Education Law Fraud and the Omission of Probable Cause

 

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, Advocatz.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

From the desk of Betsy Combier, re-posted from ADVOCATZ.com: 

In this post, I will explain why excellent educators are charged with false allegations and then terminated for doing something that they did not do or not removed from their employment for harmful acts that they did do. The charging procedures and outcomes were very confusing when I first started examining them 18 years ago.

Education Law  §3020 states in relevant part:

No  person enjoying  the   benefits   of  tenure   shall  be  disciplined  or  removed  during  a  term  of  employment  except   for  just   cause   and   in   accordance   with   the   procedures  specified in section three thousand twenty-a  of  this article

and,

"The tenure statutes reflect the intent and purpose of the Legislature to protect educators who have successfully completed a probationary period from being disciplined summarily without the safeguards of Education Law § 3020-a. As stated by this Court in Holt v. Board of Educ. of Webutuck Cent. School Dist., 52 N.Y.2d 625 (1981): At one time, teachers in this state had only so much job security as could be bargained for in their contract of employment. When that contract expired, the decision as to whether or not to continue the teacher's employment was completely within the discretion of the school district. The Legislature, recognizing a need for permanence and stability in the employment relationship between teachers and the school districts which employ them, enacted a comprehensive statutory tenure system, the purpose of which was to provide some measure of security for competent teachers who had rendered adequate service for a number of years. One of the bulwarks of that tenure system is section 3020-a of the Education Law which protects tenured teachers from arbitrary suspension or removal. The statute has been recognized by this court as a critical part of the system of contemporary protections that safeguard tenured teachers from official or bureaucratic caprice. Id., 52 N.Y.2d at 632"

From In the Matter of Roseann Kilduff, Respondent,v.Rochester City School District, et al., Appellants, Court of Appeals No. APL-2013-0029:

"In Matter of Boyd v. Collins, 11 N.Y.2d 228 (1962), this Court had annulled an agreement between a board of education and a teacher under which the teacher would resign after a stated period in lieu of charges. The Court plainly stated that the "statutory tenure terms can be changed by the Legislature but never by a board of education." Id. at 233. As summarized by the Court in Mannix, supra, "[i]t was made clear in [Boyd] that no act of a board of education could effect a method of bypassing the tenure statute." Mannix, 21 N.Y.2d at 459. Although Boyd was subsequently overruled in Matter of Abramovich v. Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Brookhaven & Smithtown, 46 N.Y.2d 450 (1979), it was overruled solely on the ground that the law does not absolutely forbid a tenured teacher from waiving the protections of the tenure statutes if the record establishes a truly knowing, open and voluntary waiver. Id. at 455."

NYSUT lists changes to tenure in Chapter 56, 2015

In NYC, there is no voluntary waiver, and the Constitutional protection of tenure has been modified to fit the whims and fancy of a principal or superintendent who says to the legal department, "get rid of that person." Yet the NYC Department of Education pursues termination at the §3020-a arbitration under color of law, without any authority or waiver of a teacher's rights. No change has been made to Education Law §3020-a(2)(a), citing a probable cause determination by a vote of the Board of Education (PEP in NYC). The PEP BYLAWS do not give the Chancellor authority to vote on any issue, rendering any delegation of the vote to a Superintendent or principal by the Chancellor meaningless paper. Most shocking of all is the fact that the New York City Department of Education ("NYC DOE") and the Unions (UFT/NYSUT, CSA) have collaborated in this scheme that deliberately violates lawful procedures, is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and affected by an error of law. I believe that extortion might be the right word. 

Educators are brought to §3020 hearings without being told any of this. This is the fraud that I write about here, and what we - all of us in the community of the world - have to change. False statements published in bad faith against a person destroy that person's life forever. No apology after the fact can change that.

Nonetheless, if you know who you are, you will get to where you want to be. Knowledge is power but you need to know what to do with it.

As Lewis Carroll wrote,

"If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there."

Many educators ask, "How could this happen?" "How could I be terminated/given a fine/suspended for something I did not do?"

Tenured employees of the NYC DOE at any level, unaware that their tenure rights under the  §3020-a statute have been illegally implemented or omitted, rely on the same people at their Union who have created the procedures cited here as illegitimate. Suppose an accused educator demands that their Union attorney or advocate submit a Motion To Dismiss the arbitration hearing based on this argument. In that case, the lawyer or representative will immediately quit or threaten to drop your case.

I always suggest that accused educators rely on their own beliefs and common sense. Just rely on yourself. Find out and believe in who you are and what you want, and if your intent is strong and your goals are "right" - as opposed to unlawful or harmful to another person or animal - you will reach your goals. This process must be constantly renewed, so do not rest on what you have done. Keep planting new ideas on your path. Who you are now will change tomorrow, just as you were a different person yesterday.

The Backstory of Education Law §3020-a in New York City

In the compulsory Arbitration known as Education Law Section §3020-a ("§3020-a") in New York City, there are significant and unlawful procedural and substantive deficiencies in the pre-hearing process that interfere with the public policy protections for teachers with tenure. These blatant violations of the tenure law deny a fair hearing to all individuals who are accused of an act of misconduct or incompetency and are charged with §3020-a charges (called “Specifications”).

"New York public employees enjoyed disciplinary due-process protections long before they won collective bargaining rights with the 1967 passage of the Public Employees Fair Employment Act, also known as the Taylor Law. But in requiring public employers to negotiate “terms and conditions” of employment, the state Legislature set the stage for union contracts to become obstacles to disciplining public employees."

Tenure is public policy in New York City. New York State unions are supposed to be the warriors who protect Constitutional rights to a full and fair hearing. But employers want "at-will" employment for everyone, and therein lies the problem.

Questions union members should be asking are, "Why doesn't my Union fight for my rights?" "Why do my Union Reps. seem to play along with the Department of Education?"

You can see this struggle between employer-unions here:

See Double Insulation: How New York  Law Shields Public Employees From Accountability

What happens then is that policymakers write "manuals" on what to do, devoid of circumstances, which people are supposed to use as a Guide. General statements of rules of law or Agency Agreements are only as good as their implementation.

See New York Department of Civil Service Manual For Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers (2002):

"Chapter 3: Due Process of Law
Introduction
Both the United States and New York
Constitutions guarantee that no person shall be deprived
of "life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
The concept of due process imposes a fundamental
obligation upon all organs of government, including state
agencies. At its base, due process means that no person
can be subject to an individualized proceeding in which
they stand to lose one of the protected interests – in
the context of administrative law, either property or liberty
– without sufficient procedures to ensure that the
governmental action is fundamentally fair."

The New York City Department of Education ("NYC DOE"), with the support of the Unions, has instituted a deceitful practice of skipping over the proper determination of probable cause codified in Education Law §3020-a(2)(a). The Statute has been ignored in favor of a false and misleading process that does not give an arbitrator subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide any case or find “just cause” for the charges.

Here is Education Law §3020-a(2)(a):

"2. Disposition of charges.  a. Upon receipt of the charges, the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board shall immediately notify said board thereof.  Within five days after receipt of charges, the employing board, in executive session, shall determine, by a vote of a majority of all the members of such board, whether probable cause exists to bring a disciplinary proceeding against an employee pursuant to this section.  If such determination is affirmative, a written statement specifying (i) the charges in detail, (ii) the maximum penalty which will be imposed by the board if the employee does not request a hearing or that will be sought by the board if the employee is found guilty of the charges after a hearing and (iii) the employee's rights under this section, shall be immediately forwarded to the accused employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by personal delivery to the employee."

Yet all NYC DOE employees receive a page with the title "Notice of Determination of Probable Cause" that does not have a date for an Executive Session in the box on the right. I started asking about this in 2004, and I remember Former NYSUT Counsel Claude Hersh telling me, "that's the way it is." I stayed with the thought that "that's the way it shouldn't be" and kept researching what happened.

In 2016 I was lucky to have received a lot of information about 3020-a procedures after filing a Freedom of Information request (FOIL) for all attendees and the content of an unpublished meeting of all the arbitrators, NYC DOE, and NYSUT Attorneys held on February 24, 2015. See documents posted on the blog NYC Rubber Room Reporter (2016) and Parentadvocates.org.

Hearing Request-Waiver

In the charging packet is a form with two boxes on it, one for requesting a hearing and one saying that a hearing is not requested. (See above document, with accused educator's name deleted). One box must be checked and delivered to the UFT/CSA within 10 days of receipt. If the 10 days' deadline is not met,  the accused will be terminated by members of the PEP meeting in an Executive Session. Welcome to a Catch-22:  either participate in an unlawful arbitration or lose your job without going to a hearing. I always suggest that you hire a private attorney or legal team and testify to your side of the story, then Appeal the decision if you think it is incorrect.

See Chancellor's Regulations C-205 (24):

"24. Dismissal for Cause, Resignation, or Retirement While Charges Are Pending -

This subdivision applies to persons who were dismissed pursuant to Section 3020a of the New York State Education Law or who resigned or retired while such charges were pending. All licenses and/or certificates held by such a person at the time of separation from service shall terminate permanently. No such person shall be eligible to apply for any new license or certificate, nor for reemployment by any unit of the City District or of any community school district without the recommendation of the Executive Director of the Division of Human Resources and the express written authorization of the Chancellor."

In other words, if you retire or resign after you are served with §3020-a charges, your license to teach in the NYC school district is revoked permanently.

Instead of complying with the Education Law §3020-a(2)(a), the NYC DOE, CSA (Union for administrators, principals), and NYSUT (gives free representation to UFT Members for §3020-a hearings, lawsuits) have collaboratively relied on so-called "Delegation Memos" (I have collected them, see my collection: Delegation Memos 2011-2018) which  DOE attorneys INSIST (I put this in caps because the perseverance to these memos is so fierce) removes the vote of the Panel For Educational Policy (PEP) in an Executive Session from the charging procedure in Education Law §3020-a(2)(a) in NYC. Oh, really? The truth is that nowhere in the memos is "probable cause" mentioned because the Chancellor cannot delegate a vote on probable cause to anyone. Also, there is no law, rule, or regulation that permits the NYC DOE to deny a Constitutional right, as the vote in Executive Session is, without the signed waiver of the person who is being denied that right. No educator brought up on charges has ever signed such a waiver, as far as I know.

Also, the insistence by the unions and NYC DOE that the Executive Session and vote on probable cause are unnecessary and that they were given the right to change the procedures for charging tenured teachers in NYC by the State legislature is a false statement. In the Commissioner's decision #15,482 (Appeal of the New York City Department of Education, on behalf of Community School District 13, concerning a disciplinary proceeding brought against Alfonzo Forrest, a/k/a Alphonzo Forrest, Principal of P.S. 256, under Education Law §3020(3), October 1, 2006), the Commissioner was very clear that Education Law Section  §3020-a could be modified or replaced by agreements negotiated between the city school district and the CSA after December 1, 1999, except the provisions of subdivisions one and two shall not apply to any agreements negotiated pursuant to this subdivision" (emphasis added - Ed.). 

See:  Decision No. 15,482

Yet NYC DOE, CSA, and NYSUT attorneys go along with the premise that the so-called "Delegation" memos have replaced the Executive Session with a constructive, but silent, waiver, to give the power and authority to find probable cause for the charges to the exact same person who created these charges in the first place, namely the Principal (or, in some cases, the Superintendent). 

It is patently absurd to think that the Legislature intended for the Chancellor, a singular individual, to have the authority to "find" probable cause, create the charges, and testify to the veracity of these exact charges. There is nothing ambiguous in the statutory text of Education Law §3020a or Education Law §2590h. The statutes say: (1) there must be a determination of probable cause by a vote in an executive session; and (2) the Chancellor, a nonvoting member of the PEP, cannot delegate a vote to anyone at any time. (PEP BYLAWS, Article 3.2). 

In the first paragraph of §2590-h, you can read the following:

"He or she shall exercise all his or her powers and duties in a manner not inconsistent with the city-wide educational policies of the city board."

There you are. End of the subject, proof that only the process described in detail in Education Law §3020-a(2)(a) to comply with the State-mandated due process for educators in NY State and City.

Even if the law said that a vote on probable cause is not needed (the law never suggests this, but the NYC DOE makes this one of their main arguments supporting the fraudulent charging papers), an Executive Session must be held. A determination of probable cause must be made by two or more people, never a single person.

When an arbitrator makes a decision in a case, they act outside of any lawful authority and choose to put the $1400/day salary above the facts or law of the case they are about to hear. Instead, the arbitrator should withdraw all charges, recuse themselves from the matter, or adjourn the case until a proper determination of probable cause is made by the PEP vote in an Executive Session. 

But this is never done. All arbitrators agree with their employer, the NYC DOE, and deny the Motion To Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction to keep their position on the hearing panel. They also agree that the finding of probable cause can be delegated to a single person as per Education Law §2590-h(19),(38). Sorry, but no.

Sadly, no arbitrator will jeopardize their $1400/day hearing cases brought to them by the NYC DOE at least 5 days/month, making their decisions appealable.

It gets worse. To speed up the removal of teachers from the rubber rooms during the early period of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's reign as chief of the Department under Mayoral control, the UFT took away the right of any tenured, accused teacher to choose the arbitrator for their §3020-a hearing. (NYCRR, Title 8, Section 82-3.5). See (h): "The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply in city school districts in cities with a population of one million or more with alternative procedures adopted pursuant to section 3020 of the Education Law."

This is true only for UFT members. CSA members in NYC (Assistant Principals and Principals) charged under §3020-a pick their arbitrator for their §3020-a hearing. How did this law become so narrowly defined, and why are teachers treated differently from administrators? No one complains, or the accused are not told they have this right.

The NYC DOE, CSA, and UFT/NYSUT adherence to this fraud is shocking.

See the decision by Judge Desmond Green in the case of Rosalie Cardinale (Article 75, Index number 85165/2017), who vacated the termination given to Ms. Cardinale by her §3020-a Arbitrator, Michael Lendino. I wrote the Petition papers for the Attorney.

No one at any agency or Union will represent anyone who makes the arguments I have made here. See my post on the "Gotcha Squad": the TPU (Teacher Performance Unit) or ATU (Administrative Trials Unit)

But the denial of the Motion can be used to show bias by the arbitrator in an Appeal. See "Appealing 3020-a Decisions."

So what? You say.

The reasons why the points made above are essential for purposes of understanding the denial of rights at a §3020-a: first, the person accused is automatically assigned a problem code with a permanent flag on their fingerprints; second, the arbitrator can give any penalty they want to provide, despite the facts and circumstances, which becomes a permanent part of the accused person's personnel file. 

The Department supports arbitrators who terminate for minor acts of no consequence. The Department also supports the arbitrators if they ignore the evidence and terminate the accused because the educator was "not credible."  Rules of law for evidence and witness tampering are not considered. The Department has the right of way, and most arbitrators abide by the terms of the agreement with New York State and New York City to serve on the panels in NYC if, and only if, they give termination as the choice of penalty. Any arbitrator who gives decisions that are "too lenient" is taken off the panels and misses out on the $1400/day salary.  Thus, I believe a bias is embedded in the hearing officer before, during, and after the arbitration concludes.

Thus the omission of probable cause in the charging procedures for §3020-a arbitration in New York City allows the Department to bring charges against a tenured educator that are serious and valid, or silly, untrue, the product of retaliation, discrimination,  or just plain hate because no comprehensive, factual investigations are done to validate any charges before the hearing begins. There are no investigators who look into most of the charges at any of the "investigating" agencies: the Office of Special Investigations (OSI), the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO), and the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI). Please note the OSI official name on all Investigative Reports: "Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations" at the bottom of every page.

OSI, SCI, and OEO  "investigators" are anything but that. See some of the cases I have written about on this website and my blog NYC Rubber Room Reporter: Glen Storman; David Suker; David Pakter (pictured below waiting to go into his 3020-a hearing at 51-49 Chambers Street with Arbitrator Martin Scheinman); Teddy Smith; Eileen Ghastin. I have worked on more than 120 cases and have won decisions that saved the tenured employment or exonerated most of the accused.

In all misconduct cases where there is an "Investigative Report" submitted into the record, an in-depth review always shows some error of the investigator or false statements and documents used to support the conclusion. Why? Because the NYC DOE can and do present whatever they find/create to terminate the accused, which is the goal 100% of the time. Arbitrators have asked me why the NYC DOE always goes for termination, even for the most ridiculous charge. I tell them that it seems to be a situation where the top of the ladder needs to stand on a firm ground no matter how weak it is because they are already on the roof and/or if the charging party throws enough mud at the wall, something may stick.

 Most of the so-called "investigators" at OSI, SCI, and OEO are retired detectives getting their second pension by setting up employees at a school whom someone has complained about and the principal wants to get rid of. There is a set procedure where a parent, child, staff member, AP, or principal can make up that they saw someone do something to somebody, then (1) the principal must report it (no students are reported to OSI); (2) OSI sends someone to the school to find out from the principal what they want to prove; (3) the principal gives permission for students to leave class who will agree to write statements making the targeted person guilty; (4) the principal writes a disciplinary letter which is handed to the accused at a meeting with a representative from the accused person's Union - or not, this is up to the accused to decide; and (5) the technical assistance conference (TAC) memos are created which end up as §3020-a charges.

The title "investigator" does not define what the hired guns at OSI, SCI, and OEO do. I have many stories of unfair, incomplete, and corrupt investigations. See the Wei Liu case. I also wrote about what happened to Glenn Storman after Investigator Dennis Boyles got involved. Here is a big problem. Without a complete and accurate investigation, an arbitrator must decide on the truth of the charges and the credibility of the testifying witnesses. I have found that this does not work, particularly if the Respondent does not speak English very well. The arbitrator has an implicit bias against the Respondent, the accused educator because the Department has put a lot of money and time into creating a case that superficially makes sense. (Thanks to R.W. for giving me the information on this crucial issue). Truth and facts are not relevant to an arbitrator whose goal is to seem fair while doing what the NYC DOE wants.

Most importantly, accused educators must do their own investigation or have their legal team do it and then present the report at the hearing. Bottom line, anyone charged with anything MUST write a rebuttal if there are false statements made against him/her. If the UFT representative or administrator suggests that an accused should not write a rebuttal, ignore this advice.

Additionally, §3020-a  is codified in Education Law Article 61, whereas §2590 is placed in Article 52(a). This placement dichotomy is not a trivial distinction but instead reflects a legislative determination (and intent) to separate the powers of the Chancellor from the statutory due process template applicable to the termination of tenured teachers. (Attorney Roger Adler's Statement). The New York State Legislature never intended on giving any arbitrator the right to ignore the omission of a proper finding of probable cause to pursue a penalty for an educator. Yet, the Department, CSA, and NYSUT lawyer representatives always ignore this defect in the charging procedure, to the detriment of the accused employee.

Having been involved in these hearings for 18 years, I have seen everything from false statements, lies under oath to actual harm. In the cases where the accused has committed some allegedly "abusive" act, I will help them fight for a just and fair penalty, considering all circumstances. If the accused has done something extremely harmful without any justification, I choose to decline to take the case at all. These people should leave the profession of education with the NYC DOE.

The §3020-a arbitration described above has a foundation in fraud. An accused educator is found guilty before entering the door or starting the first Zoom meeting. From that point on, the educator must convince the arbitrator of their innocence. Huh? This is backward. The accused educator is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

In sum, do not let the NYC DOE step on your parade. Despite all the shoddy acts cited in this post, the solution is not to resign, retire, not tell your side of the story, or not show up at the hearing. All employees accused of whatever bad acts someone charged them with should stay focused on winning the §3020-a arbitration, clearing their name in the record, and going forward with their life and career as they, no one else, planned.

Dear Mayor Bill: Do NOT Transfer School Safety Agents To the NYC Department of Education

Teamsters Local 237 President Greg Floyd

On the issue of transferring the oversight and funding for school safety agents from the NY Police Department to the NYC Department of Education, 

We must not let this happen.

Why am I saying this?

I have experience as the mom to four children, all of whom graduated from the NYC Department of Education. For 9 years I was a volunteer advocate, helping parents with Superintendent Suspension Hearings and Impartial Hearings (which I still do). I've been a parent advocate for 22 years, assist educators charged with 3020-a for 17 years, and every day I research cases filed in state and federal courts as well as NYSED that have been important to any constituent since the mid-late 1990s.

Veronica Nesmith, far left, with Greg Floyd and Sharon Jefferson.
Local 237 Newsline, 2009

Now as a teacher/parent advocate, I speak with SSAs all the time. I can say that most SSAs are caring professionals who want children to be safe. By the way, most are Black and brown women. When I was PTA President as well as a parent at MS 54 on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, SSA Veronica "Ronnie" Nesmith was a friend, colleague, and just an awesome partner in keeping all the students in line. Love you, Ronnie!! Her picture is posted above.

Since the MS 54 Principal (Larry Lynch) could not discipline, fire or harm Ronnie who was under the NYPD, she helped guide me and gave me information about the principal's theft and fraud which enabled me to investigate and then get back to the PTA a stolen check for more than $13,000 that we had raised at a fundraiser. Larry told us that he had given the money to District 3 Superintendent Pat Romandetto. 

I have posted the fraudulent acts of the DOE for many years on my blogs and websites, hoping to fix the Department VIPs' malicious intent of hiding facts to protect the money. I call this issue a matter of national security, and wrote that article in 2004, calling the NYC DOE the "Tweed Pentagon". 

In 2005 I wrote:
 Corruption and Secrecy in the Politico-Educational Complex is a Costly Combination

I also scanned in, for the first time online, the reports on the DOE titled "The Gill Commission" and the second report, "Investigating the Investigators" which informed the public of the wrong-doing inside the NYC DOE. Everyone should read these two studies in corruption. After these reports, James Gill was instrumental in establishing the new Department of Investigation and the new position of "Special Commissioner of Investigation" which was supposed to be independent of the NYC DOE. However, after the death of its' first Commissioner, Edward Stancik in 2002 the independence went out the window. SCI agents are paid by the NYC DOE and their so-called "investigations" are not at all fair or unbiased. Their goal, it seems to me, is to make sure that all complainers become the guilty party in order for the NYC DOE to protect itself from whistleblowers. A look at their 2019 budget gives any reader concern for the lack of proper oversight. My source, formerly inside SCI, tells me work is drastically underfunded, and investigations extremely mismanaged.

School safety is an issue that is at the top of every parent's list of important concerns when his or her child walks into a school building every morning. Parents must have some degree of trust to say goodbye at the door of a building, knowing that their children will be under the care and supervision of strangers, or people with whom they have had little personal contact. If parents do not feel that their child or children are safe in their schools, then public education fails. No one will send their children to a public institution of any kind if they do not believe that the school personnel will protect them while they are inside.

Thus School Safety Agents ("SSAs") must be trustworthy and they must take their responsibilities for the health, safety, and welfare of the students in their building seriously. These agents are members of Teamsters Union Local 237. Greg Floyd is President.

President Gregory Floyd presents Local 237ʼs demands to the Housing Authority and is flanked, from left, by
Edmund Kane, chief negotiator; Allen Brawer, Policy Research Group; and Barry Peek, lead attorney.

I met Greg many times when I was asked to write several speeches for him in 2007. He is a powerful speaker and a dedicated public official, and I think he is good for the Local 237 members because he seems to really care about them.

Greg Floyd is very sure that transferring his SSAs to be supervised by the Department instead of the NYPD is a terrible idea, and I agree. See Greg talk about this with Errol Louis on NY 1. In 1998 the SSAs were part of the Department, and this was a 'disaster':     

Municipal Workers Union President on Potential Layoffs and Changes for School Safety Agents
By Inside City Hall New York City
PUBLISHED 10:52 PM ET Jun. 26, 2020


Teamsters Local 237 President Greg Floyd joined Errol Louis to discuss the city’s budget negotiations, including Speaker Johnson’s calls for cuts to school safety agents and Mayor de Blasio’s warning of potential layoffs.

David A. Hay

Greg urges parents to be outraged by the proposed transfer back to the DOE. He talks about how the Department was in control of the SSAs in the 1990s, and the NYC DOE hired felons, pedophiles, and other miscreants, basically because the vetting of personnel at the NYC DOE is lax, underfunded and unable to assess qualifications adequately. See the case of  David A. Hay, a convicted pedophile who was hired to work with Chancellor Richard Carranza.

On November 19, 2018, the NY Daily News published a story about Mayor Bill de Blasio firing Mark Peters, Department of Investigation (DOI) Commissioner. Mr. Peters claimed he was terminated because "the mayor and top aides regularly pressured the Department of Investigation to drop probes damaging to City Hall and describing the mayor in particular as vindictive and at times unhinged in his fury."

A few days ago the media picked up how disgusted de Blasio's own staff is with his mismanagement.

I know that I feel the same, but I called several of my teacher friends to find out what they thought. Everyone I spoke to said that they thought the transfer back to the DOE was dangerous, misguided, and wrong. Two of the teachers recalled being in the DOE when they were younger in the 1980's-1990's and saw the Safety Agents assaulting children, doing nothing when kids were fighting, and in general lending no assistance to violence in the school. I've seen in my cases a massive coverup and malicious prosecution of anyone who speaks up about student-to-student or student-teacher violence. Teachers who are assaulted in a classroom and report it to the principal are then charged with causing the harm that occurred in the first place. It's their fault, not the fault of the student with the brick/knife/weapon in his/her hand. 

See the story of Eileen Ghastin (pictured below):

The Partnership of Bully Power and Media Can Convict a Teacher at 3020-a

In fact, I have in my files many arbitration decisions where the educator "Respondent" is charged with calling the police on students who were harming them and/or fellow students in their class. Here is an excerpt from the decision of Arbitrator Daniel McCray, Esq., June 20, 2019:

"The Department argues Respondent is guilty of Specification 10, in that she called 911 as a form of discipline against J.B. The Department recognizes that this Specification was proffered after the initial set of charges. However, the Department asserts that this is permissible under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which expressly permits the Department to bring charges within three years of the alleged misconduct. Moreover, the Department asserts there is a presumption that charges against a Respondent should be consolidated in a single 3020-a proceeding. Therefore, there is no dispute the Department could proceed separately with this charge. Moreover, the additional Specifications address the same series of events already charged and Respondent had ample time to prepare her defense. Therefore, Respondent was not prejudiced by the inclusion of the additional Specifications. The Department insists, as a result, the arbitrator should not believe Respondent's testimony that she called 911 because she feared for her physical safety and was requesting a Level III safety officer. It is undisputed that student J.B. was nowhere near Respondent when she stepped out of the hallway and called 911. Transcript at page 504. As a result, the Department insists I cannot conclude that she was reporting an emergency or crime requiring immediate police intervention.

Rather, according to the Department, the record evidence demonstrates Respondent was violating Chancellor's Regulation A-411, which requires behavioral crisis de-escalation and intervention first. This regulation clearly states when 911 may be called: "where a student's behavior poses an imminent and substantial risk of serious injury to himself or others and the situation cannot safely be addressed by school staff the Principal or designee must call 911." However, the regulation makes crystal clear that "in no circumstances should 911 be called or employed as a disciplinary response or disciplinary measure because of the student's behavior.''

According to the Department, Respondent's own testimony of why she wanted a Level III safety officer was because, according to her, only they were able to provide the appropriate type of corrective action with the student. Transcript at page 511-512. Thus, in Respondent's own words she was calling 911 to discipline the student. In addition, the Regulation goes on to state that if an employee has to call 911 without following the above procedure they must notify the Principal or his or her designee. However, it is undisputed Respondent did not do this. In fact, Principal Keane testified that she became aware that the police had been notified when they reported to the school. As a result, the Department insists it has proven Specification 10. For the same reasons, the Department argues it has proven Specification 11, that by calling 911 to discipline J.B., Respondent unreasonably and substantially interfered with his mental, emotional and/or physical well-being; and Specification 12, that it substantially interfered with J.B.'s ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program or other aspects of his education."

Arbitrator McCray found the charge substantiated, and terminated Respondent.

I have done several cases where the Respondent was charged with calling the police after a student created a situation of extreme danger in his/her classroom. How does this charge make sense unless the NYC DOE wants to stop anyone from reporting anything? By the way, just try to get your Freedom of Information request answered within a year. Good luck.

I think what needs to happen is:

1. Keep the School Safety Agents under the control and funding of the police department NYPD.

2. Set up training programs on Restorative Justice, conducting fair investigations, handling out of control students.

3. Establish procedures inside schools that allow immediate assistance if needed, including calling the police in to help if there is any perceived danger of harm or death in a classroom.

4. Monitor save rooms, make sure that the students who are being held there get counseling.

5. Give SSAs and Guidance Counselors time to get together to discuss students at risk.

6. Give SSAs the right to discuss students with the school nurse and to see records, with a confidential lock on the reports on a need-to-know basis.

7. Set up a chain of custody for reports of student violence that does not - and cannot - be made into charges against the reporter/educator/staff member.

8. Fund independent school monitors inside the police department, maybe 1 in each of the 32 school districts in NYC. Do not allow any coverups or attacks on those who file reports.
9. Remove the responsibility for creating financial reports and budgets from the principal, give to a District business officer hired to do accounting, tax assessments, and everything else. Principals have enough to handle already, and their focus should be on the students.

These are just some of the corrections I see, but certainly, many more are probably needed.

But what is not needed, is any movement of the SSAs to the NYC Department of Education. 

The safety of our children is at stake.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog
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 

Carranza's Book For New Teachers and The Essay "Dear White Teacher"

  So now, according to the NY POST, the NYC Department of Education Chancellor Richard Carranza is marketing a book with an essay for white teachers with the message:

"Don't be afraid to discipline black students"

Indeed, the NYPOST followed up by talking with Essay author Chrysanthius Lathan about her essay, and she is quoted as saying:

"Essay author Chrysanthius Lathan blasts white teachers who she says routinely send minority students to “teachers of color” for discipline — because they’re scared of being called racist."

In my opinion, Portland Oregon is a very different place than New York City, and what Ms. Lathan says is irrelevant to what is happening here in the Big Apple.

We know that teachers of ANY color or race are randomly selected to be charged with misconduct, discontinued, or railroaded into "ineffective ratings" because he or she disciplines a kid of ANY color. The sad truth is, NYC public schools are segregated, and all the students who attend - at least middle or upper grade students - know this. They see it. "White" kids get benefits that "black" children don't. Except for discipline. Any child of any color who assaults a teacher or peer will get maybe a short suspension, but that is it. The NYC DOE does not allow any teacher (unless this person is "liked" by someone higher up) to discipline ANY child.

But disciplining a black student is in a category all on its' own. Any teacher who tries it will be punished. One of the teachers I worked with at his 3020-a was assaulted by a student who was a well-known bully and gang member at the school. He was "allowed" to terrorize and harm anyone, including members of staff. My client did the right thing: he filed a police report, then reported the incident to the principal. He was charged with assaulting the student instead of the other way around, and another charge was revealing the boy's picture to the police.

We have looked at more than 1000 teacher tenure hearings and 3020-a Specifications, completed more than 107 arbitrations, and read and analyzed the cases of educators at all levels, content areas and licenses, looking for patterns and practices. The Department's secret policies are to never discipline any child, and to go after the educator/staff member who spoke up about an incident - even if this individual was completely innocent of any involvement.

The NY POST wrote:

"And, obviously, educators need to know that their superiors, all the way to the top, will back them up as long as they’re doing their job."

As it stands right now, we know that Superiors do not support a teacher, paraprofessional, or any other staff member, charged with misconduct because they must rely on the investigations which are done, allegedly, at the school level. (Our opinion: no one does an investigation within the Department). This is DOE policy. The only way the Superintendents get involved is if they put a call in to the investigator/principal/administrator saying that they want the process to stop (because they are related to the educator, or for political reasons).


See the story of Eileen Ghastin:

The Partnership of Bully Power and Media Can Convict a Teacher at 3020-a 

Betsy Combier, betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ.com

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

Chancellor Richard Carranza

 New NYC teachers given book with essay titled ‘Dear White Teacher’
 By Carl Campanile, Selim Algar and Bruce Golding, Sept. 3, 2019

A cadre of newly hired teachers will report to city schools this week following orientation sessions where they were given a book that includes an essay titled “Dear White Teacher,” The Post has learned.

But unlike the Department of Education’s controversial “implicit bias” training — which, among other lessons, tells teachers that “racial equity” requires favoring black students over whites — the essay’s message is that white instructors should stop being afraid to discipline black students.

Essay author Chrysanthius Lathan blasts white teachers who she says routinely send minority students to “teachers of color” for discipline — because they’re scared of being called racist.

“My strength in the classroom does not come from my racial identity, and neither does yours,” wrote Lathan, a former teacher in Portland, Oregon, who now works as an educational consultant.

“It comes from the way we treat — and what we expect from — kids and families. It is time for you to take back the power in your classroom.”

Lathan also gives blunt advice to the white teachers she says “live in fear of their good faith actions being labeled as racist.”

Essay author Chrysanthius Lathan blasts white teachers who she says routinely send minority students to “teachers of color” for discipline — because they’re scared of being called racist.

“My strength in the classroom does not come from my racial identity, and neither does yours,” wrote Lathan, a former teacher in Portland, Oregon, who now works as an educational consultant.

“It comes from the way we treat — and what we expect from — kids and families. It is time for you to take back the power in your classroom.”

Lathan also gives blunt advice to the white teachers she says “live in fear of their good faith actions being labeled as racist.”

“You need to find that bone in your body that tends to recoil when it comes time to deal with people of color —- and purposely straighten it back out,” she wrote.

By contrast, the $23 million, “implicit bias” training mandated by schools Chancellor Richard Carranza included consultant Darnisa Amante’s justification that a middle-class black student would “have less access and less opportunities” over the course of a lifetime than a poor white classmate, according to sources who heard her say it.

A veteran Queens teacher said DOE educators were getting “a lot of mixed messages.”

“On the one hand, we’re told that we have these implicit biases that we need to work on to get rid of,” the teacher said.

“And on the other hand, certain teachers are told that race is incredibly important in everything we do. It’s like: don’t focus on race, but focus on race.”

“Dear White Teacher” is among more than 50 essays in “The New Teacher Book,” a 324-page manual published by Rethinking Schools, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit.

Copies of the $24.95 paperback were included in some of the tote bags given to the 2,700 new teachers who attended two days of orientation last week ahead of Thursday’s start of the 2019-20 school year.

Several readings take aim at traditional measures of learning, with titles including “Time to Get Off the Testing Train,” “Beyond Test Scores” and “My Dirty Little Secret: I Don’t Grade Student Papers.”

There are also repeated attacks on charter schools — which purportedly pose a “fundamental threat to the hope of sustaining a multicultural democracy” — and sections that urge new teachers to get involved in their unions and join activist groups.

A veteran city educator who took part in last week’s orientation sessions was outraged that the book was distributed, saying it was “of no practical use.”

A DOE spokesman said the book contained “valuable strategies for new teachers and received positive reviews from several leading educators,” but also maintained that “its views represent the book’s authors, not the DOE.”

De Blasio and Carranza should heed the wisdom of ‘Dear White Teacher’

 NYPOST Editorial Board, September 3, 2019

Included in a book for new teachers this year at orientation is an essay entitled “Dear White Teacher,” written by a veteran black 8th-grade educator named Chrysanthius Lathan. She says that far too many white teachers send students to her for discipline, because “many whites live in fear of their good faith actions being labeled as racist.”

Hmm. Now why would a New York City teacher fear that in 2019? Maybe because they’re getting regular training in how they are all racist, and if they don’t see it then they’re simply full of “implicit bias.”

Perhaps because Chancellor Richard Carranza seems unable to talk about anything except race, and how the entire system is racist, biased and so on. And because Mayor Bill de Blasio (when he’s in town, anyway) backs him up every step of the way.
And because the Department of Education continues to push ever-weaker discipline codes, and ever more reliance on penalty-free “restorative justice,” in a tail-chasing effort to make discipline statistics more racially balanced. Why wouldn’t teachers be scared to run a disciplined classroom?

You have to wonder if “Dear White Teacher” slipped through without Carranza’s notice, since it offers a grounded, sensible and realistic look not just at racial issues, but at the basics of teaching itself. You need to be fair and you need to be involved, Lathan says, and white teachers shouldn’t be afraid of giving time-outs to students of color.

“My strength in the classroom does not come from my racial identity, and neither does yours,” she sums up at the end. “It comes from the way we treat — and what we expect from — kids and families. It is time for you to take back the power in your classroom.”

Absolutely: Classroom control is the threshold skill of teaching; if you’re not in charge, you can’t do anything.

Lathan was inspired to write after realizing that (too) many white teachers in her Portland, Ore., school were overrelying on her for help in communicating to black parents.

She was fine being a source of “advice and understanding regarding students and families of color” — but not on being relied upon solely. So she had a chat with some of her regular discipline cases, who told her the other teachers were “scared of us and our parents, too,” whereas “You’re not scared of us. We’re scared of you, though … scared in a good way. We’re scared to disappoint you.”

“Students spoke of my familiar demeanor and tone, my classroom routines, my allowance of personal space when needed, my low tolerance for work avoidance or refusal, my refusal to kick students out but instead expecting them to work hard, my classroom environment of respect for one another, and so on. All of this sounded like what any good teacher would do.”

Indeed — even if each teacher has to find his or her own effective balance of firmness, empathy, charisma and so on when it comes to winning students’ respect.

You have to wonder if Carranza and de Blasio believe, as Lathan does: “There’s no doubt that we need more teachers of color in our schools, but we also have to deal with the situation that exists today.”

Having seen white teachers “freeze” all too often, she offers some tips along with her “take back the power in your classroom” demand. And new teachers in every school can certainly use more specific advice from veteran educators of all colors.

And, obviously, educators need to know that their superiors, all the way to the top, will back them up as long as they’re doing their job.

Don’t undermine teachers. Let them do that job.