Once Again, Betsy Combier Questions the Delay in Getting Information About the Feb. 24, 2015 Plenary Meeting About 3020-a Prosecution by the DOE

Betsy in her office at the UFT, 16th floor, 52 Broadway circa 2009

 

As many of you know, I filed a Freedom of Information request to the DOE FOIL office, headed by Joe Baranello, for information about what has become a "secret policy meeting" for 3020-a arbitration:.
Betsy Combier Files a Freedom of Information Request to Obtain the Information Given Out At The NYC DOE February 24, 2015 Secret Meeting on 3020-a Hearings

Joe Baranello and His New Facebook Comment on the City, as Well as His Refusal to Answer Betsy Combier's FOIL Request #11,129

Another Request Sent By Betsy Combier Concerning F11,129 For Records of the Mandatory 3020-a Meeting Held on February 24, 2015

 

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

http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2015/04/betsy-combier-asks-foil-officer-joe.html

 

Joe Baranello Says Pay or You Dont Get To Play (F11,129)

 

You are probably wondering why I am posting all of my requests for information relating to the February 24, 2015 plenary meeting held at Tweed, NYC Department of Education headquarters for all NYSUT and DOE Attorneys as well as all the NYC 3020-a arbitrators.

After investigating the procedures used at 3020-a for the past 12 years, and now working as a paralegal/advocate for Respondents charged with 3020-a, I need to know what the current policies are for 3020-a according to the "Star Chamber" folk.

One of the private Attorneys who works with me on 3020-a cases for almost 5 years asked the DOE General Counsel, Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, if we could attend the February meeting, and she told us that no, there was no space, and there would be another meeting for private attorneys at another time. That was the last we heard. Can we, the general public accept the fact that there is too much secrecy surrounding 3020-a and getting good people charged with frivolous charges?

 The fact that the public has been shut out of how DOE employees brought to 3020-a are to be prosecuted is alarming.

On May 8, 2015 I received an answer from First General Counsel Judy Nathan to my appeal of the denial of access to the information about the plenary meeting and about the fees. See below for the email reply from Ms. Nathan as well as my response to her, sent May 9, 2015:

 

May 9, 2015

Dear Ms. Nathan,

 

Thank you for the timely reply.

Ms. Nathan, your title is "First Deputy Counsel," and  you are listed underneath Charity Guerra, whose title is "Chief Deputy Counsel."

Please see the "Contacts" listing below.

I copied it from the Office of the General Counsel page on the website of the NYC DOE.

http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/GeneralCounsel/default.htm
Contacts 

Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, General Counsel

Charity Guerra, Chief Deputy
CounselCGuerra7@schools.nyc.gov

Judy Nathan, First Deputy
CounselJNathan@schools.nyc.gov

(Please note that General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase's email address was omitted from the "Contacts" listing on the webpage, so I will put it here:

cjackson-chase@schools.nyc.gov)
I am concerned about your attached May 8, 2015 denial of my appeal, for the following reasons:

General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase and Chief Deputy Counsel Charity Guerra know very well that I have the facts on Ms. Guerra's jumping from the CSA to the DOE while defending a principal against the DOE in front of Arbitrator Joel Douglas.  I believe that your denial of my appeal is directly related to my knowledge about that case.  (Respondent J.K.)

And, I am currently suing Joseph A. Baranello, Esq., for FOIL violations.  I am in the New York State Supreme Court and my complaint concerns unreasonable delays by Mr. Baranello and his office when I requested the contract of former Chancellor Dennis Walcott.  I received nothing for almost two years. 

 

 

You state in your letter that my appeal is denied.

 

What part of my appeal is denied?  The part asking for a specific fee for records, which you now say you will give me a "cost breakdown" of (with respect to hard copies and/or recordings) "prior to the duplication and preparation"?  I think I won that point.

 

 

Or are you denying that the highest-ranking attorney in the Office of the General Counsel, Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, Esq., at your location, held the meeting that I am requesting documents for, and that all the documents are physically located in the Office of the General Counsel?

I think we are both aware that General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase (Chief Deputy Counsel Charity Guerra's boss, and, therefore, yours as well) was the person who headlined the meeting on February 24, 2015, and obviously has all the documents I am requesting.  I noticed that although I appealed to Ms. Jackson-Chase (who is also Joseph A. Baranello, Esq.'s boss, as well as being the same person who hired Charity Guerra, Esq., while she was defending Respondent J.K. against the DOE for CSA), she is not copied on the letter of "denial" of my appeal.  Why is that?

I am also quite concerned about your statements below:
 

"However, at this time the exact volume of responsive hard copy records and/or recordings remains unclear.  Once these records are located and reviewed, I direct the CRAO to provide a cost breakdown to you based on record type prior to the duplication and preparation of these records."

On March 17, 2015, I filed a freedom of information request for the documents, emails, videos, and all other relevant information concerning the February 24, 2015 meeting held in your office by Courtenaye Jackson-Chase and Adam Ross, UFT Attorney. The meeting is not for DOE personnel only, but the many different groups involved in NYC 3020-a arbitration. Two months later, you are claiming that you have no idea how many documents and/or recordings exist, and have to locate them. Did you ask Ms. Jackson-Chase?

Can you please spend five minutes on getting the documents and recordings I request from General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, and let me know within the next five business days?  If not, why not?

I will then pay $.25/page and the cost of the CD.

Or, in the alternative, I suggest that the FOIL Unit use a file-sharing service such as www.dropbox.com to eliminate the need for a CD.

Here is some information about the service:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropbox_%28service%29

 

Please clarify all of this for me, as I remain confused, and see only deliberate delay once again.

 

Thank you,

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com
ADVOCATZ    
www.parentadvocates.org    
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
www.nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com

cc:  Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, Esq.
      Joseph A. Baranello, Esq.
       Robert J. Freeman, Esq. 

 

 

 



 

Betsy Combier: The UFT Calls the 3-member Panel "Historic" - I Call Them Hypocrites

After I posted on this blog the story of the UFT win and the efforts the UFT made to have a 3-member panel to decide grievances, I received many calls and emails from teachers who were very
 happy with this new procedure, and the fight that the UFT made. The UFT bigwigs said that this is an "Historic Rating Ruling" and that the UFT had fought "so hard " to get it:

"PS 90 Chapter Leader Vicky Giasemis Wins Her Grievance to Change Her "Ineffective" Rating Given by Bully Principal Greta Hawkins

PS 90 Chapter Leader Vicky Giasemis (right), whose Ineffective rating from her principal was overturned by an
arbitrator, and delegate Betty Matos outside the Brooklyn school.

Historic rating ruling

Brooklyn principal forced to change Ineffective thanks to appeals process UFT fought for"

Indeed, the article goes on to say:

"UFT General Counsel Adam Ross said the new protection against supervisory harassment was a major milestone.

“We never got ratings reversed on substance under Bloomberg, but now we have secured due-process rights for teachers in state education law,” he pointed out." 

Rubbish.

Balderdash.

The grievance process has been a scam for years. Everyone knows that.

When I worked for the UFT 2007- 2010, my office was on the 16th floor at 52 Broadway, sandwiched between Gene Rubin and Amy Arundell, both of whom gave me all the ins

Amy Arundell

and outs of UFT trials and tribulations. Randi Weingarten had hired me in August 2007, and told Adam Ross to write my agreement - to work for the UFT 14 hours/week (my choice - I did not want to work full-time). My duties were to help members, particularly those who were re-assigned (in the "rubber rooms").

UFT Attorney Adam Ross

I loved my job, and believed that I was in the right position, as I had been advocating for UFT members since 2003 in the rubber rooms of Brooklyn and Manhattan. Adam told me that I should know the UFT contract, so the staff Director at the time, Jeff Zahler gave me his copy. I memorized it.

Betsy Combier and Chris Callagy (photo by David Pakter)

How did this all start?  A former teacher at the High School of Art and Design, David Pakter, and I ended up speaking on a cable TV show moderated by a mutual friend, Dean Loren. David told me an unbelievable, but fascinating story of hundreds of teachers sitting in rooms called "rubber rooms" awaiting "trials" called 3020-a arbitration. David sneaked me into the rubber room at 25 Chapel Street, and I started talking with the teachers there. David asked me to attend as a member of the public his 3020-a, where he was represented by NYSUT Attorney Chris Callagy.

PICTURED: Back row, from left, are Greenburgh 11 stalwarts Milt Cobb, Richard Rowlands, Hedwig Broetz, Goetschius, Chris Sartory, Matt Magee and Kevin Burns. Missing from photo is Dennis Mosblech. In front row are NYSUT attorneys Chris Meagher, Chris Callagy and Conrad Lower. Photo by Deidre Drohan Forbes.

The arbitrator was Martin Scheinman (see the warm and fuzzy picture below). I like Martin, by the way.

UFT President Mike Mulgrew, Arbitrator Martin Scheinman, NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio 

David's hearing went on for months, and I missed only one hearing day. I sat against the wall and made notes on what the attorneys were saying and doing. I wanted to learn everything there was to learn about this process. Soon, more and more teachers charged with 3020-a asked me to sit in on their 3020-a, and I always said yes. Before this time, almost no one had an open and public hearing. After I started attending, I told everyone to make their hearings public so I and anyone else could attend. More about this later in another post.

One of the rules for 3020-a arbitration hearings if charged with incompetency, was that if you asked for a 3-member panel within 10 days of being charged, you could have a 3-member panel.

On July 4, 2008, a teacher who had just been charged with 3020-a came to my office at 52 Broadway and told me that he wanted a three-member panel. I said, "Great!!"
"You received your charges 9 days earlier, so let's ask Claude Hersh, Assistant General Counsel of NYSUT, for the 3 member panel!! I was very happy to help the member get a 3-member panel, as not many people actually asked for this, and it is a right to have. I looked at his chrges, and they were for incompetency (contrary to what Claude Hersh says in his emails below)

We composed a short letter request for Claude Hersh, got into the elevator, went to the 9th floor, and tried to reach Claude. The receptionis said that he was not in, so we left the envelope and went back upstairs to my office. The member went home soon after.

Approximately 1 hour later, all hell broke loose. Claude sent me a scathing email, telling me that I violated a thousand million unwritten laws (I exaggerate to see if you are still reading) telling the member that he could have a 3-member panel. He sent this email to Randi, Adam, UFT Attorney Carol Gerstl, Mike Mulgrew (being groomed to be President), and Chief of Staff Leroy Barr, for effect.

I was stunned, but I basically am not afraid of anyone, so I wrote Claude back, challenging him to a duel. (not really). My point is, the UFT fought to remove the 3-member panel from 3020-a hearings in order to expedite teacher trials and get the guilty removed from the DOE.

I was told by the UFT VIPs that my advocacy was creating a liability for them, as everyone charged is always guilty.

This is why I don't work for the UFT anymore. I refuse to agree and not fight for rights.

Betsy Combier

Here are the emails:

Why Do Grievants Lose Their Grievance Hearings? Hearing Officer Marcel Kshensky Explains

Most people who have been through the grievance process at either 49-51 Chambers Street, 6th floor, or at 65 Court Street in the offices of Appeals and Reviews , leave thinking one or the other of the statements below are true:

1. Gosh, my UFT/DC37/CSA Rep. did a great job!! I'm sure that I won!!

2. There is something wrong with this process, the principal/AP/Respondent didn't show up and just spoke by telephone, and I was not allowed to speak/enter documents/have witnesses.

And then, after several weeks or months, you find out you lost.

The grievance procedure is a scam, charade, theatrical performance, etc., played out by all parties excluding you, the grievant, who may be thinking that all due process rights are being honored. Nope, not at all, sorry. The reps and hearing officers know this. But no one challenges the status quo. I want to add that this is in no way an attack on the individuals who hear/represent/testify at these hearings. They do their job. I expose the process they use, and the rules or policies they use to justify their actions.

See Marcel Kshensky, Susan Holtzman, and "Sham Closings"

Here is what the public knows about Hearing Officer Pedro Crespo: 
An Investigation Into Misconduct in Community School District 7

Susan Vairo

In 2013 I was hired as the paralegal at a 3020-a of a UFT Chapter Leader at C.S. 133 who was charged with 3020-a after the principal, Susan Vairo, took all employees off of the ATS and allowed access only after classes were over for the day. A teacher with a full program was given the duty of getting on the ATS for any employee who needed to view the information. This was a severe hardship for everyone. My client, the Respondent, spoke to the Principal as the Chapter Leader, and he questioned this policy. He was retaliated against and charged with 3020-a.

The arbitrator, Roy Watanabe, asked us - the attorney (Fred A.) and paralegal (me) to provide him with a brief on the Chapter Leader's First Amendment rights to speak within the school as the elected Chapter Leader, and we did this. Watanabe did not agree that the CL had any right to question Ms. Vairo, who was removed from the school by Superintendent Gale Reeves


Superintendent Gale Reeves

 and given a desk job at Tweed. The CL was given a fine and made an ATR.

Before the CL was charged with 3020-a, he grieved what the Principal was doing to him as the CL, and was shocked to find that he lost the grievance. He testified that he was not allowed to have any witnesses.







Marcel Kshensky

The DOE Attorney at the 3020-a, Lisa McFadden, (49-51 Chambers Street, Room 604, 212-374-4204)

brought in the Hearing Officer as a rebuttal witness. The Hearing Officer was Marcel Kshensky, a person who, in my opinion, should not be a hearing officer.  Ms. McFadden asked Mr. Kshensky to testify about how the grievance procedure worked.

I uploaded Kshensky's testimony at the CL's 3020-a on January 7, 2013 (I re-formatted the testimony so that it would not be in columns).

His testimony was that he is a consultant for the Office of Labor Relations but he does not work for the Department of Education.

Huh? I really don't get that. So who pays him?

And there are several shocking bits of information in the pages below which Grievants probably don't know.

1. Karen Solimando, Deputy Director of the Office of Labor Relations under David Brodsky, signs the Chancellor's name on all decisions after she writes them. The paperwork for every part of the grievance is done at OLR, and never leaves the building or goes to anyone outside of the Department of Education .In my opinion, this is not fair to the grievant, because Ms. Solimando does not attend the hearings, cannot determine credibility, and has only the scribbled notes of the hearing officer to work with. It seems to me that the decision is made in an arbitrary and capricious manner, without basis in the facts, only the paperwork submitted by the DOE Principal.

And then there is Hearing Officer Pedro Crespo.

Labor Relations

The Office of Labor Relations (OLR) provides daily support and guidance to both school-based and non school-based supervisors citywide concerning all labor relations matters including contract interpretation and employee performance/discipline. OLR advocates on behalf of principals and other DOE supervisors at contract arbitration hearings, as well as administers the Expedited Time and Attendance Process, which is an effective tool for principals to address tenured pedagogues in their schools with problematic time and attendance records.

David Brodsky

•  David Brodsky, Director
     (212) 374-7954
  DBrodsky@schools.nyc.gov

Karen Solimando, Deputy Director
(212) 374-7990
KSolimando@schools.nyc.gov

• Dimitrios (Jim) Gounelas,Deputy Director, Arbitration
  (212) 374-7926
  DGounelas@schools.nyc.gov
  
  

2. The Department of Education, Office of Labor Relations, and the UFT all know that the UFT Collective Bargaining Agreement does not allow anyone to grieve a letter to file, yet all of the above parties allow the grievant to go to Step 3(2?) at 49-51 Chambers Street, anyway. What a waste of time and money.

I have spoken to several UFT Reps who are not happy with this grievance procedure, but tell me, "that's the way it is".

Also, there is a limited number of grievances allowed to be heard each school year. I heard that the number is 200. If you are 201, forgetaboutit.

Francesco Portelos has also written about this process, see:

UFT and DOE agree: If it’s not in the contract, you could be made an ATR at anytime. Francesco writes about Marcel Kshensky:

Listen carefully as Marcel Kshensky asks “Where is that written?” in reference to the statement that a teacher cannot be made an ATR based on a 3020-a hearing.  When my rep states it’s “not in the contract,” Marcel responds “Right, but it doesn’t prohibit it.” <——-?

Again, the chancellor’s representative is basically saying if the contract doesn’t say the DOE can’t do something, then therefore it can.

Make sure you catch the so-called "signature" of Carmen Farina on his grievance. That is not her signature, it's Karen Solimando, writing Carmen Farina's signature. Betsy Combier

Carmen Farina Arbitration Advocacy - Excerpts

James Calantjis, Proponent of School Leadership Teams and Participatory Democracy, Welcomes Supreme Court Decision That SLTs are Open Meetings

From Jim Calantjis:

This is a great victory and strong decision in keeping SLTs open to the public rather than hid in secrecy. However, just as important, was the statements made by the judge on page 9 of the decision. The judge affirmed that:

     "If it is filling its statutory role, a school's SLT is not  a mere advisor to the principal."

     " The role of an SLT in formulating its school's CEP is one of decision maker."

      "In fulfilling this role, the SLT acts in conjunction with and not subordinate to, the school's principal."

We should be communicating these facts to our SLTs, to embolden them to take back control of the process from the principals.

 

Dear Ms. Jackson-Chase,

Chief Legal Advisor for DOE)

 

Courtenaye Jackson-Chase

 

 It was a great pleasure to see the DOE's efforts to further marginalize School Leadership Teams defeated in today's court decision, Thomas v. DOE. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/262875757/Thomas-v-DOE-Decision-and-Judgment). 

  It is shameful that parents and teachers had to take the DOE to court to make the NYS Open Meetings Law applicable to SLTs. The legal department of the DOE has consistently tried to limit the powers and responsibilities of SLT's throughout the years, by deliberately misinterpreting State law or not enforcing it. This benign neglect even applied to its Chancellor Regulations (A-655,B-801) concerning the Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP) and budget responsibilities of SLTs. 

 Under the mission of "principal empowerment", lip service has been given to parental and teacher involvement in school governance, that is required through School Leadership Teams.

  It is important to note the following statements in the court decision, all on page 9:

"The role of an SLT in formulating its school's CEP is one of decision maker"

"In fulfilling this role, the SLT acts in conjunction with and not subordinate to, the school's principal"

"If it is fulfilling its statutory role, a school's SLT is not a mere advisor to the principal"

 

 School Leadership Teams are barely functioning with little or no training in CEP and budget matters, even though it is required by law. Principals have turned SLT's into  "informational Sessions" rather than shared decision making bodies concerning the development of CEPs as required.The DOE consistently refers to SLTs as advisory bodies.

Public Advocate Letitia James, who assisted Michael Thomas

 While the DOE was successful in taking away shared decision making in the development of the budget, SLTs still have budget responsibilities that are ignored. SLTs are to align the budget with the CEP in an active way as the law intends, not passively approve an alignment by the principal. They are also to advise the principal on all budget spending. This requires budget transparency and not secrecy,so that  SLTs can do their job.

 

 I realize that the legal department is working on behalf of the Chancellor and DOE leadership,who must accept primary responsibility for these many legal abuses that are intended to disempower SLT's. 

Sincerely,

James Calantjis

 

From Editor/Reporter Betsy Combier:

Carmen Farina made up her own rules for the SLT at PS 6: the group was made of 4 people. Carmen did not like the thought that anyone could challenge her authority as Principal, certainly not when it came to money - use of, secrecy in giving, paying out, etc.

 

I, a new parent to public schools for my children, reported her in 2001 for this violation of SLT rules, and the DOE reprimanded her:

 

Carmen Farina: Politics Wins With Her Appointment as Deputy Chancellor in New York City

Then she came after me, but was removed as principal.

Betsy Combier