ATR Meeting November 11

The Two Parts of 3020-a: Evidence/proof of Charges, and Penalty - Case of Jay Dubner

Re-posted from
 "Inside 3020-a"

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Appeals of 3020-a: the Case of Jay Dubner v New York City Department of Education

A trier of fact in 3020-a, the Arbitrator, has actually two decisions to make in each and every case. One is, what was proven by the preponderance of evidence, and the Department of Education has this burden throughout the hearing. Two, what penalty shall be given for the proven Specifications?

When deciding penalty in 3020-a, all Arbitrators must look at prior history (this is for "progressive discipline") of the employee/Respondent, credibility of witnesses, and what is on the record as evidence. All arbitrators must take into consideration of the educator's remorse for what happened, and what he/she did to undo and bad acts in the past (did he/she go to class for pedagogical improvement? Did he/she go to rehabilitation if there was an alcohol/drug issue?)

Looking through appeals of 3020-a cases which, before 1994, went before the New York State Commissioner of Education, I found the case below, Jay A. Dubner v NYC DOE, where Dubner successfully appealed his termination as too harsh:

Appeal of JAY A. DUBNER from a determination rendered by a hearing panel convened pursuant to Education Law '3020-a concerningcharges brought against him by the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York.

Decision No. 13,021

(October 15, 1993)

Neal Howard Rosenberg, Esq., attorney for petitioner

Lawrence E. Becker, Esq., attorney for respondent, Katie R. Raab, Esq., of counsel

SOBOL, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of a hearing panel convened pursuant to Education Law '3020-a finding him guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher and prejudicial to the good order, efficiency and discipline of the service, and authorizing termination from his position. The appeal must be sustained to the extent indicated.

Petitioner is a tenured teacher of special education. He has been employed by respondent City School District of the City of New York ("respondent") for nearly 15 years and, at the time of the events giving rise to this appeal, was serving in a non-classroom position in Community School District No. 17.

On May 8, 1989, petitioner was arrested, and by indictment filed May 25, 1989 in Supreme Court, Kings County, was charged with multiple felony counts of sale and possession of controlled substances. Petitioner was reassigned to a position with the Central Based Support Team (CBST).

On June 19, 1990, petitioner pled guilty in Supreme Court to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class B felony. On July 20, 1990, he was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 2 to 6 years in prison.

On November 30, 1990, the Chancellor submitted a charge to the board of education reciting the above conviction, alleging that it constituted conduct unbecoming a teacher and conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency, and discipline of the service, and that it constituted substantial cause rendering petitioner unfit to continue as an employee. On December 5, 1990, the board found probable cause for such charge.

A hearing panel convened on May 24, 1991, pursuant to Education Law '3020-a, and heard testimony for a total of 8 days, concluding on February 27, 1992. The panel produced a record of approximately 800 pages of testimony. On April 1, 1992, the panel found petitioner guilty of the charge and authorized his dismissal, by a vote of 2-1. Petitioner was dismissed by formal action of the board of education on May 20, 1992.

This appeal was commenced on June 18, 1992, by service of the petition upon respondent board of education, and petitioner requested a stay of his dismissal. That stay was denied on June 30, 1992.

There can be little doubt as to the seriousness of the underlying offense. The superseding indictment charges petitioner with criminal possession and sale of cocaine on two separate occasions (both sales would be class A-II felonies punishable by 8 1/3 years to life in prison) and criminal possession of cocaine on a third occasion. Petitioner pled guilty to a single count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class B felony, and received a sentence of 2 to 6 years in prison.

Petitioner contends that he was addicted to cocaine prior to his arrest, that his crime was directly related to his addiction and that he entered into a program of treatment. He claims that his treatment was successful, he has been successfully rehabilitated and has indeed performed his assigned work duties with respondent following his rehabilitation. He further claims that his dismissal violates '504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Petitioner asks that I reverse the hearing panel's finding as to guilt, and that I grant such other relief as may be proper under the circumstances.

Respondent contends that the disciplinary proceeding was in all respects correctly conducted and the penalty of termination of services is proper. Respondent claims that because of substantial adverse publicity at the time of petitioner's arrest and sentencing, it would be impossible for petitioner to discharge the duties of a teacher. Respondent further claims that the record does not establish that petitioner was addicted prior to his arrest, nor that his condition was in any way caused by addiction. Respondent further contends that the Rehabilitation Act is not applicable to the circumstances of this case.

Petitioner asks that I reverse the hearing panel's finding as to guilt. I decline to do so. There is no question that petitioner is guilty of the underlying criminal charge. The record contains both the minutes of petitioner's plea on June 19, 1990, to a class B felony and a certificate of disposition duly executed by the Supreme Court Clerk. Conviction of this felony clearly constitutes conduct unbecoming a teacher and conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency, and discipline of the service. Accordingly, there is no basis for reversing the panel's determination as to guilt.

With respect to the issue of penalty, Appeal of Board of Education of Community School District 19 (32 Ed Dept Rep 354), decided while this appeal was pending, is on point. In that case, I set forth a number of factors which must be considered when a respondent claims that his criminal offense was a result of an alcohol or drug-related problem. The factors are: (1) whether or not the drug-related arrest and conviction that formed the basis of the charges were the manifestation of respondent's substance abuse problem; (2) whether or not respondent has acknowledged his problem; (3) whether or not respondent has successfully undergone treatment for his problem; and (4) whether or not respondent demonstrates a capacity to carry out his duties due to his progress in the treatment program (32 Ed Dept Rep 354 at p. 357).

With respect to the first question, whether or not petitioner was addicted to drugs prior to his arrest, the record contains the testimony of fourteen persons, including petitioner. The critical time period, of course, is the time immediately prior to the arrest. With respect to that time period, only petitioner testified directly, and respondent produced no rebuttal of his claim that he was addicted then. Although petitioner arguably failed to produce certain relevant witnesses who could have bolstered his testimony, there is some question whether those witnesses were within his control, and I, therefore, decline to draw any unfavorable inference because of their failure to testify. Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence in the record to convince me that petitioner had a substance abuse problem prior to his arrest.

With respect to the second factor discussed in Community School District 19, the record offers sufficient evidence that petitioner acknowledged his drug addiction. On May 31, 1989 following his May 8, 1989, arrest, petitioner voluntarily entered a six-week inpatient drug treatment program at Gracie Square Hospital. Although petitioner admits initially denying he had a substance abuse problem, he later fully acknowledged and accepted his condition. This was validated by the testimony of a physician and a licensed drug counselor. Both testified that such denial is typical of patients new to recovery. According to these professionals, recovering addicts have a tendency to deny the existence of a substance abuse problem during the early stages of recovery in an attempt to minimize the severity of their condition. Once petitioner accepted his condition, he began to participate actively in treatment.

Petitioner makes the claim that his treatment has been successful, the third factor set forth in Community School District 19. That treatment consisted of not only a six-week inpatient drug treatment program, but participation for one year in an after-care program at the same hospital as an outpatient. During his incarceration, which lasted approximately 3 1/2 months, petitioner was involved in the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment (ASAT) program sponsored by the New York State Department of Corrections, which consisted of group therapy and participation in Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Petitioner maintains that he attends Cocaine and Narcotics Anonymous meetings three or four times per week. As of January 1992, petitioner was enrolled in courses to become a drug and alcohol substance abuse counselor to assist other addicts in recovery. Based upon these facts, petitioner has demonstrated an earnest desire to be rehabilitated.

With respect to the question of petitioner's present capacity to carry out his duties, the record contains testimony from four of petitioner's current colleagues and supervisors in the administrative offices of the board of education. Witnesses referred to petitioner as an excellent employee. He was further described as very good at his job and on task prior to and following his May 8, 1989 arrest. Additional testimony revealed that petitioner performed duties as required, was very organized, focused, rarely absent and arrived for work on time. According to a supervisor, prior to petitioner's arrest, petitioner trained an assistant and overall, left the office in a better condition than he found it.

Following his May 1989 arrest and subsequent job reassignment in September 1989, petitioner testified he was only absent once. Petitioner further reveals that he worked when it was not required, often stayed late and worked on holidays and during summer vacations. At his position with the CBST, petitioner carried a case load approximately double that of his co-workers and also was assigned to special projects.

The primary purpose of a disciplinary hearing is not punitive, but rather, to determine a teacher's fitness to teach and carry out professional responsibilities (Matter of Bott v. Bd of Educ., 41 NY2d 265). After careful review of the lengthy testimony and numerous exhibits, I am unable to conclude that petitioner is unfit to teach. Moreover, petitioner has confronted his drug addiction and has, thus far, demonstrated success in overcoming it. Finally, there is no basis to conclude that the underlying conduct that resulted in the charge will recur.

With respect to the nature of the penalty imposed, it is well settled that the Commissioner may substitute his judgment for that of a hearing panel regarding the penalty imposed (Shurgin v. Ambach, 83 AD2d 665, 442 NYS2d 212). This requires an assessment of the measure of discipline and whether it is proportionate to the offense (Matter of Mockler v. Ambach, 79 AD2d 745, 434 NYS2d 809, lv to app den 53 NY2d 603, 439 NYS2d 1026; Matter of Kloepfer v. Commissioner, et al., 82 AD2d 665, affd 56 NY2d 700; Shurgin v. Ambach, supra). It is within the Commissioner's authority to reduce a penalty (Matter of Board of Education of the Center Moriches UFSD, 22 Ed Dept Rep 113). In that case, the Commissioner determined that despite a panel's finding of incompetence, termination was not necessary as recommended by the hearing panel. In Appeal of the Board of Education of the Malverne UFSD (29 Ed Dept Rep 363, affd sub nom Matter of Malverne UFSD v. Sobol, 181 AD2d 371), I substituted my judgment for that of the panel, reducing the penalty imposed.

In the case before me, the panel has recommended that petitioner be terminated. However, the record supports the conclusion that petitioner suffered from drug addiction prior to his arrest, acknowledged his problem, sought treatment that has been successful and is capable of carrying out his professional responsibilities. Termination of petitioner's services under these circumstances would be unduly harsh.

I find that a penalty of two years' suspension without pay is more appropriate than termination and will be sufficient to impress upon petitioner the seriousness of his actions and to serve as a deterrent to any future similar actions.

Finally, petitioner's reliance on '504 of the Rehabilitation Act (20 U.S.C. '794) is misplaced. Assuming without deciding that petitioner qualifies as an "individual with a disability" as defined by 20 U.S.C. '706(8), and that '794 is otherwise applicable, it is clear that the disciplinary action taken here by respondent was not taken "solely by reason of his or her disability." Disciplinary action was taken as a result of petitioner's commission of a class B felony. Where an employee is disciplined for criminal activity, the Rehabilitation Act has no application (Richardson v. United States Postal Service, 613 F. Supp. 1213; Franklin v. United States Postal Service, 687 F. Supp. 1214). Where a teacher commits a crime, one may also question whether that teacher is an "otherwise qualified individual" for purposes of 20 U.S.C. '794, but such speculation is unnecessary given the circumstances of the case.

In view of this disposition, it is unnecessary to consider or discuss the other contentions of the parties.

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED.

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner be suspended without pay for a period of two (2) years, commencing May 20, 1992, and terminating May 19, 1994.

END OF FILE

Protecting Tenure and the Story of Agustin Morales

MONDAY, OCT 13, 2014 06:59 AM EDT

“Poster child for tenure”: Why teacher Agustin Morales really lost his job

LINK

A teacher in Massachusetts spoke up when his students' rights were being violated. Here's how he paid the price

SARAH JAFFE

TOPICS: TEACHER, EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, EDITOR'S PICKS, TENURE, LABOR, WORKERS,MASSACHUSETTS, PARENTS, REFORM, STANDARDIZED TESTING, BUSINESS NEWS, POLITICS NEWS

(Credit: diane39 via iStock)

It was the “data walls” that drove Agustin Morales, an English teacher at Maurice A. Donahue Elementary School in Holyoke, Massachusetts, to speak up.

Last February, Morales and some of his colleagues, as well as parents whose students attend Holyoke public schools, spoke at a school committee meeting (the equivalent of a school board) and protested a directive from higher-ups to post students’ test scores on the walls of their classrooms, complete with the students’ names. Paula Burke, parent of a third-grader at Donahue, called the walls “public humiliation.” Some teachers questioned whether posting data publicly violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. As I reported at the time for In These Times, the superintendent tried to turn the tables on teachers, saying that they were never told to use students’ names and that the directive did not come from the administration, but the teachers released a PowerPoint from their training session that clearly showed photos of sample data walls, with first names and last initials.

Now, Morales thinks his standing up to the administration has cost him his job. And a preliminary finding from the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations backs him up. In September, the board found that there was probable cause to believe that the non-renewal letter he received in June from the district was because of his protected union activity.

Morales tells Salon that for the first two and a half years he taught in Holyoke, the western Massachusetts town where he grew up, his evaluations were stellar. But after the school committee meeting last February, his evaluations “just got so unbelievably negative.” He was elected president of the Holyoke Teachers Association, a local chapter of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, in May as a reform candidate, part of the Educators for a Democratic Union (EDU) caucus that also elected Barbara Madeloni president of the state union. A month later, he was fired.

“All of a sudden I start speaking out and I can’t do anything right,” he says. “I can’t write good lesson plans, I can’t control my classroom, I’m doing everything possible wrong. All of a sudden. The writing for me was on the wall.”

Dan Clawson, a member of EDU and a prominent labor sociologist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, connects Morales’s firing to the larger struggles going on nationwide around teacher tenure. In June, a California judge ruled in Vergara v. California that teacher tenure and seniority laws were unconstitutional. Thoughlegal experts questioned the legal reasoning of the decision, anti-union education reformers declared victory and announced plans to move on — Campbell Brown, former CNN anchor turned professional anti-teacher campaigner, launched a similar lawsuit in New York despite sending her own children to private school.

“In some sense, Gus is the poster child for why teachers need tenure,” Clawson tells Salon. “Without tenure, we are all Gus Morales: if we speak up for students, we will be fired, even if what we are pointing to are violations of the law by the school system.”

In Massachusetts, a teacher achieves “professional teacher status,” equivalent to tenure, after three years in one school district. Morales, who has been teaching for seven years, was just on the cusp of having this protection in Holyoke. It’s worth noting that tenure or its equivalent is not what Brown and other campaigners like to call it, a guaranteed job for life — the school district can still fire you, they’re just required to give you due process first.

Morales finds the attack on him frustrating because, he says, by speaking out he hoped to make things better. “Even in some of my speeches, you can go back and listen to them, I said ‘This is not about any one person or any one policy, it’s about a system that’s broken,’” he says. “I’m doing my job as a teacher, but because of my extracurricular activities speaking against some of the reforms, all of a sudden, my livelihood gets tied to my extracurricular activities and that’s just so inappropriate. Because here you have kids that are in front of me, and if I witness bad things, am I not supposed to report those things?”

The initial finding from the Labor Department was a relief for Morales, though he says he never doubted that his firing was retaliation. “Even though people were very supportive of me, still there was that doubt in the air. What this did, a third party that has nothing to do with Holyoke Public Schools and has nothing to do with the Holyoke Teachers Association, they’re a separate entity, they found the probable cause after both sides presented their case. A completely removed, unbiased party, finding probable cause for retaliation in the district.”

The complaint, issued by the Department of Labor Relations and provided to Salon by Morales, explains that there is “probable cause” to believe that a violation of the law occurred and lists the possible violations to be discussed at the hearing, including the possibility that “the School Committee has discriminated against Morales for engaging in concerted activity protected by Section 2 of the Law in violation of Section 10(a)(3) of the Law.”

Parents, other teachers from the district and across the state and the Pioneer Valley Labor Council all came out to support Morales at the press conference they held when they got the news from the labor department. But for now, all they can do is wait. The full hearing will be scheduled for November or December, and Morales notes ruefully that without the income from his teaching job, he’s had to sell his house and move into a smaller apartment. Still, he says, “You don’t get into a fight like this and not expect to get hit. This is a hit for me, but I’m still standing.”

Meanwhile, he says, he’s got his hands full as president of the union. Teachers and students are stressed out constantly over high-stakes testing, and poorer districts like Holyoke face the brunt of the “reforms.” “From my district alone, we’re losing teachers, and not just teachers that are being bullied either,” Morales says. “We’re losing good teachers that are being left alone for the most part but they just can’t witness it anymore. They can’t deal with all the crying, they can’t deal with all the stress, they can’t deal with the anxiety. You have all these teachers who are so anxious, the anxiety is so thick it’s actually, at points for me, it feels like it’s tangible, like I can actually touch the anxiety.”

He continues, “I get emails constantly from teachers saying ‘I’m looking for another job; I can’t do this anymore.’ And it bothers me because I know they love their job, they really do, they love teaching, what they don’t love is the bureaucracy that has been intertwined with teaching, that has no place in teaching but now it pretty much has taken up teaching.”

Around the state and around the country, though, teachers are standing up and getting more support from parents as it becomes clear that education “reform” based on endless testing rather than equitable funding is not helping children.

For Morales, there’s no other choice.

“There’s definitely some consequences and there are some dangers to it but if we keep allowing these things to happen, if we don’t stand up to any of these dangers — data walls is just one of them, high-stakes testing is another one — if we don’t start fighting back, my biggest worry, the thing that keeps me up at night, is that there’s not going to be a teaching profession in five years. It’s all going to be minimum wage employees basically running the schools with scripts. That’s the biggest danger posed to us, and if our leaders, if our superintendents, if our principals, if they don’t start questioning what’s going on, we’re all done.”

MORE SARAH JAFFE.

NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio's Promise For Transparency Goes Up In Smoke

 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/nyregion/de-blasios-transparency-is-turning-opaque-under-fire.html

To Mayor Bill de Blasio, the recent commotion over Rachel Noerdlinger, his wife’s top aide — who failed to disclose during a background check that she lives with a boyfriend who has a serious criminal history — is a tabloid-fueled personal attack that merits no further discussion.

“Case closed,” the mayor said this week, adopting the move-it-along-folks attitude that has quickly become a de Blasio signature during his first nine months in office.

It is not unusual for mayors to want irritating story lines to go away. But the Noerdlinger episode has fueled a broader question about Mr. de Blasio and the values of his young administration: how a onetime champion of transparency and accountability can square those ideals with the newfound power — and frustrations — of his office.

RELATED COVERAGE


De Blasio Stands Behind Aide Who Omitted Boyfriend on Background Check FormOCT. 6, 2014

As a candidate, Mr. de Blasio pledged an ask-me-anything era at City Hall, promoting himself as a different, friendlier breed of political leader. And as public advocate, he frequently assailed former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for standing by senior aides, such as the former schools chief Cathleen P. Black, who had found themselves under fire.Photo

Rachel Noerdlinger, facing camera, and Chirlane McCray in January, when Ms. Noerdlinger was named her chief of staff. CreditRob Bennett/NYC Mayor's Office

Now, experiencing some of the same difficulties faced by his predecessors, Mr. de Blasio is responding with the same sort of peevishness and obfuscation he once bemoaned.

The mayor has shut down questions about why he phoned a high-ranking police official after the arrest of a campaign supporter, telling reporters, “That’s the end of the story.” Told by a television reporter that New Yorkers wanted to know why his police-issued S.U.V. was speeding on residential streets in Queens, the mayor replied, “I’m not interested in the construct of what you as an individual think many New Yorkers think.”

Even lighthearted queries can prompt a stony response. Last month, Mr. de Blasio refused to say how he felt after learning of the death of Staten Island Chuck, the groundhog who fell from his arms in a ceremonial mishap. “Talk to the Staten Island Zoo,” the mayor said, mirthlessly.

Determined not to let critics or news coverage set their agenda, Mr. de Blasio and his City Hall advisers have taken to ignoring inquiries on matters that displease them. His communications team believes strongly that most negative stories will disappear, or at least be forgotten by the time Mr. de Blasio’s re-election effort rolls around in 2017.

That approach is being tested again by the episode involving Ms. Noerdlinger, a former adviser to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is paid $170,000 a year predominantly to shape the image of the mayor’s wife, Chirlane McCray.

The facts of the matter are not in dispute. Ms. Noerdlinger lives with a boyfriend, Hassaun McFarlan, who went to prison for manslaughter as a teenager and has been arrested several times since, including last fall when he nearly struck a New Jersey police officer while driving Ms. Noerdlinger’s car.

When she applied for her job, Ms. Noerdlinger informed the mayor’s team about her relationship. But she did not list Mr. McFarlan as a resident of her home on a formal background questionnaire used by the city’s Department of Investigation to vet candidates for high-ranking city positions.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

If there is a simple explanation for the discrepancy, Mr. de Blasio and his team are not providing it. For a week, the mayor’s office has not answered questions about why Ms. Noerdlinger left out her boyfriend’s name, an omission that can be punished by dismissal.

Mr. de Blasio’s aides have also declined to release or discuss the contents of a letter sent to the mayor last week by Mark G. Peters, the commissioner of the Investigation Department, which conducted an inquiry into Ms. Noerdlinger’s actions. The letter summarizes the findings of the inquiry, but Phil Walzak, the mayor’s press secretary, said in an email that he could not discuss those findings “because this document is subject to privacy protections.” The mayor’s office has not provided a legal basis for those protections.

Instead, the mayor’s office issued a statement saying simply that the Investigation Department had found no “intent to deceive the mayor or City Hall” on the part of Ms. Noerdlinger, whom Mr. de Blasio chose not to discipline beyond a note in her personnel file.

Ms. Noerdlinger’s actions, by themselves, do not amount to a Watergate-size scandal. But the mayor’s response has troubled some who believe she is being afforded special protection.

“I would have expected at the very least a slap on the wrist,” said Kenneth Sherrill, who taught political science at Hunter College for 41 years. “I find it hard to believe that a rank-and-file public employee who even mistakenly filled out a form like that would not be punished.”

“I enthusiastically support the right of anyone to have a personal life,” Mr. Sherrill added. “The disclosure thing, obviously, is troubling.”

For the mayor, the political dynamics at play are complex.

Ms. Noerdlinger is black, and Mr. de Blasio’s team believes privately that the criticism of her has been racially charged. Police unions, angered by the influential role given to Mr. Sharpton in the de Blasio administration, have seized on reports about Ms. Noerdlinger’s boyfriend — including claims that he referred to law enforcement officers as “pigs” in online postings — to say she should not occupy a high-ranking place in City Hall.

Mr. de Blasio is also reluctant to acquiesce to pressure, believing that to punish Ms. Noerdlinger would amount to ceding personnel decisions to outsiders, advisers who are familiar with his thinking say.

“She is a good public servant, and that’s what I respect,” Mr. de Blasio said at a news conference on Staten Island this week, where he was repeatedly questioned about Ms. Noerdlinger’s omission (and where he made his “case closed” remarks).

To combat questions of transparency, the mayor’s press office often notes that it distributes a near-verbatim transcript of every mayoral news conference just hours after it has occurred.

But this week brought an unusual exception. Mr. de Blasio made his comments about Ms. Noerdlinger on Monday afternoon. By Thursday evening, the transcript from that event had still not been sent.


William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting

The Philadelphia School Reform Commission Cancels The Teachers' Contract

 

POSTED: MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2014, 9:43 AM

In a stunning move that could reshape the face of city schools, the Philadelphia School Reform Commission voted Monday to unilaterally cancel its teachers’ contract. The vote was unanimous.

The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers was given no advance word of the action — which happened at an early-morning SRC meeting called with minimal notice — and which figures to result in a legal challenge to the takeover law the SRC believes gives it the power to bypass negotiations and impose terms.

Jerry Jordan, PFT president, called the move "cowardly" and vowed to fight it strongly.

"I am taking nothing off the table," a clearly angry Jordan said at an afternoon news conference. Job actions could be possible, once he determines what members want to do. "We are not indentured servants."

MORE COVERAGE

 

'This felt like a punch in the back'

 

Bunch: Heartbreaking act of cowardice

 

Featherman: Teachers' union should strike

Do you agree with the SRC decision to cancel teachers' contracts?

Yes

No

View Results

 

The district says it will not cut the wages of 15,000 teachers, counselors, nurses, secretaries and other PFT members. But it plans to dismantle the long-standing Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, which is controlled by the union, and take over administering benefits.

Going forward, most PFT members will have to pay either 10 percent or 13 percent of the cost of their medical plan, depending on their salaries. They now pay nothing. Officials said that workers would pay between $21 and $70 a month, beginning Dec. 15.

The changes will save the cash-strapped district $54 million this school year, officials said, and as much as $70 million in subsequent years.

That money, SRC Chairman Bill Green said, will be invested directly into classrooms, with principals empowered to use the cash as they see fit — to hire a full-time counselor and nurse, perhaps, or to pay for more supplies or after-school programs.

Both Gov. Corbett and acting state Education Secretary Carolyn Dumaresq said the action means Philadelphia teachers will now join most teachers in the state in contributing to their health care.

“Today’s action by the SRC will effectively close the funding gap and provide the district with the ability to hire new teachers, counselors and nurses, and secure educational resources that will benefit the students of Philadelphia," Corbett said in a statement.

Since being named by Corbett to lead the SRC, Green has signaled that he would be willing to impose a contract on the teachers’ union if a negotiated settlement could not be reached. The two sides have been talking for 21 months and are not close to a deal.

“Every single stakeholder has stepped up to help the district close its structural deficit — the principals, our blue-collar workers. Families and children have too, through the loss of resources, increased class sizes, and lack of materials. It is time for the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers to share in the sacrifice,” Green said in an interview before the vote.

Superintendent William R. Hite Jr. said it was a difficult decision to support the SRC’s action, especially given all that teachers and others have done for children in the past several years of bare-bones budgets.

“But we still don’t have sufficient resources in order to educate our children,” Hite said before the vote. “This allows us to save millions of dollars that we can return to schools very quickly.”

Both Hite and Green said the teachers’ new benefit plan is still a so-called Cadillac program, comparable with what the district’s principals, blue-collar workers and nonunion workers have.

The benefits change would also have a significant impact on retirees. The existing PFT Health and Welfare Fund, which has about $40 million built up in it, has opted to subsidize retired workers’ prescription, dental and vision benefits. The district will not continue that practice, officials said.

The district will continue paying into the fund until Dec. 15, then let it run out, officials said. It will halt payments to the PFT legal services fund immediately.

While the district’s budget is now balanced, it carried an $81 million deficit until very recently. It was not clear until a few weeks before the scheduled start of classes whether there was enough money to open schools on time.

Officials said the action was necessary now because the district could still face an $8 million deficit this year and a projected $70 million next year, even with the cancellation of the teachers' contract.

Whether the state takeover law, known as Act 46, actually gives the SRC the power to cancel union contracts remains to be seen.

The SRC has imposed some work rules on the teachers’ union the past year, but has always bargained contracts since its creation in 2001.

“Unbelievable!” Ted Kirsch, president of the statewide AFT-PA and a former longtime president of the PFT, said Monday morning when he learned of the SRC’s action.

“They have mismanaged this system and now they’re following along with Corbett’s plan - it’s the teachers’ fault.”

“This is exactly what I thought was going to happen when Green was appointed to the SRC,” Kirsch said.

The district will immediately go to court to affirm the SRC’s action, filing a motion for declaratory judgment with the Pennsylvania Department of Education as co-plaintiff.

The PFT is expected to strike back swiftly through the courts and will likely try to get an injunction to halt the SRC’s actions. The PFT does not believe the district has the power to impose terms.

In fact, it’s clear that district officials aren’t sure themselves.

In 2012, the SRC lobbied lawmakers to attempt to get an amendment to the takeover law that would give it the absolute right to impose terms on its unions. The amendment died when the Philadelphia delegation caught wind of the SRC’s maneuvers.

Since January 2013, the distinct and the SRC have had over 100 bargaining sessions to achieve a contract. The old PFT contract expired last summer.

Sources close to the talks described them as “cordial,” with no screaming or fist pounding. But they have moved slowly, and eventually district officials became convinced that without using the nuclear option, they would never achieve the changes they say are necessary.

Jordan has publicly said the union has offered millions in concessions, but the district declined to take them up on the savings.

When Green or even Gov. Corbett, who has taken the union to task on multiple occasions, has suggested in the past that the PFT has not stepped up, Jordan has been clear: The teachers have sacrificed enough and he will not allow the district’s budget to be balanced on their backs.

Matthew Stanski, the district’s chief financial officer, said that the givebacks offered by the PFT would have netted the district just $2 million. The PFT has indicated that its totals amounted to much more.

Jordan strongly disputed the $2 million figure.

"Lies again," he said. He said the PFT has offered enough to wipe away the projected 2015 deficit.

Green said the benefit savings will help remake the district.

Between the benefits savings, the extension of the sales tax and the newly enacted $2 per pack cigarette tax, the district will have roughly $230 million in annual, predictable funds. For the first time in years, the SRC can plan for investments in education, not just figure out how to prevent disasters.

“The rest of this year, once we get over this, is making people believe we can transform the district,” Green said.

Two SRC members who are former members of disrict unions said they believed the PFT contract cancellation was the only action to take.

"Everybody is paying into their benefits," said Commissioner Sylvia Simms, a former district bus aide. "We need to stop playing games on the backs of our children."

Marjorie Neff, a former PFT member and Masterman principal. said she found the decision personally painful.

"But schools cannot go through another year the way they went through last year financially," Neff said. "They're at the breaking point."

State law prevents the PFT from striking. It is the only union in Pennsylvania without that option. (Teachers technically could strike, but the law gives the state education department the right to pull their teaching licenses if they do so.)

This is a developing story. Please check back for more details.

At a glance

The School Reform Commission voted Monday morning to cancel the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers contract, a move that is likely to result in legal challenges. The district believes it has the power under the state takeover law to do so, but is also going to affirm its action. The state Department of Education will be a co-plaintiff in the legal proceedings in Commonwealth Court.

The SRC will not cut teachers’ wages. Salaries will remain the same. But it is planning a major benefits overhaul for the 15,000 teachers, counselors, nurses, secretaries and other workers who belong to the PFT.

The district is phasing out the PFT’s Health and Welfare Fund, which now has a balance of about $40 million. It will continue contributing to the fund through December 15, then cut off contributions. By the end of the year, all district employees will be covered under a district-managed health plan.

The district will discontinue the PFT’s practice of subsidizing for retirees’ vision, dental and prescription benefits.

The district says the move will save $54 million this school year and up to $70 million in subsequent years, money that will go directly into schools. Principals will be permitted to use the money as they see fit.

More:

-All employees represented by the PFT who opt for Philadelphia School District medical coverage will begin contributing to the cost of their health care benefits. Those who earn less than $25,000 a year will contribute 5 percent of their medical plan premiums; those who are paid between $25,000 and $50,000 per year will contribute 10 percent of the premiums; and those who earn over $55,000 will contribute 13 percent of the premiums. Officials said that would add up to a payroll deducation of between $20 and $71 per month.

-All district employees represented by the PFT will be offered a modified medical plan with an option to pay extra for their current plan.

-PFT members who enroll a spouse or domestic partner in a district medical plan when that person has a plan available to them will pay $70 per paycheck.

-PFT members will no longer receive “opt out” payments from the district if they decline coverage.

·