your ratings, you may be entitled to the due process rights of a tenured teacher. In order to be eligible for tenure (if you were appointed after July 1, 2015), you have to receive three effective or highly effective ratings and cannot be rated ineffective in the last year.
If the DOE intends to discontinue, that is terminate, your service at any time prior to the completion of your probationary period, you must be given 30 or 60 calendar days’ notice. If you are discontinued, call your UFT borough office, which will assign an advocate to assist you in fighting the termination.
Sometimes a principal will ask you to sign a document stating that you agree to an extension of your probationary period beyond the four years. If this occurs, contact your chapter leader or your UFT borough office immediately so we can arrange, if necessary, for an attorney to review the document in order to protect your rights as a probationary educator.
There are two ways to reduce your probationary period:
·        If you worked as a regular substitute in the same license and in the same school level you may be able to reduce the normal four-year probationary period by up to two years. This is called Jarema Credit and you should apply if you think you are eligible. The application form is online at the DOE's website. Put Jarema Credit into the search bar.
·        Another way is called “traveling tenure.” If you received tenure in one license area and elect to take an appointment in a new license area or if you were tenured in another school district in New York State, you should apply to have your probationary period reduced to three years.
If you think you are eligible for either of these options, or have any questions, contact your UFT borough office.
Tenure
Under New York State law, appointed educators achieve tenure after completing a probationary period and fulfilling all requirements for the professional certificate.
In New York City, tenure is granted in your license appointment area, which is why it is of utmost importance that your license code match the subject and level in which you are teaching. Having tenure means you may not be disciplined or terminated without due process.
As a tenured member you have the right to a hearing before an independent arbitrator regarding any charges brought against you. This due process right protects you from being fired for personal, arbitrary or political reasons.
As described above, the process for determining whether or not you will get tenure is rigorous, and tenure is not automatic at the end of the probationary period. You must:
·        Complete all your state certification and city licensing requirements, file an application and receive professional certification;
·        Have a record of acceptable service during your probationary period; and
·        Be recommended for tenure by your principal.
The UFT encourages members to be proactive in preparing for their tenure decision. Here are some steps you can take throughout your probationary period:
·        If your principal has not initiated a meeting about your tenure decision, ask for an appointment to find out where things stand and what is expected of you. Do this even if your tenure decision is a year or two away so you have time on your side.
·        Become familiar with The Danielson Framework for Teaching and the multiple sources of evidence for each factor that principals will use to prepare their tenure recommendations.
·        Put together a professional portfolio of your effectiveness as a teacher. Organize your portfolio with a table of contents to separate the various components. Include a cross section of your work but be selective in choosing the materials to include. Add a brief explanation or context for each piece of evidence you include and be sure to show how you differentiate to accommodate children with diverse abilities.
·        Every spring, the UFT offers workshops in the borough offices to help teachers prepare for tenure. Check the union newspaper, New York Teacher, and the UFT website for a schedule of tenure workshops.



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


Also, when a DOE employee is served charges, the first papers received have procedural errors which astonish, as they seem to be in violation of the very rules seen below, which are spelled out in tenure law Education Law 3020-a.


August 20, 2015
Fact Sheet 15-15: Changes to tenure and the tenured teacher removal process
Source: NYSUT Research and Educational Services
Updates Fact Sheet No: 15-15   September 2015
Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015 includes a number of amendments to New York State (NYS) Education Law that address teacher preparation and certification, tenure, annual professional performance reviews (APPR), testing reduction, school receivership, and teacher removal.  This NYSUT Fact Sheet will provide an overview of the specific changes affecting teacher tenure and removal.  
NYS is widely recognized for its exemplary teaching force and has earned high marks for its rigorous standards and credentialing requirements — typically ranking among the nation’s top ten[1]. Tenure is just one of the safeguards NYS has put in place to ensure every student has an effective teacher. A teacher must earn tenure after successfully completing a probationary period of effective teaching, oversight and evaluation.  A tenured teacher then is entitled to a fair hearing before being dismissed — a basic right to due process. 
Tenure also provides teachers freedom to advocate for their students without fear of reprisal. Because tenure exists, teachers in NYS can speak out freely on issues such as over-testing; cuts in academic programs; elimination of art, music, foreign language and other programs; and inappropriate programs and services for students with disabilities.
Without tenure, working under the constant threat of arbitrary firing would have a chilling effect on a teacher’s professional judgment and create an environment that would erode, not enhance, educational quality.
This NYSUT Fact Sheet contains:
·        A summary of the recent changes to tenure;
·        Frequently asked questions and answers regarding tenure;
·        A summary of changes to the teacher removal process;
·        Frequently asked questions and answers regarding teacher removal;
·        Advice to local leaders on this topic; and
·        Additional resources
Summary of Tenure Changes
·        The new requirement begins with those teachers appointed on or after July 1, 2015.
·        The mandated changes to tenure enacted by Chapter 56 in 2015 specifically tie the granting of tenure to §3012-c and §3012-d of NYS’s Education Law regarding teacher and principal evaluation law.
·        The probationary period is extended from three to four years for untenured teachers. Boards of Education will no longer be able to specify an end date to the probationary period and teachers will be notified at their appointment that tenure will depend on their APPR ratings.
·        A teacher seeking tenure would need to attain an effective or highly effective rating for at least three of the four years. These ratings do not need to be consecutive.
·        A teacher rated ineffective in the fourth year cannot receive tenure at that time. A Board of Education can agree to extend the probationary period an additional year (thus offering a fifth probationary year).  The law does not prohibit additional years of probation.
·        A tenured teacher in a school district or BOCES who obtains employment in another district will now have a three year probationary period, provided the teacher did not receive an ineffective in their last year at the prior school.
·        School boards will be able to terminate probationary teachers without regard to their Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) rating.

Questions & Answers Regarding Tenure

Q: What is tenure?
A: Tenure is simply a statutory right to due process that was first enacted for New York City teachers in 1897 and expanded to cover Union Free School districts in 1937. Teachers were uniquely vulnerable in a public school setting. There were few, if any policies in place to protect teachers from being fired. Without job protection, teachers could be fired for literally any reason. Race, faith, gender and favoritism were some of the most common reasons for firing teachers before 1885, as was their political affiliation. Women could even be fired for becoming pregnant. Teacher unions in NYS did not negotiate the tenure laws. Tenure law was established in State Education Law decades before teachers’ unions were recognized in NYS.

      In 1945, tenure law was amended to extend basic due process rights to all public school teachers. The tenure law has been amended several times in the last 40 years.


Q:  Who is covered by the new tenure law and when does it begin?
A: The four-year probation in Chapter 56 applies to all classroom teachers, building principals, all other members of the teaching and supervisory staff, teaching assistants, and pupil personnel services providers appointed by a Board of Education on or after July 1, 2015. The linkage between the APPR and granting or denying tenure only applies to classroom teachers and building principals.  Section 30.-1.3 of the Regulations define classroom teacher as a teacher in the classroom teaching service as defined in §80-1.1 of the Regulations: Classroom teaching service means teaching service in the public schools of New York State, which requires certification pursuant to this Part (80), excluding pupil personnel service or administrative and supervisory service.
·        Teacher aides are not covered under the new tenure law.
·        Pupil personnel service providers are not included in the definition of the classroom teaching service.  Section 80-1.1(b)(30) of the Regulations defines pupil personnel services providers to mean school psychologists, school counselors and school social workers.

For Example:

1.     If you were appointed by a board of education on or before June 30, 2015 with a September 1, 2015 start date, you would have a three year probationary period.
2.     If you were appointed by a board of education on or after July1, 2015 with a September 1, 2015 start date, you would have a four year probationary period.


Q:  What happens if a tenured teacher is appointed to a new tenure area in the same school district?
A: The probationary period is now three years instead of two.


Q: What happens if a teacher has tenure in one district and obtains employment in another district in NYS?
A:  The probationary period in the new district is now three years instead of two.

Q: What if a teacher has served in a district for at least two years as a regular substitute classroom teacher?
A:  The new law says that the probationary period would be two years if the teacher received an APPR rating in each of the two years of substitute service.

Q.  Could boards of education grant tenure after three years (rather than four years) and three effective or highly effective APPR ratings?
A:  It is not clear. According to Chapter 56, tenure determinations are dependent upon receiving an APPR rating of effective or highly effective in the fourth and final year of probation.  However, it could be argued that a school board could grant tenure prior to the fourth year, based on other language in the statutes that was not amended.

Q: What happens if a teacher receives an ineffective APPR rating in the fourth and final year of probation?
A:  The board of education may extend the probationary period for another (fifth) year. If the teacher successfully appeals the ineffective rating, the teacher would be immediately eligible for tenure.  The law does not prohibit additional years of probation beyond five.

Q: What is 3020-a and how does it relate to Due Process?
A: Education Law § 3020-a governs the disciplinary procedures of tenured teachers and administrators (except superintendents) and provides due process. Due process consists of the minimum procedural requirements that each public school district must satisfy when dismissing a teacher who has attained tenure. Due process is one of the core foundations of our judicial system. Similar safeguards are in place to ensure police officers, firefighters and other public servants at the state and local levels cannot be arbitrarily dismissed based on allegations alone, or for politically motivated reasons. Due process and tenure are NOT a job protection for life.

Q. What are the due process requirements concerning charges of incompetence or misconduct under § 3020-a?
·        Charges in writing filed with the school district during the school year.
·        Within five days of receipt of charges, the Board of Education determines if there is probable cause to bring disciplinary proceedings.
·        If yes, a written notice sent to the employee detailing charges, the penalty imposed if employee waives hearing, and the employee’s rights, sent by certified or registered mail.
·        The employee may be suspended with pay (there are exceptions, see below).
·        Within 10 days of receipt of charges, the employee will notify the district in writing if they request a hearing.
·        The district will notify the Commissioner within 3 (working) days of the need for a hearing.
·        If the employee waives the hearing, the employing board determines the outcome in 15 days.
·        If the employee demands a hearing, such hearing is held before an impartial hearing officer.  Different rules apply to the hearing itself depending upon the nature of the charges.

Summary of Changes in the Tenured Teacher Removal Process
Hearings to discipline or remove tenured teachers in NYS for alleged incompetency or misconduct are commonly referred to as the 3020-a process, referring to Section 3020-a of Education Law which establishes rights to due process for teachers who have obtained tenure.  Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015 amended Section 3020 and 3020-a and adds a new Section 3020-b.  The following changes are effective with regard to charges brought on or after July 1, 2015.
Revocation of Teaching Certification
Chapter 56 amended Section 305 of Education Law to extend the duty of the Commissioner of Education to revoke the certification of a teacher upon certain criminal convictions.  In addition to such automatic license revocation for sex offense convictions, the Commissioner must now also revoke certification of any teacher convicted of a violent felony committed against a child when the child was the intended victim.
Disciplinary Procedure Changes
·        Hearings on all charges brought on or after July 1, 2015 will be heard by single hearing officers.
·        At the pre-hearing conference the hearing officer will set a schedule and manner for “full and fair disclosure” of the witnesses and evidence to be offered by the employee as part of the defense (in addition to discovery to be disclosed by the employer as required by current law).
·        A child witness under the age of fourteen may be permitted to testify through the use of live two-way closed circuit television if the hearing officer determines that the witness would suffer serious mental or emotional harm if required to testify in person.
·        Hearing officers must give serious consideration to the penalty recommended by the employing Board.  If the penalty is rejected by the hearing officer, the rejection must reflect reasons based upon the record as expressed in a written determination.
·        For charges of physical or sexual abuse of a student:
·        A teacher charged with physical or sexual abuse of a student will have an expedited hearing by a single hearing officer commenced within seven days after the pre-hearing conference and completed within 60 days after the pre-hearing conference.
·        A teacher may be suspended without pay when charged with physical or sexual abuse of a student pending an expedited hearing. (This provision does not apply to New York City which has different rules governing suspension without pay in the NYCDOE/UFT contract.)
·        When a Board of Education decides to suspend a teacher without pay, a probable cause hearing before an impartial hearing officer must be held within ten days to determine whether the decision to suspend without pay should be continued or reversed.  Upon a finding that probable cause does not support the charges or suspension without pay is grossly disproportionate in light of all surrounding circumstances, the employee would receive reimbursement of withheld pay with any applicable interest.
·        Suspension without pay can last no longer than 120 days from the decision of the Board of Education to suspend without pay.
·        If the hearing officer finds in the employee’s favor as a final determination at the conclusion of the expedited hearing, the employee would receive reimbursement of withheld pay with any applicable interest.

Streamlined Procedures for Removing Teachers Rated “Ineffective”
·        Chapter 56 repealed the previously-established expedited hearing process for two consecutive ineffective ratings, and added a new Education Law §3020-b which establishes procedures for expedited hearings for teachers or building principals charged with incompetence after receiving either two or three consecutive ineffective overall APPR ratings under Education Law §3012-c and/or 3012-d.
·        All charges brought on or after July 1, 2015 will be heard by a single hearing officer.
·        Two consecutive ineffective APPR ratings constitute “prima facie” (Latin for "at first sight”) evidence of incompetence which establishes just cause for removal.  In such a case, a district may choose to file a charge of incompetence.  Such evidence can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the employee is not incompetent in light of all surrounding circumstances.
·        Three consecutive ineffective APPR ratings constitute “prima facie” evidence of incompetence which establishes just cause for removal.  In such a case, a district must file a charge of incompetence.  The evidence of three consecutive ineffective ratings can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the calculation of one or more of the teacher’s underlying components of the APPRs was fraudulent.  Fraud in this instance shall include mistaken identity. 

Questions & Answers Regarding Teacher Removal

Q:  What is the timeline for a 3020-a disciplinary hearing?
A:  Generally, the process is as follows:


Q: What are the circumstances that can result in an expedited hearing?
A:  There are four categories of expedited hearings:
·        Expedited hearings upon revocation of a teaching certificate;
·        Expedited hearings on charges of misconduct constituting the physical or sexual abuse of students;
·        Expedited 3020-b hearings based on two consecutive ineffective APPR ratings; and
·        Expedited 3020-b hearings based on three consecutive ineffective APPR ratings.
Q:  What is the expedited 3020-a timeline for charges arising from the revocation of a teaching certificate?
A:  The process is as follows with specific expedited timelines highlighted in bold:
See the 3020-a Hearing process in a nutshell - but this is not followed in New York City. In NYC, speed is of essence, so rights of teachers are trampled.  
Q:  What is the “streamlined” timeline for teachers receiving two consecutive ineffective ratings in the new 3020-b process?
A: A school district or employing board may bring charges of incompetence against any classroom teacher or building principal who receives two consecutive ineffective APPR ratings.
·        All such charges brought against a tenured teacher must be in writing specifying:
·        the charges in detail;
·        the penalty imposed by the board will be dismissal if the employee does not request a hearing; and
·        the employee’s rights under 3020-b, forwarded to the accused employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by personal delivery; and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board.
·        The school must have developed and substantially implemented a Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP) following the first evaluation in which the educator was rated ineffective and the immediately preceding evaluation if the rating was developing under Education Law §3012-c and/or 3012-d.
·        The parties jointly select the hearing officer within seven days after receiving a list of potential hearing officers from the Commissioner. (The Commissioner must appoint the hearing officer if the two parties are unable to agree.)
·        The pre-hearing conference must be held within seven days after the appointment of the hearing officer.
·        The hearing must begin within seven days of the pre-hearing conference.
·        The final hearing date must be within 90 days of the employee’s request for a hearing.  Adjournments beyond the 90 day period may be granted if the hearing officer determines that the delay is due to circumstances beyond the control of the requesting party and an injustice would result if the adjournment were not granted.
·        The hearing officer must render a decision within 10 days of the last day of the hearing.
·        Within 15 days of receipt of decision, the school board must implement the decision.
·        Not later than ten days after receipt of the decision, an appeal may be made to the State Supreme Court to vacate or modify the decision.

Q: What is the “streamlined” timeline for teachers receiving three consecutive ineffective ratings in the new 3020-b process?
A: A school district or employing board must bring charges of incompetence against any classroom teacher or building principal who receives three consecutive ineffective APPR ratings.
·        All charges brought against a tenured teacher must be in writing specifying:
·        the charges in detail;
·        the penalty imposed by the board will be dismissal if the employee does not request a hearing; and
·        the employee’s rights under 3020-b, forwarded to the accused employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by personal delivery; and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board.
·        The Commissioner of Education selects the hearing officer, not the parties.
·        The final hearing date must be within 30 days after the date of the employee’s request for a hearing. Adjournments beyond the 30 day period may be granted if the hearing officer determines that the delay is due to circumstances beyond the control of the requesting party and an injustice would result if the adjournment were not granted.
·        The hearing officer must render a decision within 10 days of the last day of the hearing.
·        Within 15 days of receipt of decision, the school board must implement the decision.
·        Not later than ten days after receipt of the decision, an appeal may be made to the State Supreme Court to vacate or modify the decision.

Q: How are “days” defined?
A: Days are calendar days unless specified otherwise.
Q: How is “teacher” defined?
A:  For disciplinary purposes, a teacher is any professional educator holding a teaching certificate including but not limited to a classroom teacher, teaching assistant, pupil personnel services professional, school administrator or supervisor or superintendent of schools.

      For incompetence procedures based upon the APPR process, it would only include classroom teachers subject to the APPR process under Section 3012-c or 3012-d of the Education Law.
Q: What are “Cadet Rights”?
A:  The 3020-a hearing process is the sole method by which tenured teachers can be disciplined in NYS, and the statute provides that no teacher can be compelled to testify at the hearing.  Consequently, it has been established that a teacher can refuse to answer questions, without being found insubordinate, during an investigation that the teacher believes could lead to such disciplinary action.  Known as Cadet Rights, this principle was established through a disciplinary case involving a tenured teacher who was found guilty of misconduct through a 3020-a hearing.  However, the decision of the hearing officer to dismiss a charge of insubordination was appealed by the school district.  The insubordination charge was related to the teacher’s refusal to answer questions during an investigation prior to the hearing  In the appeal decision, the Commissioner of Education agreed  that a teacher need not answer questions in any pre-hearing investigation which precedes a 3020-a hearing.   The decision was in turn affirmed by the courts.

Advice to Local Leaders
·        Continue to look for additional analysis and information through NYSUT’s Leader and Member Briefings and presentations at regional conferences.
·        Specific questions about tenure and teacher removal as a result of disciplinary issues or the APPR process should be referred to your NYSUT Labor Relations Specialist (LRS).

Resources
·        Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015 can be found at:
See Part EE for the Education Transformation Act of 2015.  Within Part EE, Subpart D details the teacher tenure provisions and Subpart G details the teacher removal provisions.
·        Emergency regulations implementing these new statutory changes were adopted by the Board of Regents.  An overview of the changes and the amended regulations can be found at: http://www.regents.nysed.gov/common/regents/files/meetings/Sep%202015/915hea2.pdf



[1] Education Week, Quality Counts 2012.