The UFT Solidarity Brand is Not What UFT Members Need

When Francesco Portelos found out that I do not agree with his vindictive retaliation of anyone who is rumored to be "bad" or who does not agree with him, and he decided to defame my name and my work as a teacher advocate by creating a video lying about how I am a "homophobe", I looked more carefully at the UFT Solidarity brand.

Francesco Portelos and UFT Solidarity logo

I do not like what I see. My opinion, folks. And this is my blog and my opinion.

I am an advocate for justice since at least 1994, (leaving out my 5 years living in Egypt to help rural Egyptian villagers use solar-powered video, 1978-1984), when I went with the African-American and hispanic porters at my Church to their Local 32 B&J arbitration and faced the Presbyterian mafia without fear. My mom was Jewish, but that is a very long story. My dad was P. Hodges Combier, Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York under Attorney General Louis Lefkowitz. My mom was a producer/ funder of Broadway theater. My life work is to give people who have been wronged in some way a resolution to the wrong(s) done, to give hope that they will be able to complete this life in a safe, healthy and content manner. I never go after someone in a vindictive way, nor do I stop investigating truth because of a bully. My company Theater Kids, Inc. now has the DBA ADVOCATZ. I help people work with a lawyer, and I am not a lawyer, never pretend to be a lawyer, or represent anyone in Court before a judge. I will give my opinion, and I'm pretty good at legal research online or off. (So I've heard). The lawyers with whom I work at 3020-a have a long-term record of winning our cases. I stand tall on our record.

Back to UFT Solidarity. Immediately after Francesco was found guilty of many of his charges which brought him to a 3020-a and fined $10,000, he began chanting:

"Tell the new principal "tough".

I'm waiting for the first administrator to look at me the wrong way here in Staten Island. That's when I would whisper the words in the attached picture:

Similarly, he started building his new empire, ready to attack anyone who got in his/their way. The growth of the online UFT Solidarity has been fascinating/depressing. No one is given a chance to contradict anything they say, write, and/or post on their websites.

I was not even at the September 20 2015 meeting at which Jim Callaghan gleefully included me in his pile of c***. I believe he has been stewing with fury over my hiring for the position of Special Representative at the UFT by Randi Weingarten in 2007 all these years. This is depressing. Get a life, Jim.

Johnathan Hinesley, (pictured at left) one of Francesco's group members, told me that he did not hear anything about me at the September 20 meeting, and anyway, Jim can say anything he wants about anybody. That's what UFT Solidarity stands for. Truth be damned.

DOE vs Portelos Termination Verdict Is In 826 Days After They Took Aim to Fire.

Here is what Francesco sent me on May 8, 2014, marked up with yellow highlighting and red ink by him, (I guess):

Francesco Portelos' guilty verdict for harassment, workplace assaults, and internet misconduct (sent to me by Francesco in May, 2014)

I put this decision on my website, in one of the many articles I wrote about Francesco glorifying his work to undermine Linda Hill who seemed at the time to have charged Francesco after he found out she was not handling money correctly. Blowing the whistle on an administrator, or any public employee is complicated. The case decided by the US Supreme Court, Garcetti v Ceballos

(see here, here and here). Teachers are public employees and their First Amendment rights were, it seems to me, limited to "a citizen speaking on matters of public concern".

I am not a public employee and not limited by this law. I still am not able to put on the internet lies about someone, and I do not do it. I never write about anyone or any case unless the person violates my rights, defames me or libels/slanders me and/or asks me to post their case or name on any of my 6 blogs and website. I respect confidentiality.

Looking at Francesco's arbitration decision now, I am frightened by the implications of the sustained charges (p. 107) and his promotion of activities under the umbrella of UFT Solidarity. There are many similarities, and I fear that Francesco is deliberately putting other teachers in danger to mitigate his punishment of $10,000.

Here are the sustained charges for which Arbitrator Felice Busto found Francesco guilty, on pp.7-13 of the Opinion and Award :

SPECIFICATION 6:

During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent disclosed confidential Department information, including, but not limited to, witness statements, on a  non-Department  website,  including, but not limited to,  protectportelos.org.

SPECIFICATION 8:

During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent  inappropriately  accessed  and/or  retrieved Department information, including, but not limited to,  a  Department  email account  and/or email  messages  of another  Department employee.

SPECIFICATION 9:

During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent inappropriately accessed a Department email account and/or email  messages of  another  Department employee.

SPECIFICATION 25:

On or about January 28, 2012, Respondent, without consulting, notifying, and/or seeking authorization from Principal Hill or the I.S 49 administration, accessed the school website, www.Dreyfus49.com, as a site administrator and manipulated the settings to revoke the administrative rights and/or privileges of all individuals previously granted such administrative access.

SPECIFICATION 28:

On or about February 2012, Respondent refused to transfer control and/or  ownership  of the school website, www.Dreyfus49.com, to  Principal  Hill,  I.S.  49,  and/or  the  Department after agreeing to do so at a meeting with Principal Hill and Superintendent Erminia Claudio.

SPECIFICATION 29:

On or about November 2012, Respondent, without consulting, notifying, and/or seeking approval from Principal Hill or the I.S 49 administration, altered the website www.welearnandqrowtoqether.com, which Respondent had created for the school with Principal Hill's approval, to automatically transfer visitors to his alternative website, https://sites.qooqle.com/site/occupywarrenstreet/,  which   contained   derogatory information about  I.S. 49,  Principal  Hill, and/or the Department.

SPECIFICATION 31:

During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent, without consulting, notifying, and/or seeking approval from Principal Hill and/or the Department, altered the school website, www.Dreyfus49.com, to  automatically  redirect  visitors  to  his  website,  protectportelos.org, which chronicled his issues with  various  groups  including  Principal Hill, I.S. 49, and the  Department.

SPECIFICATION 33:

During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent recorded a video in a school facility, namely, I.S. 49, of a student during school hours, without permission or authority.

SPECIFICATION 34:

On or about December 12, 2012, Respondent notified I.S. 49 Superintendent Erminia Claudio that he showed the video referenced in Specification 33 to parents, without permission or authority.

SPECIFICATION 36:

On or about and in the month of September 2012, Respondent:

A.     Sent an email message to a parent without permission or authority stating, in  sum and substance, that the teacher who sent their son to summer school was not certified to teach and that this message identified the teacher and indicated that her teaching certification had expired.

B.     Failed to notify and/or confirm with I.S. 49 administration that the teacher referenced above lacked certification prior to contacting the parent.

SPECIFICATION 38:

By committing one, some, or all of the actions described in the above Specifications, Respondent's actions:

A.      Had a disruptive and/or negative impact on students, staff, and/or administration at I.S. 49 and the Department.

B.     Caused  negative publicity, ridicule, and notoriety to  I.S. 49 and the   Department."

******************************************

Francesco filed an Appeal (Article 75) of the decision, but missed the 10-day rule by one day. The Judge in Richmond County wrote that he would not have overturned Arbitrator Busto, anyway. (read Judge Troia's decision).

The UFT Solidarity brand stands for all of the above, in my opinion. This is frightening. 

Look at Specification #36. This seems to be the sustained charge that Francesco Portelos actually went after another teacher, and created a problem for her/him. Does anyone have any confirmation that this charge relates to the fiance of the IS 49 Chapter Leader,  Dr. Richard Candia? The allegation rumored to be this specification was that Francesco wanted to retaliate against Dr. Candia for not helping him destroy IS 49 Principal Linda Hill, so Francesco went after Candia's girlfriend.

If anyone has any further information about this specific sustained charge, please send me an email at betsy.combier@gmail.com.

In any case, to wear the brand of UFT Solidarity proudly showing support for someone who would and could be so vindictive as these sustained charges show is, in my opinion, a badge of shame.

Betsy Combier, Editor of NYC Rubber Room Reporter

President, ADVOCATZ

Joint Committee of Investigation "Investigates" Workplace Harassment

Are you a person who buys a book because you like the cover?

Then you will believe that the Joint Committee of Investigation, making the UFT and DOE partners, will look into what is going on and resolve the issues.

I have a bridge to sell you.

I spoke today with a member who filed a harassment grievance, and he told me that the "Committee" members came to the school, pretended to listen to him for 3 minutes, and left. He said, "This was not an investigation into anything. What a joke!"

His claim was not substantiated. 

The UFT members should not rely on this fake group, they will still lose the grievance. Only now the Joint Committee must be nullified, and not just a single person, such as the so-called "investigator" from OSI, SCI or OEO.

Special complaints

What to do if you are being harassed by a supervisor

MARCH 22, 2012 NEW YORK TEACHER ISSUE

LINK

Unfortunate though it is, at times UFT members report being harassed or subjected to intimidation by their supervisors. These acts of intimidation may take many forms, which is why it is important that you contact the union for help.

You do not have to — nor should you — tolerate such harassment or acts of intimidation. A special complaint process was expanded in the 1990s to protect you from harassment or intimidation by your supervisors.

If you believe that you are the victim of supervisory harassment, tell your chapter leader immediately. You should also notify your UFT district representative. The first thing you will need to do is to keep an anecdotal log indicating the place, time, date and any witnesses who were present during each incident. It is important to make this log as factual as possible, simply a recitation of the events as they occurred.

Article 23 of the UFT Teachers’ Collective Bargaining Agreement and corresponding articles in other UFT agreements set out a procedure to follow in cases of special complaints. It was designed to set up an expedited process for speedy resolution of special complaints not covered by the grievance procedure.

A special complaint will be filed with the chancellor by the UFT. Within 24 hours after it is filed, the Department of Education will inform the union of its representative to the joint investigating committee.

The joint investigating committee will be set up, composed of both DOE and UFT representatives. Its purpose is to reach a prompt resolution of disputes without having to resort to formal procedures.

The joint investigating committee will use a private meeting space at your school to discuss the issue and should complete its investigation in no more than one school day. The joint investigating committee will meet with you, the alleged harasser and witnesses to the alleged harassment that you notify them of. The purpose of these interviews is for the committee to gather enough information to help resolve the matter.

If the complaint is not resolved by the joint investigating committee, the union will determine if the matter has sufficient merit to request a hearing before the chancellor or the chancellor’s representative.

At the chancellor’s level meeting, the chancellor’s representative is required to “make every effort to informally resolve” the complaint. The joint investigating committee will report its findings and all persons involved will have the opportunity to be heard. According to the contract, the chancellor or his/her representative will make a decision within 72 hours of the close of the hearing.

If the complaint is not resolved by the chancellor, the union will review the matter to determine if it should be submitted for a fact-finding hearing before an arbitrator. Once the hearing has been held, the fact finder is required to issue his or her recommendation within 72 hours.

The UFT went to arbitration to ensure that cases are completed in this expedited manner. The arbitrator agreed that the Department of Education must issue special complaint decisions within 72 hours of the close of the hearing.

If you have a special complaint, you should be prepared to answer questions that come up with the joint investigating committee and you should focus primarily on the big issues — your most serious concerns.

Always be respectful and listen to all parties. You should also have witnesses to the harassment who can speak about what they saw or heard. Be prepared to prioritize your witnesses in case time runs short.

Think of what you want the resolution of the problem to be. This can include being treated fairly and respectfully, or more specific remedies that address your particular situation.

You should be aware that the joint investigating committee has no authority to discipline the alleged harasser. The goal is to resolve the problem going forward.