Smoke and Mirrors: UFT Secret Spending on the Campaign of Robert Jackson in 2013

Undisclosed UFT robocalls raise new campaign questions
 by Geoff Decker, Gotham Schools,  at 5:30 pm
LINK 

Robert Jackson, Christine Quinn, Michael Mulgrew

City Councilman Robert Jackson pictured with Speaker Christine Quinn and UFT President Michael Mulgrew in 2011 on the first day of school.

The super PAC for the city teachers union may have violated campaign finance rules by not disclosing spending details for a robocall sent to voters during the 2013 primary elections, GothamSchools has found.

A Sept. 8 phone message touting Robert Jackson’s education credentials was paid for by the union’s independent expenditure group, called United for the Future, according to a recording of the call obtained by GothamSchools from a Manhattan voter who received the message. Jackson, who at the time was enmeshed in a tight primary for Manhattan Borough President, had received the United Federation of Teachers’ endorsement.

But the union failed to disclose the call to the city’s Campaign Finance Board, a requirement designed to improve transparency around spending by outside interest groups. The union reported spending only $12,234 on Jackson for a mailer sent on Sept. 6, filings show.

“I think it raises serious questions,” said Alex Camarda, director of public policy at Citizens Union, a good government organization.

“What about all the other candidates that the UFT endorsed?” Camarda added. “This might not be limited to just Robert Jackson.”

A Campaign Finance Board spokesman said the board would include the robocalls in its review of whether outside interest groups such as the UFT conformed to finance rules in the primary election. The rules are in place to limit the influence that groups are able to exert over elected officials.

Earlier today, the board fined one such group for failing to use a “paid for by” disclaimer on phone recordings that the group had funded.

The UFT’s spending landed under scrutiny this week when Crain’s New York Business reported about the union’s relationship with an embattled political consulting firm. The firm, the Advance Group, kept both the UFT and candidates who were endorsed by the union on its client list at the same time.

The union paid the Advance Group at least $370,000 for work on the 2013 elections, but reported that spending under the guise of a fake firm called “Strategic Consultants, Inc.,” Crain’s revealed. The firm was listed for the Sept. 6 mailer for Jackson, as well as other candidates who received the union’s endorsement.

These candidates had also hired the Advance Group to work directly for their campaigns. Of$1.2 million that Jackson’s campaign reported spending during the election, Advance Group collected more than $871,000 of those payments.

Groups can spend unlimited amounts as long as they do not coordinate their spending with individual candidates and their campaigns. But Camarda said the union’s phony reporting made it “hard to imagine that there’s not coordination going on.” Unless, Camarda added, “the Advance Group has created some kind of firewall to prevent that.”

A spokeswoman for the Advance Group did not return emails and phone calls requesting comment. Jackson did not respond to a call and an email seeking comment.

UFT President Michael Mulgrew said that the union was in full compliance with campaign finance rules.

“We happily comply with all campaign finance board rules and regulations and we have written assurances from anyone who we were working with that they were complying with the same rules and regulations,” Mulgrew told reporters yesterday.

Mulgrew added that he was prohibited from communicating about political activities with United for the Future. Paul Egan, the UFT’s political director who is listed as the PAC’s representative did not respond to emails about the robocalls.

United for the Future spent over $3.3 million on 37 elections, including $2.7 million on Bill Thompson’s mayoral campaign.

UFT PAC Releases First Pro-Thompson
TV Ad

By Jill Colvin | 09/05/13 1:06pm

OBSERVER News

 

 

 

The teachers’ union’s political action committee, United for the Future, has released its first television ad touting the union’s chosen mayoral candidate: Bill Thompson.
The ad, entitled “Forgotten,” is clearly meant to appeal to black and Latino voters, touting the
former comptroller as the only candidate who will stand up for the sea of diverse faces featured in
the slickly-produced 30-second spot.
“For the past 20 years, we’ve been forgotten. We’re working hard, but not making it very far,”
begins the narrator, as images of the city’s working class flash by.
The ad goes on to tout Mr. Thompson as “the only one tough enough to take on Mike Bloomberg” and “the only one strong enough to end racial profiling.
“After 12 years of a billionaire and eight years of bullying,” it asks, “isn’t it time for a mayor for
us?”
The ad is the first from United for the Future, which was launched by the United Federation of Teachers to fund independent expenditures on behalf of Mr. Thompson and other candidates.
According to city campaign finance records, the group paid $340,000 for an English version of the ad, including $330,000 in airtime. and another $121,000 for a Spanish  version, including a $114,000 buy,
A source said the ads are already up and running on cable outlets, including NY1, as well as Spanish language stations.
The PAC has declined to comment on all questions about its activity.

Appellate Division Affirms the Termination of Teacher Damian Estaban

The decision to go back to the termination decision at 3020-a rather than affirm the vacating of the termination by Judge Mendez in the New York State Supreme Court is a huge error in our opinion.

I believe it to be very scary when the Courts decide not to rehabilitate, and that once a mistake, always a mistake.

This is a mistake.



Damian Estaban

Matter of Esteban v Department of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y.

2015 NY Slip Op 06965

Decided on September 29, 2015

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on September 29, 2015 
Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische, Kapnick, JJ.

15711 651904/13 

[*1] In re Damian Esteban, Petitioner-Respondent, 

v

The Department of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, Respondent-Appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for appellant.

Eisner & Associates, P.C., New York (Benjamin N. Dictor of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered September 20, 2013, granting the petition to vacate the portion of the arbitrator's determination that imposed the penalty of termination of petitioner's employment as a public school teacher, and remanding for imposition of an appropriate lesser penalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Petitioner, a school teacher employed by respondent Department of Education (DOE), entered a courthouse in possession of a quantity of heroin, which led to his arrest and widespread negative publicity. DOE brought disciplinary charges against petitioner, which were submitted for determination to an arbitrator pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a. The arbitrator sustained certain of the specifications and determined that the appropriate penalty for petitioner's misconduct was dismissal. Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate the arbitrator's penalty determination. Upon DOE's appeal, we reverse.

An arbitration award determining an employment dispute in public education may not be vacated unless "it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power" (Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 79 [2003], quotingMatter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]). Here, it cannot be said that it was irrational, against public policy, or ultra vires for the arbitrator to determine that petitioner's public possession of heroin warranted the penalty of dismissal. Nor is the termination of employment as a penalty for such misconduct "so disproportionate to the offense[] as to be shocking to the court's sense of fairness" (Lackow v Department of Educ. [or "Board"] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 569 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner's reliance on City School Dist. of City of

N.Y. v Lorber (50 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2008]) is unavailing, as the order we affirmed in that case confirmed the arbitrator's penalty determination.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2015

CLERK

Carmen Farina Wins the 2015 WHO ARE YOU KIDDING? Award as the "Best Talent" the World Has, To Run the NYC DOE

Carmen Farina

Carmen Farina and her "beautiful day" in the NYC blizzard
(Love the hat, Carmen!! -B)

Working For the NYC DOE is, for the chosen few, a very good job. You can do very little work, if any at all, and get paid a lot of money.

Below you can see how good it is at the NYC DOE for a select number of people, in terms of making high salaries.

I love the press contact's comment:

“It is essential that we maintain competitive salaries to attract the best talent to help run the nation’s largest school system,” spokeswoman Devora Kaye said.

Carmen Farina is the "best talent?"

Carmen Farina: The Problem With Her Being Chancellor of the NYC School System Is.......

So, I award the "WHO ARE YOU KIDDING AWARD" for 2015 to:

Carmen Farina.

Notice of the ceremony and press event to follow.

Past winners:
The Second "Who Are You Kidding Award" Goes To Dennis Walcott

The "Who Are You Kidding??" Award Goes To: Joel Klein, New York City Board of Education Pretender

Betsy Combier, Editor
President, ADVOCATZ

Chalkbeat:

How the Department of Education’s top salaries stack up

By Geoff Decker

gdecker@chalkbeat.org

PUBLISHED: October 2, 2015 - 6:00 am EDT

 

 

The Department of Education’s top earner is no surprise: Chancellor Carmen Fariña, the longtime educator at the helm of the nation’s largest school system.

Newly released pay records show that two of Fariña’s most trusted deputies are not far behind: Dorita Gibson, Fariña’s second in command, and Corinne Rello-Anselmi, the deputy chancellor for special education, both make more than $200,000.

Gale Reeves

But the fourth highest paid employee may come as more of a surprise. Harlem Superintendent Gale Reeves, who oversees one of the city’s 32 local districts, is set to take home $204,000 — a salary that surpasses all other members of Fariña’s executive leadership team, including four deputy chancellors, the department’s chief finance officer, and its top lawyer.

Unlike salaries for teachers and principals, the pay for education department managers is not determined by labor contracts. Chalkbeat obtained the salary information for the majority of staff that is working centrally to support the city school system. Here’s what we learned:

All together, managerial salaries totaled $168 million for 1,500 employees in May 2015. For context, that’s only about 1 percent of what the city spends on salaries for the 133,000 teachers, principals, guidance counselors, and custodians who work directly in schools, which totaled more than $13 billion in 2013. (An extended list of the top-earners is below.)

Some managers have retained high salaries even after their responsibilities have shrunk. Reeves is the highest-profile case: Her official job title, “regional instructional supervisor,” is a relic of the Bloomberg administration, which created that high-ranking position for people managing multiple districts. That title was eliminated in a later round of restructuring, and Reeves became the superintendent of only Harlem’s District 5, a job she’s held since.

Parents in the district have clashed with Reeves for years, and began airing their frustrations publicly in recent months. In August, the district’s parent council spent much of its meeting criticizing Reeves for keeping important information about their schools from them and hiring principals without input from parents or teachers, though a few speakers defended her. Reeves did not respond to multiple emails seeking comment.

Fariña’s salary is still relatively low. Fariña now earns $222,000, which is less than many other big-city school chiefs make. Los Angeles’ Ramon Cortines makes $300,000, and Boston’s Tommy Chang makes $257,000, for example.

Her salary is also less than the $250,000 former Chancellor Joel Klein made during the Bloomberg administration. (Fariña also makes an extra $199,000 in a pension earned before coming out of retirement to serve as chancellor.)

One in five central employees from the Bloomberg administration left after de Blasio took office. Just under 300 of 1,500 nonunionized employees left the department between January 2014 and May 2015. That includes the high-profile departures of top Bloomberg deputies, but is a fuller picture of the churn that came as a result of the mayoral transition — and shows that four of five managers chose to stick around.

The department’s managers have received more than $8 million in raises since 2013, records show. There are now nine people who earn more than $200,000 a year, up from four in 2013, and 821 people who make $100,000, up from 614 in 2013.

Some of those raises came from a 4.5 percent boost that de Blasio gave to eligible managers across all city agencies earlier this year — the first increase in their base pay since 2009.

Other raises came with new responsibilities. The managers with the biggest salary increases since de Blasio took office are Elizabeth Rose, now the deputy chancellor for operations, whose pay rose from $116,550 to $187,000, and Sophia Pappas, who is head of the city’s pre-kindergarten programs and whose salary rose from $115,000 to $167,321.

Other high-ranking officials who saw big raises were Anna Commitante, who now oversees curriculum and teacher training and whose pay went from $166,000 to $191,000, and Ursulina Ramirez, the chancellor’s chief of staff, whose pay rose from $163,000 to $187,000.

Department officials said salaries are determined by a combination of factors, including seniority, previous salary, and education.

“It is essential that we maintain competitive salaries to attract the best talent to help run the nation’s largest school system,” spokeswoman Devora Kaye said.

Salaries of All New York City Employees are Public Information, and the Total Paid Out is $29 Billion, With a "B" (2005)

Kirk Swanson, VP of Administration at the Battery Park City Authority, Fired For Whistleblowing the Corruption There

 A stunning story from Carl Campanile at the NY POST:

Whistleblower claims he was fired for doing his job

Kirk Swanson, former vice president of administration at the Battery Park City Authority.

LINK

A former vice president of the Battery Park City Authority has filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit claiming he was fired for exposing corruption in the awarding of contracts, The Post has learned.

Kirk Swanson, a former VP and chief contracts officer at the state agency, alleges he “discovered that high-level BPCA employees were making false statements in an effort to bypass the BPCA’s contract approval process.”

Swanson sent a memo to Gov. Cuomo’s office outlining his accusations in May 2014 — just days after his ouster. The governor appoints the agency’s three-member board.

It was Mr. Swanson’s job to ensure that the BPCA followed anti-corruption guidelines,” said Swanson’s lawyer, Jason Solotaroff. “It’s outrageous he was terminated for doing just that.”

Swanson alleges that agency president Shari Hyman selected a favored vendor, Revolver Studios, to redesign two online sites without aggressively seeking other bids.

“Work on the Web site projects had begun prior to the contract being approved, again in violation of BPCA procedures,” the suit said.

Swanson said he was told Hyman sought to bypass normal contracting procedures, which would have required three competitive bids. Instead, the agency labeled the contract a “discretionary procurement” and split it into two parts for less than $50,000 each — one for BPCA and the other for Battery Park Conservancy, its not-for-profit arm.

Swanson called the outcome “utterly bogus.”

He subsequently found out that agency officials in February 2014 had approved a new contract with a law firm, Liddle & Robinson, to handle $1 billion in bond transactions. But the legal work had not been presented to or approved by the BPCA’s contract-selection committee.

The former executive said the contract was approved by his deputy behind his back, when he was on vacation.

Swanson was fired three days after he sent an e-mail to legal counsel questioning the transaction.

He says he also complained that a subordinate, Elizabeth Papanicolaou, had been harassed by officials about her office attire.

Swanson had raised all these issues in a May 15, 2014, memo to Alphonso David, who was then Cuomo’s deputy secretary for civil rights and is currently the governor’s top legal counsel.

A BPCA spokesperson responded, “Mr. Swanson’s lawsuit is without merit.”

Bari Brower Wins Her Article 78, Vacating Her U-Rating For The 2006-2007 School Year

Matter of Brower v New York City Dept. of Educ.

Matter of Brower v New York City Dept. of Educ. 2015 NY Slip Op 04764 Decided on June 9, 2015 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 9, 2015
Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Richter, Feinman, JJ.
14835 113843/10 100594/13

[*1] In re Bari A. Brower, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

New York City Department of Education, Respondent-Respondent. 

Noah A. Kinigstein, New York, for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered January 21, 2014, denying the petition to annul respondent's determination, dated December 20, 2012, which sustained the issuance of an unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) of petitioner's performance as a teacher for the 2006-2007 school year, and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, petitioner's U-rating for the 2006-2007 school year vacated, and the matter remanded to respondent for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Petitioner was certified by the State of New York as a public school teacher for grades 1 through 6 in September 2006. On August 31, 2006, she was appointed as a probationary kindergarten teacher with the Department of Education (DOE), and was assigned to P.S. 1 in the Bronx. She received a satisfactory rating in her first formal observation, on November 21, 2006. However, she received an unsatisfactory rating after an "informal observation" on January 10, 2007.

Later in January 2007, the principal discovered that petitioner, who was only licensed to teach grades 1-6, was teaching out of license at the kindergarten level, and reassigned her to a first-grade class. Although respondent asserts that the transfer occurred in January, petitioner states that it occurred in March, seven months into the school year. In any event, it was a mid-year transfer into what petitioner describes as a "very difficult class." She alleges, inter alia, that five teachers had been assigned to the class in 2006-2007 and all had been reassigned or resigned; that many of the children in the class had severe behavior problems; and that the class was in effect "an unspecified special education' class."

On April 17, 2007, shortly after petitioner had been transferred to the new class, an assistant principal conducted a formal observation of petitioner's first-grade class, and rated petitioner unsatisfactory. The observation report found, inter alia, that during the lesson, two students were running around the room, and one ran out of the classroom; that petitioner did not "address the needs" of two named students; and that petitioner "did not bring the lesson to summation" when the period ended.

A third and final formal observation for the 2006-2007 school year was scheduled for June 12, 2007, but never occurred. In a June 14, 2007 letter to petitioner, the principal related [*2]the relevant events and concluded that petitioner "impeded [the observation] process from taking place" by twice rescheduling and postponing the dates set for her pre-observation conference, as well as for the formal observation, claiming illness and failing to follow the proper procedure for absences.

On June 15, 2007, petitioner received and signed her annual review for the 2006-2007 school year, which rated her unsatisfactory in 17 of the 23 categories listed on the rating sheet. The review further showed that petitioner was absent from school 11 times during the school year.

By letter dated June 15, 2007, the Community Superintendent for District 7 informed petitioner that her file would be reviewed for a determination of whether her services as a probationary teacher would be discontinued and whether her teaching license would be terminated as of the close of business on July 15, 2007. The letter stated:

"The consideration of your discontinuance is based on professional attitude and professional growth; attention to records and reports; unsatisfactory classroom performance; poor planning and preparation; skill in adapting instruction to the individual needs of the students; evidence of pupil growth in knowledge and skills."

This letter constituted the charging document that was the basis of the ensuing hearing. Notably missing from the charging document was any mention of excessive absences.

By letter dated July 16, 2007, the Community Superintendent for District 7 informed petitioner of the "reaffirm[ance of her] Discontinuance of Probationary Service and Termination." On November 20, 2007, an officially designated Chancellor's Committee, composed of three members, conducted a review of the decisions to issue petitioner a U-rating for the 2006-2007 school year, to discontinue her probationary service, and to revoke her New York City teaching certificate.

After considering the documents and testimony presented at the review, the majority of the Chancellor's Committee concurred as to the recommendation to discontinue petitioner's probationary service. However, "[r]ecognizing that [petitioner] is young and inexperienced and that she had to take over a new class, which may have been more of a challenge than she could handle," the Committee "reached unanimous[] non-concurrence on the recommendation to terminate all license(s)/certificate(s) held by [petitioner]."

Approximately 2 ½ years later, by letter dated June 22, 2010, the Chancellor's designee informed petitioner that he had "reviewed the report of my Committee concerning the recommendation that all your teaching certificate(s)/licenses be terminated . . . and that your probationary service as a Teacher of Common Branches be discontinued," and had determined to sustain the recommendation. Accordingly, all of petitioner's licences/certificates to teach in New York City were terminated effective July 16, 2007. As petitioner notes, this determination was made notwithstanding the unanimous view of the Chancellor's Committee that the recommendation to terminate all her licenses/certificates held by petitioner should not be adopted.

This is petitioner's second CPLR article 78 proceeding. In the prior proceeding, the court concluded that the petition to review the termination of petitioner's probationary employment was time-barred, but granted the proceeding to the extent of annulling the unsatisfactory rating and revocation of petitioner's teaching license and remanding the matter for a new hearing on [*3]petitioner's unsatisfactory rating and the imposition of a penalty (see Matter of Brower v New York City Dept. of Educ., 38 Misc 3d 291 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012]).

In the prior proceeding, the court also found, inter alia, that respondent failed to give petitioner adequate notice that absenteeism was a basis for its considering adverse action against her and thus that its reliance on petitioner's attendance record violated due process. Nevertheless, on remand, respondent again relied on evidence of absenteeism, as did the court in upholding petitioner's U-rating in the instant proceeding.

We find that respondent acted in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious. While the evidence of pedagogical deficiency — apart from the evidence of absenteeism — might, by itself, be sufficient to warrant the U-rating, that is for respondent to decide.

If, on remand, respondent declines to sustain petitioner's unsatisfactory rating, respondent is free to reconsider the termination of her probationary employment (see Matter of Brower v New York City Dept. of Educ., 38 Misc 3d 291). If, on the other hand, respondent sustains the unsatisfactory rating, it is precluded from imposing the penalty of revocation of her teaching license because the judgment in the first article 78 proceeding directed that the penalty, if any, should be something less than revocation of petitioner's license, and respondent did not appeal from that judgment.

Petitioner here presents a much stronger case than that of the petitioner in Matter ofBrown v Board of Educ. Of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. (89 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2011]), which involved a single improperly considered document that ostensibly related to the same issue — i.e., pedagogical quality — the evidence of which we ultimately found adequate. Here, the disputed evidence relates to a different issue. Further, it is notable that both the post-hearing report of the ALJ on remand and the decision in the second article 78 proceeding paid considerable attention to the question of absenteeism. It is also noteworthy that, as the article 78 court in the first proceeding noted, the U-rating was based in large part on one formal evaluation during petitioner's short time as a first grade teacher. While there was certainly evidence supporting the U-rating, it should be noted that petitioner was transferred from the class that she had been teaching since the start of the school year to a new class sometime between January and March. Finally, it is significant that the wrongful admission of evidence in this case occurred after a specific direction from the court that evidence of absenteeism was not authorized, based on the charges.

Accordingly, we remand the matter to respondent for reconsideration of petitioner's performance rating for the 2006-2007 school year based solely on the evidence related to the charges of which petitioner received proper notice.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 9, 2015

CLERK

MATTER OF BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

5846, 113658/08

89 A.D.3d 486 (2011)

932 N.Y.S.2d 64

2011 NY Slip Op 7908

In the Matter of EVERARD BROWN, Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Decided November 10, 2011.

Concur—MAZZARELLI, J.P., CATTERSON, RENWICK and RICHTER, JJ.

Petitioner was a probationary teacher in the New York City school system for three years. He was terminated at the end of his third year in 2008. Pursuant to a review procedure set forth in the parties' collective bargaining agreement, petitioner appealed to the Department of Education's Office of Appeals and Reviews.

At a hearing, petitioner's supervisors, Principal Weissbrot and Assistant Principal Bausch, were called as witnesses by the Department of Education (DOE). They both similarly testified about petitioner's poor performance in class management and engagement of students. DOE also presented petitioner's Annual Professional Performance Review and Report on Probationary Service of Pedagogical Employee (APPR) for the period of August 30, 2007 to June 2008. The APPR, which was signed by Principal Weissbrot, reflected a "U-rating" in that calendar year for petitioner. Besides cross-examining DOE's witnesses, petitioner pointed out that the APPR was deficient in several respects, namely that no documentation was annexed to the APPR as required by the rating handbook promulgated by the Chancellor, and that sections of the report were left blank.

The Chancellor's Committee Report issued in September 2009 unanimously agreed with the principal's recommendation to deny petitioner his Certification of Completion of Probation effective August 28, 2008. In this article 78 proceeding brought by petitioner, Supreme Court found that the determination to discontinue petitioner's employment was rationally based. Nevertheless, the court granted the petition on the ground that the APPR was not in strict compliance with the procedures set forth in the rating handbook promulgated by the Chancellor. We now reverse.

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his termination of employment as a probationary teacher was arbitrary and capricious or in bad faith. Indeed, petitioner does not dispute that the evidence adduced at the hearing from the principal and assistant principal provided ample ground for his discontinuance. The principal and the assistant principal described petitioner's poor performance in class management and engagement of students. Significantly, their individual assessments were based on their personal classroom observations. Under these circumstances,

[89 A.D.3d 488]

any deficiencies in the APPR do not render the determination to discontinue his employment arbitrary and capricious since the hearing testimony provided ample grounds for his termination (see Matter of Sorell v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 168 A.D.2d 453 [1990]).

 

A Look Back to March 2015, When Bill de Blasio Said That Teacher Accountability= Admitting You Are a Subpar Teacher (ATR), and You Should Leave the DOE

Most ATR teachers who left system since new contract took buyouts, retired

By Geoff Decker and Sarah Darville

LINK

Steps of Tweed, DOE Headquarters, 52 Chambers Street in Manhattan

 

In his fight to fend off the education policy proposals being pushed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Mayor Bill de Blasio has said his administration is already cracking down on subpar teachers.

In particular, he has pointed to 290 or so teachers who have left the school system entirely between April 2014 and this February. They left the costly and controversial absent teacher reserve pool, and represent as many exits as the Bloomberg administration saw during the previous two years combined, city officials said.

“My administration is serious about teacher accountability,” de Blasio told state lawmakers last month while defending his plan for struggling schools. “We have moved 289 teachers out of the Absent Teacher Reserve – and out of the system – since April.”

New figures released Friday, along with documents obtained by Chalkbeat, offer new insight into why those teachers departed. They show that disciplinary processes, including new ones created by last year’s teacher contract, played a fairly small role, with only 21 of the teachers terminated after missing job interviews or for other reasons.

De Blasio has said recently that his administration prefers different strategies. Nearly 200 of those 289 teachers — who lost their permanent positions and couldn’t find new ones, but remained on the city’s payroll as substitutes — took buyouts last summer or retired this school year. Another 18 resigned, and 53 agreed to leave while facing charges of misconduct or incompetence.

In addition, no teachers had faced charges under a new, expedited termination process as of December 2014, according to a department document obtained by Chalkbeat. (That process requires a teacher to have logged formal complaints from two separate principals, something that could be unlikely to happen in the first months of the school year.)

The new figures brought renewed calls from advocates of Cuomo’s plans to change to state law that sets out the procedures for teacher termination.

“Instead of being part of the solution, this administration has thrown its hands up and resigned itself to working around a broken system,” said Jenny Sedlis, executive director of StudentsFirstNY.

But the absent teacher reserve has shrunk under de Blasio, in part because he did not close any schools last year. Under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the pool ballooned with teachers excessed from closing schools, costing the city an estimated $105 million in 2013.

City officials says the pool had about 1,000 teachers this February. More than 500 teachers were hired for full-time positions in the fall, according to the department document, and the pool had 280 fewer members at the start of this school year than last.

Now, the de Blasio administration is facing the same complicated process of removing the pool’s longtime members that has frustrated city leaders for years.

Testimony given in 2013 by Lawrence Becker, the department’s CEO of human resources, illustrates some the challenges. More than 300 teachers in the pool then had incompetence or misconduct charges against them substantiated, but were not allowed to be terminated. More than 200 had recently received an unsatisfactory rating, and more than 150 were licensed to teach “esoteric” subjects, making them difficult to place in schools. Formal disciplinary proceedings can last months and sometimes years.

On Thursday, de Blasio said that the best way to get around those problems is by avoiding formal procedures altogether. Instead, principals and department officials should focus on counseling subpar teachers to leave on their own, a strategy that Chancellor Carmen Fariña told Capital gives them an “opportunity to leave gracefully.” Some of the recent retirements and resignations were likely the result of that kind of strategic pressure, officials said.

“If you can counsel someone out voluntarily, skip all that process — ‘You don’t belong here anymore, you’re a good human being but you don’t belong here anymore, you’re not into it, you’re burned out, you can’t do what we need you to do in this day and age,’ whatever it is — if that person goes along willingly, that is the most efficient way to resolve the problem,” de Blasio said.

United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew, a close ally of de Blasio’s, has also acknowledged that the process for matching excessed teachers to schools that need them still needs work.

“The entire ATR process was so mismanaged by the Bloomberg administration that it will take years to sort out,” Mulgrew said.