Betsy Combier Asks FOIL Officer Joe BaranelloTo Clarify the Fees of $29.95/hr For F11,129



I decided that I should clarify with Records Access Officer Joe Baranello exactly what I would pay for, and who I would be hiring, (at $29.95/hr) in order to obtain the secret rules handed out at the Plenary meeting for the DOE/NYSUT/UFT folk who represent members at 3020-a:

Joe Baranello

Dear Mr. Baranello,

I am responding to your email dated March 25, 2015 in which you stated I must pay $29.95 for the preparation of digital records above two hours that relate to my request in F11,129. See my post on my blog:

Betsy Combier Files a Freedom of Information Request to Obtain the Information Given Out At The NYC DOE February 24, 2015 Secret Meeting on 3020-a Hearings

http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2015/03/betsy-combier-files-freedom-of.html

You ask what the maximum amount is that I am willing to pay to the person you hire to prepare these records and for the storage media.

 I need more information in order to give you my response:

1. I need to know the number of records responsive to my request and the amount you charge to me for full access before I decide what I am willing to pay. 

2. I also need to know exactly what records you will charge me for - emails? agenda? invitees? This meeting included several groups, NYSUT/UFT, DOE, and Arbitrators , therefore this meeting was not only for Department of Education employees. What redactions are relevant to Public Officer's Law 87? Please be specific. I also understand that you can charge me 25 cents for each page - do you add the $29.95/hr to this, and where are you authorized within the Law to do this, if you charge the $29.95/hr in addition to the $.25/page?
 

3. I need to know who the person is who will be paid by me at $29.95/hour. Please give
me this person's full name, job title, and daily duties. I also need to know whether or not there is any person willing to do those same duties at $8/, or $9/hr, and whether you sought to find any such individual, and where you posted the job description.

4. In your demand that I pay for the cost of storage media, please describe exactly what you mean by this. What is the "storage media" that I have to pay for? Please give any and all details.

5. Please describe to me what costs are involved in reproducing records that are maintained electronically.  

6. Please tell me why I have to pay a person $29.95 to forward electronic documents via email to me, as you no doubt have people on staff who are already being paid to assist you in granting FOIL requests.

7. Please describe what "internal communications" you refer to, as the February 24, 2015 meeting was not a meeting of DOE employees, but also UFT, NYSUT, and arbitration panel members.

 Please take note that I am willing to pay for the records of the meeting held by your colleague Courtenaye Jackson-Chase at Tweed at 4PM of February 24, 2015 and that I intend on writing the Committee on Open Government to ask for an opinion. I advise you not to close this request, I am simply asking questions to clarify your very vague response.

 Please reply to this email in its entirety no later than 5PM on friday, April 17, 2015, so that I can receive all the documents/emails/powerpoint/video/presentations on or before April 22, 2015.

 Thank you for your prompt response.

 Sincerely,

Betsy Combier

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials
Editor, Parentadvocates.org

 

South Bronx Blog: Obtaining NYC DOE Personnel's Emails

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Your Guide To Fun With Google Mail

LINK

Francesco Portelos has been MIA since December 23 and I figured I might pick up the
slack (Yes, it is unsolicited, but what the heck?) of a little primer of my own (Not taking anything away from DTOE's own resource's page) which I hope can be added over there. And when Francesco is found he can add anything to this if he so wishes. 

The NYCDOE uses Outlook for all it's email purposes. However, all Outlook email is subject to FOIL and any and all discovery requests in a court of law. The NYCDOE is
a public entity and all those working for the NYCDOE are in the realm of public employees. 

Even if the emails are deleted they are stored indefinitely in servers at, I believe, MetroTech. 

But some people, and not just at the NYCDOE, have figured out a way around
using "official" email. As someone in government said to me, "Here is my personal
email. Use this to communicate with me it is not FOILable."

But back to the NYCDOE. Yes, some schools have set up email domains and
accounts through third parties. GoDaddy, Yahoo, Hotmail, and yes, even Google Mail
or as we call it, Gmail with their owndomains. 

But let's focus on Google mail.

Through Google mail one can have their on domain (instead of @gmail.com one can
have something like, @failingschool.com) which might make one think they are
impervious to any FOIL requests or discovery requests.

This is false.

Once a private email provider (In this case Gmail) is used to discuss business, especially
one like a government agency that email account is than considered to be a government account subject to all laws of FOIL and discovery. 


But Kevin Smith of Fort Lee NJ asks a question;

"What if the emails in question have been deleted by the account? Then what?"

Good question Kevin!

The Crack Team checked with several people in the industry and with people at Google.
The answers we got back were pretty much the same;

"With over a million servers world wide the deleted emails remain on the Google servers forever"

See, problem solved Kevin. We guess Kevin won't be deleting any emails anytime soon, right Kev?

But how does one get those emails? This was the question put forth to us by Kevin Jones
of Fort Lee NJ.

Thank you Kevin, The Crack Team has researched your questions and please click here 
and for those who can;t wait some of the highlights are below.

We here at SBSB hope that this post and the information below can and will be helpful.

What kinds of data do you disclose for different products?

To answer that, let's look at four services from which government agencies in the U.S. commonly request information: Gmail, YouTube, Google Voice and Blogger. Here are examples of the types of data we may be compelled to disclose, depending on the ECPA legal process, the scope of the request, and what is requested and available. If we believe
a request is overly broad, we will seek to narrow it.

Gmail

Subpoena:

• Subscriber registration information (e.g., name, account creation information, associated email addresses, phone number)
• Sign-in IP addresses and associated time stamps

Court Order:

• Non-content information (such as non-content email header information)
• Information obtainable with a subpoena

What's the difference between a subpoena, a search warrant and a court order under ECPA? And what information can a government agency get from Google with each?

It's complex, but here's a summary of the different forms of legal process covered by ECPA:

Subpoena

Of the three types of ECPA legal process for stored information, the subpoena

has the lowest threshold for a government agency to obtain. In many jurisdictions, including the federal system, there is no requirement that a judge or magistrate

review a subpoena before the government can issue it. A government agency can

use a subpoena to compel Google to disclose only specific types of information

listed in the statute. For example, a valid subpoena for your Gmail address could compel us to disclose the name that you listed when creating the account, and the

IP addresses from which you created the account and signed in and signed out

(with dates and times). Subpoenas can be used by the government in both criminal

and civil cases.

On its face, ECPA seems to allow a government agency to compel a communications provider to disclose the content of certain types of emails and other content with a subpoena or an ECPA court order (described below). But Google requires an ECPA search warrant for contents of Gmail and other services based on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

ECPA Court Order

Unlike an ECPA subpoena, obtaining an ECPA court order requires judicial review. To receive an ECPA court order, a government agency must present specific facts to a judge or magistrate demonstrating that the requested information is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.

With such a court order, a government agency can obtain the same information as a subpoena, plus more detailed information about the use of the account. This could include the IP address associated with a particular email sent from that account or used to change the account password (with dates and times), and the non-content portion of email headers such as the "from," "to" and "date" fields. An ECPA court order is available only for criminal investigations.

Does a law enforcement agency in the U.S. have to use legal process to compel Google to provide user data or will a phone call be enough?

The government needs legal process—such as a subpoena, court order or search warrant—to force Google to disclose user information. Exceptions can be made in certain emergency cases, though even then the government can't force Google to disclose.

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,

 

 

Principals and Sex in NYC Public Schools - The DOE Must Fire Anne Seifullah

Principal Anne Seifullah changes her image so that she can keep her job amidst sexting and trysts in the school, Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology in Long Island City. Take a look at the new picture published in the POST, the second picture below.

In order to keep to their standards of zero tolerance for this kind of activity, the NYC DOE must fire her. The nexus to her job is that she is a role model for all the people in her building, and she decided to have sexual relations, using her power to "influence" other principals, employees and even a parent to do her whatever.

Get rid of her.... And Assistant Principal Dany Velazquez, an assistant principal at PS 5.

Betsy Combier

Principal Seifullah

The "New" Principal Anne Schmutz Seifullah


 

Second principal booted amid school sex probe

By Susan Edelman, Frank Rosario and Daniel Prendergast

LINK

A Bronx assistant principal has been booted from his post for traveling to a Queens school allegedly to have sex with the principal there — as sexts between the pair surfaced Tuesday.

Dany Velazquez, an assistant principal at PS 5, has been reassigned pending a city Education Department probe into his alleged sexcapades with Annie Schmutz Seifullah, which were first reported by The Post.

Seifullah, principal of the Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology in Long Island City, had already been reassigned amid the shocking allegations that she had sex with two men, including Velazquez, at her school during class hours.

Seifullah’s ex-boyfriend, the dad of a student at her school, described for The Post alleged raunchy texts between Seifullah and Velazquez, including one in which he wrote, “Next time I want to f–k you in the office.’’

Seifullah allegedly responded, “First you have to [perform oral sex],’’ the ex said.

Seifullah told The Post on Tuesday that she’s simply the victim of her ex, who used her money and then exposed her kinky hobbies when she quit paying his way.

Making the DOE Look Bad: Principal Anne Schmutz Seifullah

NYC Rubber Room Reporter, May 4, 2014 

Thanks to reporters who write about DOE employees, we can get information about people -Anne Schmutz Seifullah, Anissa Chalmers-Reilly, Joe Baranello - who believe

they are "role models", and who are anything but that, yet keep their jobs.

 

Betsy Combier

 

Anne Schmutz Seifullah

 

 



Principal probed over sex in school during class hours

By Susan Edelman

May 4, 2014

A Queens principal was yanked from her school amid shocking allegations she had sex with a guard, an assistant principal and a parent, had trysts in school while classes were in session, and had photos of her sexcapades on department laptops.

Annie Schmutz Seifullah, 35, principal of the 7th- to 12th-grade Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology, in Long Island City, was escorted from the school Thursday as investigators seized computers and other electronics from her office and home, The Post has learned.

“We are appalled by these disturbing allegations and acted swiftly to remove the principal while the matter is under investigation,” a Department of Education spokesman said. “This type of alleged behavior is completely unacceptable for any DOE employee.”

Her sudden removal comes after a romance-gone-bad with a student’s dad. The angry ex turned over three DOE laptops he obtained while living with Seifullah, including MacBooks containing photos of herself in racy lingerie and in various sex acts, including a threesome, he told The Post.

He also gave investigators a video and audio tape in which a woman he identified as Seifullah acknowledged engaging in oral sex with an NYPD school-safety agent in the school security office, and with a visiting assistant principal in a book-storage room during school hours.

“I don’t know what I was thinking. I don’t know why I thought it was OK,” she tells the furious dad in the taped conversation, after he accuses her of cheating on him.

“You gave him [expletive deleted] while my child was in the building,” he roars at one point.

The dad, a fortysomething entrepreneur, also gave excerpts from a letter he says Seifullah wrote, admitting she hooked up twice with an “old lover.”

“The second [time] was a visit to my school that led to a sexual encounter which included brief oral sex in a hidden location,” the letter states.

The dad, whose name is being withheld to protect his child’s privacy, said he came forward because Seifullah — the mom of a toddler son — “played me for a fool.”

“Ms. Seifullah clearly used her power and position as principal to . . . seek several sexual partners at her school,” he charged.

This racy photo of Seifullah was found on her school computer.

The principal helped the dad financially, once giving him $10,000, plus $500 and $300 money orders, records show. Her salary is $136,959.

On April 11, 2013, she testified in Queens Family Court as a character witness for the dad in his custody fight. She spoke as both his child’s principal and as “his girlfriend.”

“So far our relationship has been discreet and people don’t know about it,” she testified, insisting that his child would get no special treatment.

City policy does not forbid educators to date colleagues or the parents of students. However, if favoritism or mistreatment occurs, the employee could be cited for a conflict of interest. Having sex inside a school or placing sexual images on school equipment could lead to misconduct charges.

An insider said it was “highly unusual” for a principal to be removed pending a probe, and indicates allegations of “extreme misconduct.”

But on Facebook last July, she posted a photo of herself with the father, naming him and declaring with a heart icon: “A single dad walked in the office of my school and swept me off my feet.”

Seifullah took down her Facebook page after The Post called to ask about the scandal. “I can’t talk without permission,” she said.

Seifullah filed for divorce last summer and moved in with the student’s father. They split up in March and her divorce is pending.

From Betsy Combier:

Thanks to Susan Edelman for continuing to show how the NYC Department of Education allows certain people to make the DOE "look bad" and not others.

 

Thanks, Sue and the NY POST!

In NYC, Criticizing The Department of Education or Making the DOE look "Bad" in Any Way is a Crime

 

"Look Bad" articles on this blog

What happened to Joe Baranello, the Attorney who heads up the FOIL office?

-Nothing

DOE Attorney Joseph Baranello

 

What happened to Principal Anissa Chalmers-Reilly?

-Nothing