Annie Seifullah, Former Sex Goddess and Principal at Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology in Long Island City, Runs Out of Automotive HS When Students Find Out About Her Past

Annie Seifullah

Susan Edelman's story in today's New York Post has a much wider sad tale behind it than the hiding of Annie Schmutz Seifullah at Automotive High School in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Sue Edelman's follow up on this story is to be highly praised. Annie evidently had sex with a security guard, an assistant principal, a parent, and a student while he was attending the school.

Meanwhile, Annie got rid of any teacher who may have seen her doing anything that could be considered wrong. I met with a paraprofessional who is now penniless. She was discontinued soon after she saw Annie walking arm in arm with a male student very early in the morning. Seifullah had his backpack, and evidently tried to look like a student. Another teacher, Hannah Kim, was given a pre-observation and observation by Seifullah the same day, rated ineffective, and terminated by Arbitrator Stephen O'Beirne, who gave every bit of credibility to Principal Seifullah, even to the extent of dismissing the articles in the Post as possibly untrue:

"In this arbitration, the Department seeks to discharge Respondent, contending she is incompetent and incapable of providing a meaningful learning experience for students in her charge. The Department relies on witness testimony; observation reports; disciplinary letters to file; professional development logs; and other documentary evidence to prove its case.

I found all four (4) Department witnesses to be credible and competent...None of them have any reason to testify falsely against Respondent."
and, in a footnote,

"2 As requested by Respondent, I take arbitral notice of the newspaper articles submitted. But those articles do not establish sexual or professional misconduct, only allegations of same. Even if l go further and accept for the purpose of this decision that the allegations are true, I am not convinced the Principal' s misconduct in any way affected Respondent 's ability to meet with her. There is not one email, memorandum or handwritten note to suggest Respondent tried alternate means to communicate with the Principal after unsuccessfully trying to locate her in the school building over the course of nearly five (5) months. And there is nothing in the record to show Respondent tried to schedule inter-visitations or any other type of professional development, either with the help of other administrators or on her own. Moreover, the Principal was removed from her position during the school year after Respondent received an unsatisfactory annual rating at the school."

Kim's Attorney was NYSUT's Maria Elena Gonzalez Lichten; the DOE was Represented by Attorney Jennifer Hard, who, I've heard, is now in Washington DC training to be an FBI Agent.

I wrote about Seifullah previously, see:

Annie Schmutz Seifullah

Principals and Sex in NYC Public Schools - The DOE Must Fire Anne Seifullah

Principal Anne Seifullah changes her image so that she can keep her job amidst sexting and trysts in the school, Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology in Long Island City. Take a look at the new picture published in the POST, the second picture below.

In order to keep to their standards of zero tolerance for this kind of activity, the NYC DOE must fire her. The nexus to her job is that she is a role model for all the people in her building, and she decided to have sexual relations, using her power to "influence" other principals, employees and even a parent to do her whatever.

Here is the article in today's Post:

Ex-principal banned for sex scandal back in the classroom

By Susan Edelman

An ex-principal banned from working with students after her involvement in a sex scandal was nonetheless assigned to teach at one of New York City’s worst schools, The Post found.

Annie Schmutz Seifullah, 36, was teaching English at Automotive HS in Greenpoint, Brooklyn — a long-struggling school with 98 percent boys — despite a Department of Education probe into accusations of misconduct after her alleged affair with a parent.

 “It’s like sending a cougar into the cub’s den,” a shocked insider said.

After an inquiry by The Post, DOE officials admitted Seifullah was supposed to be “reassigned away from students” — and that her placement in Automotive HS classrooms this fall “was an error.”

Seifullah “ran out of the building” in distress last Monday when students confronted her about her scandalous history and racy photos allegedly found on her DOE computer.

 “They were harassing her because they found out about her,” said ninth-grader Muhammad Choudhary. “They searched her up, found her on the Internet and told everybody else.”

The DOE said it is now seeking to fire Seifullah, a year after her ouster as principal from Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology in Long Island City, Queens.

While Seifullah helmed the school, her ex-lover, the father of a student, accused the married mom of cheating on him with a school security guard and an assistant principal. The dad turned over DOE computers with photos of Seifullah posing in black lingerie and engaged in sex acts and sexually explicit texts on her DOE cellphone.

“Her behavior was unacceptable and inappropriate as an employee of the DOE,” said spokeswoman Devora Kaye. A DOE probe found she misused DOE “technology” and “committed theft of service.”

On May 1, Seifullah was demoted from principal to teacher, and her salary slashed from $142,890 to $66,326. She has tenure as a teacher but not as a principal.

Kaye did not explain how Seifullah wound up teaching at Automotive HS, which is under the gun to improve this year or face a state takeover. A special hiring committee led by Principal Caterina

Lafergola had to review and approve all teachers brought into the school this year.

Mayor de Blasio held a press conference at Automotive to tout his “Renewal program” to pour hundreds of millions into 94 failing schools.

Renewal executive superintendent Aimee Horowitz had to know about the hiring of Seifullah, an insider charged.

“Principal Lafergola would not go to the bathroom without checking with Aimee Horowitz,” the source said. “This was not an error. This was cronyism pure and simple — at the highest level.”

Students said Seifullah came to Automotive to replace a substitute for a teacher who had moved. It didn’t take long for kids to Google their instructor and discover a Post article and photos published after her ouster.

Seifullah has claimed the accusing dad threatened her after she broke up with him and stopped paying his child-support bills. She referred a reporter to her lawyer, Pete Gleason, who declined to comment.

 And then on Google+ we see that Annie has in her circles a man named Justin Stark, the new "ATR Supervisor" from Hell:

Justin Stark

Justin Stark

E-mail

JStark3@schools.nyc.gov

Phone

(718)935-2000

Anonymous said…I wasn’t emailed anything and I am an atr. But the disgusting and gross and incompetent field supervisor Justin Stark delivered my first u rating ever to me in person. I have been teaching twice as long as him and he gave mea a u. He has made this year so miserable for me – I can’t wait to leave – I am a good teacher and a good person and I will be leaving sooner rather than later because I can’t work for an organization that treats good people so badly and lets scum like Stark rule the world. Where is my email?

Anonymous said…

perfect blog! right on – we must get rid of this travesty – the ATR field supervisors are beyond horrendous and terrible – they are terrible people who do terrible things to good people and they should all be put in a padded room to rate each other. the union needs to do something fast – Stark is ruining people’s lives.

Anonymous said…

Justin Stark is a the terrible field supervisor that is making people miserable and jeopardizing our careers and our health from the stress that he is causing us.

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

Just askin': is Mr. Stark the reason, or a player in this production, where Annie Schmultz Seifullah got a job at Automotive High School without the NYC Department of Education knowing?

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

I also spoke with the dad who had an affair with Annie, and he told me that Peter Gleason told him that Annie will be coming to his custody trial to testify against him.

Of course she is.

On May 8, 2015 I filed a Freedom of Information request for the OSI report on Ms. Seifullah, and have never received any response from the NYC DOE FOIL Director, Joe Baranello:

Betsy Combier, Editor / Reporter 

NYC RUBBER ROOM REPORTER

betsy.combier@gmail.com 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

May 8, 2015

Mr. Joseph A. Baranello

Central Records Access Officer
Office of the General Counsel
New York City Department of Education
52 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
 JBaranello3@schools.nyc.gov
FOIL@schools.nyc.gov

Dear Mr. Baranello:

Under the provisions of the New York Freedom of Information Law, Article 6 of the Public Officers Law, I hereby request to receive E-mail copies of:
1) any and all documents, letters, emails, videos, tapes, or pictures relating to the investigation of Principal Annie Schmutz Seifullah of Robert Wagner Secondary School of Arts and Technology in Long Island City.

2) The complete investigation with all notes and recommendations  that relate to OSI case #14-03690X.

3)  Any and all disciplinary decisions, comments or other documents with the name "Annie Seifullah" mentioned in any way.

If the records have been removed from their original locations, please cause a diligent search to be conducted of all appropriate file rooms and storage facilities.

If any record has been redacted, please identify which categories of information have been redacted, and cite the relevant statutory exemption(s).

If you have any questions relating to the specific record(s) or portion(s) being sought, please phone so that we may discuss them.

RELEVANT ADVISORY OPINIONSwww.dos.state.ny.us/coog/ftext/f13952.htm

www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/ftext/f14287.htm 

RELEVANT LOCAL LAW

As you know, the Freedom of Information Law requires that an agency respond to a request within five business days of receipt of a request.  Therefore, I would appreciate a response as soon as possible and look forward to hearing from you shortly.  If for any reason any portion of my request is denied, please inform me of the reasons for the denial in writing and provide the name and address of the person or body to whom an appeal should be directed.

                                                                   Sincerely,


                                                                   Betsy Combier

Are you hiding something from the public, again, Joe?

Friedrichs v California Teacher's Association Could Affect All Public-Employee Unions

This Supreme Court Case Could Significantly Weaken Teachers Unions

Here’s a crash course in the case.Posted: 10/23/2015 02:37 PM EDT

LINK

This piece comes to us courtesy of EdSource, where it was originally published.

Teacher Ken Tray, right, holds a sign at a Prop. 30 rally in San Francisco, Calif. on Saturday, Oct. 20, 2012. The California Teachers Association, one of the state's most influential political players, joins Gov. Jerry Brown for a weekend of rallies throughout the state in support of his November tax initiative and to oppose a separate initiative
that would undercut union clout. (AP Photo/Mathew Sumner)

Sometime in early 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association et al., a closely watched California-based lawsuit with major implications for the state’s teachers unions and potentially all public-employee unions. The lawsuit challenges the authority of the CTA and other public-employee unions to collect mandatory fees, a main source of their income and, by extension, their power. Here’s a crash course in the case.

WHAT IS FRIEDRICHS V. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION?

Friedrichs is a lawsuit brought by 10 California teachers and a teachers group, Christian Educators Association International, that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear. The plaintiffs want the court to overturn a four-decades-old court decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. That ruling said states could require all employees represented exclusively by a public-employee union to pay “fair-share” or “agency” fees – an equal portion of the bargaining costs related to wages, benefits and working conditions. Even employees who aren’t members must pay these fees, although if the plaintiffs prevail, dues and fees for members and non-members would no longer be mandatory. Dues that union members pay include an additional, voluntary amount that covers the union’s costs of campaigning for candidates who back the union and lobbying for issues that a majority of members view as important.

WHO WOULD IT AFFECT?

Half of the states, including California, have adopted laws establishing mandatory “fair share” or “agency” fees employees pay to unions. The remaining 25 “right to work” states either prohibit collective bargaining by public workers or ban mandatory dues. Although the case directly involves the CTA, and, though not a defendant, the smaller California Federation of Teachers, a decision could affect all unions representing public workers, depending how narrowly or broadly the Supreme Court rules.

WHO IS FRIEDRICHS?

Rebecca Friedrichs is the lead plaintiff, an outspoken opponent of her teachers union who agreed to let her name become identified with the case. Friedrichs has taught elementary school for 28 years, mostly in the Savanna School District in Anaheim.You can listen to her discuss the case here, read a Q&A with her here,and read a commentary by her in the Orange County Register here.

WHY IS FRIEDRICHS SUCH A BIG DEAL?

A victory by the teachers who filed the suit could significantly sap the financial strength and undermine the bargaining and political clout of the CTA and other public-employee unions by making all union dues voluntary. Unions would have to persuade employees to voluntarily pay hundreds of dollars to a union that is legally obligated to represent both members and non-members.

About 29,000 teachers – slightly less than 10 percent of the CTA’s members – pay fair-share fees. If many of the remaining 90 percent of teachers stopped paying dues, the loss would jeopardize CTA’s ability to adequately serve its members as well as the tens of millions of dollars the CTA and other powerful unions spend campaigning for union-friendly school board members and legislators. Two years after legislators rescinded Wisconsin’s mandatory fees statute, in 2011, a third of that state’s teachers had stopped paying dues.

HOW MUCH OF DUES GOES TO POLITICKING?

For California teachers, about $600 of their average $1,000 annual dues goes toward their fair-share fees; it is divided among their local union, the California Teachers Association and the National Education Association for their expertise and representation. The remaining money pays for lobbying and campaigning at the local, state and federal levels. Public-employee unions have been a key supporter of the Democratic Party in California and nationwide.

WHO IS UNDERWRITING THE CASE?

The Center for Individual Rights, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm whose mission is “the defense of individual liberties against the increasingly aggressive and unchecked authority of federal and state governments.” It has pursued lawsuits seeking to ban affirmative action and racial and gender preferences, including California’s Proposition 209. 

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR OVERTURNING MANDATORY FEES?

Friedrichs and the other plaintiffs argue that agency fees violate their First Amendment rights, because bargaining with the state is no different from lobbying; it’s all “inherently political.” They say that the CTA doesn’t represent their interests on bargaining issues covered by fair-share fees. Therefore, the state shouldn’t force them to financially underwrite a union they disagree with. “Whether the union is negotiating for specific class sizes or pressing a local government to spend tax dollars on teacher pensions rather than on building parks, the union’s negotiating positions embody political choices that are often controversial,” states the Center for Individual Rights,which is representing the plaintiffs.

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS, THE CTA AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA?

They say the court struck the right balance in Abood, in concluding that the state as an employer is well served when there is a stable and orderly system to convey the views of workers. Since unions must represent members and non-members, it’s appropriate to require all who benefit from negotiations to share the costs. The loss of money from “free-riders” – those who benefit without paying – would threaten a union’s ability to effectively represent employees.

Unions also argue that they represent the views of the majority and those who disagree have the ability to make their views known. The plaintiffs “are simply wrong in declaring that it ‘does not make a First Amendment difference’ whether speech is part of lobbying the Legislature to enact a law or of negotiating a contract with the public employer,” the CTA said in a brief to the Supreme Court.

WHEN WILL THE CASE BE HEARD?

The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for oral arguments, which means probably early next year with a decision no later than the end of June. Organizations and individuals supporting the plaintiffs have already filed two dozen amicus briefs.

WHO MIGHT BE THE DECIDING VOTE?

In this case, it’s not Justice Anthony Kennedy, who usually is the swing vote in 5-4 cases, but conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. In a related 1991 Supreme Court decision, he wrote that mandatory fees were a permissible solution to the problem of free-ridership. “Where the state imposes upon the union a duty to deliver services, it may permit the union to demand reimbursement for them; or, looked at from the other end, where the state creates in the nonmembers a legal entitlement from the union, it may compel them to pay the cost,” he wrote. Circumstances and the arguments haven’t changed much in the past 25 years, so Court watchers are wondering how Scalia would justify reversing his position.

Justice Antonin Scalia

HOW DO CALIFORNIANS VIEW THE ISSUE?

Voters defeated an initiative to turn California into a right-to-work state in 1958, the last time they voted directly on the issue. However, like a seven-year itch, individuals and business groups seeking to reduce the political power of unions have unsuccessfully funded “paycheck protection” initiatives – in 1998, 2005 and 2012. They would have banned automatic dues deductions for political purposes, and in the 2012 version, prohibited businesses and unions from making any campaign contributions to candidates. Friedrichs would go further by banning mandatory dues deductions for any purpose.  

OTHER THAN OVERTURN ABOOD, WHAT ELSE MIGHT THE COURT DO?

Every fall, California teachers who don’t want to join the union must fill out a form stating that; otherwise, the union automatically deducts the full union dues from their paychecks. Attorneys for the teachers argue the onus should be on the union to ask them to belong, and so, as a fallback position, have asked the court to require that unions ask employees to affirmatively opt in every year to pay agency fees, instead of having to opt out of automatic dues collection.

HOW DID LOWER COURTS DECIDE?

They didn’t, really. Lawyers for the plaintiffs acknowledged that their lawsuit hinged on having the Supreme Court reverse its prior Abood decision and so asked lower courts to expedite their rulings so they could quickly appeal to the Supreme Court. The federal district and 9th Circuit Court of Appeal did, without hearing full evidence and oral arguments. California Attorney General Kamala Harris argued the lack of a record showing the teachers were harmed was one reason the Supreme Court should not have taken the case.

Francesco Portelos and NY State Tenure Law

Francesco Portelos

Please read my prior articles:

Francesco Portelos' Poison - Threats To Principals

Francesco Portelos: "A Troublemaking, Combative, and Disgruntled Employee", Loses His Federal Case by Editor Betsy Combier

Francesco Portelos and His "Victim Complex"

OP-ED: Why Cyberstalker Francesco Portelos and His Bully Mob, UFT Solidarity, Failed

Parents against teacher tenure say they're being harassed by educator

EDITORIAL: Cyberstalker Francesco Portelos and His Blame Game Must Be Stopped

Teacher’s tweets threaten kids in tenure suit: parents

Editorial: Is Francesco Portelos a Danger to Tenure Law? by Betsy Combier

The Francesco Portelos Mob: Who Are They?

The UFT Solidarity Brand is Not What UFT Members Need

Re-posted from Parentadvocates.org:

 Editorial: Is Francesco Portelos a Danger To New York State Tenure Law?

by Betsy Combier

Yes, Francesco Portelos, in my opinion as well as that of the NYC Department of Education ("NYC DOE), is a disgruntled, harassing bully. The evidence is available on Francesco's own blogs and websites. He is proud of being supposedly hated by the DOE. Why? Because he knows he is a messenger for them of "bad" teachers who need to be charged. Who are these "bad" teachers? Anyone who threatens the lies and misconduct of administrators at the Department.

When a teacher blows the whistle on principal misconduct at their school and has Francesco put the information out on his "Administrators in Need of Improvement"

Since I uncovered that the NYC DOE is using Francesco to go after employees who follow him and his hate campaign, I have been lied about by Francesco Portelos on his websites, called and screamed at by people I don't know and have never met (Francesco gave everyone my cell number, and told everyone it would be ok to call me and give me hell for doing what I never did), and he went to the extreme by lying about my husband to my husband's employer, to get him fired.

Portelos is an excellent hacker, and uses his skills to harm people he doesn't like. He wanted my advocacy to fail, so he accessed the back end of this blog and deleted everything on the right column that now is back. See the information on the right side of this blog. I did not have backup, so I tried to re-create what had been there as best I could.

Francesco then posted a video of a DOE meeting which I discovered under FOIL, (this video was in the deleted material from my blog), put "UFT Solidarity" on the video as the source, and posted his "3020-a Guide" online with the video and a caveat at the end telling everyone never to hire a nonlawyer, meaning me. I have been doing 3020-a hearings for 17 years, have written closing arguments and investigated more than 100 misconduct and incompetency, and have won most of these hearings by doing the background work. I work with attorneys.

For example:

Johnathan Hinesley, one of Francesco's group members, called me up out of the blue last summer and told me that he had been charged with 3020-a , and would like to talk about his charges. We met at the diner in Manhattan near me, and I stayed more than 3 hours answering all of his questions. I never charge a "consultation" fee, but he demanded that he pay for my tuna sandwich. I thanked him.

Johnathan Hinesley

Then he asked me to read all his papers, and then edit a rebuttal he had written to Philip Weinberg. I agreed. He then told me to edit his Notice of Claim. I agreed. Suddenly, he paid me $500 for the work I did, and I thanked him.

 I called him after the September 20 UFT Solidarity meeting at which Jim Callaghan spoke badly about me, to find out what happened (I wasnt there). He told me my name was not mentioned. Then he started screaming that he would be attending my 3020-a hearings with my clients, and there was nothing I could do to stop him. I told him he would not be mobbing my hearings, the arbitrators and the attorneys I work with dont like mobs. He was furious.

Then Johnathan demanded I give him the $500 back, because I did nothing for him. I asked my lawyer what to do and he said to keep it and ignore Johnathan...adding I should charge for my work.

Today on Linkedin, Francesco told my contacts:

Francesco Portelos1st

UFT 2016 Presidential Candidate at United Federation Of Teachers

Commented 18 hours ago

"Ahhh Betsy...how many people have asked for their money back for services you didn't provide? They keep calling us and telling us they have cashed checks for legal advice. That's what this is about. So sad."

Actually, Francesco, how many people? Inquiring minds want to know. Legal advice? I don't give legal advice. I am not a lawyer. Take money without doing a service? Never in my life have I done that, and you know it. I gave this $500 to someone who needed help with paying for paper copying for his case. I give you an A for effort, though. 

But think about it. A teacher, paid by public tax money, is given the right to teach children to threaten anyone they don't like, force people to do whatever he says, and lie about you through every website he can get on or set up. I think that Francesco Portelos is a liability for the NYC Department of Education.

Liability: a person or thing whose presence or behavior is likely to cause embarrassment or put one at a disadvantage.

"he has become a political liability"

synonyms:

hindrance, encumbrance, burden, handicap,nuisance, inconvenience;  obstacle, impediment,disadvantage, weakness, weak link,shortcoming;  millstone around one's neck,albatross, Achilles heel

If you are a tenured public educator or anyone who values tenure for teachers in New York State or elsewhere in the United States, you should be alarmed by the outrageous violations of confidentiality and the cyber bullying going on in New York City by Francesco Portelos and his group, called UFT Solidarity.

Francesco used to be an ally in the fight for change in New York City as far as how teachers are being treated. Indeed, I posted many articles about his being charged and found guilty of internet bullying and never admitting he was wrong, thinking that he was a hero and a fighter for all things good.

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

The Francesco Portelos Mob: Who Are They?

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

Francesco Portelos' 3020-a decision (dated May 2014).

I put this decision on my website, in one of the many articles I wrote about Francesco glorifying his work to undermine Linda Hill who seemed at the time to have charged Francesco after he found out she was not handling money correctly. Blowing the whistle on an administrator, or any public employee is complicated. The case decided by the US Supreme Court, Garcetti v Ceballos (see here, here and here). Teachers are public employees and their First Amendment rights were, it seems to me, limited to "a citizen speaking on matters of public concern".

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

All decisions by arbitrators at 3020-a are available to the public, all you have to do is file a FOIL request to New York State Education Department at foil@nysed.gov. Just name the person or the arbitrator, and, if you have it, the year of the decision.

Looking at Francesco's arbitration decision now, which he sent to me, I am frightened by the implications of the sustained charges (p. 107) and his promotion of activities under the umbrella of UFT Solidarity. There are many similarities, and I fear that Francesco is deliberately putting other teachers in danger to mitigate his punishment of $10,000. He is telling teachers to do exactly what he was charged with.....the group which is most in danger is probationary teachers, who can be fired for no reason. Principals and APs may see your allegiance to Francesco as a sign of disrespect and insubordination, and fire you without any explanation. Watch out!

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

SPECIFICATION 6:

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

SPECIFICATION 8:

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

SPECIFICATION 9:

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


SPECIFICATION 25:

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

SPECIFICATION 28:

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

SPECIFICATION 29:

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

SPECIFICATION 31:

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

SPECIFICATION 33:

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

SPECIFICATION 34:

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

SPECIFICATION 36:

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

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

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

SPECIFICATION 38:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It turns out that Francesco is, in my opinion, the most vindictive bully I have ever met, and he uses his internet knowledge to gain followers to his cult, all of whom believe that it is their right under protection of the First Amendment to say anything they want about anyone. 

On September 20, 2015, at a UFT Solidarity meeting at which I did not attend, Francesco edited a video of a speech made by a former UFT writer (for NY Teacher) Jim Callaghan (pictured at left) to make Jim call me a "homophobe" and make me look like I was a worthless piece of c***, hired only because I filed a FOIL request for the personnel file of the Queens UFT District Representative Rona Freiser. These claims are false, and both Jim and Francesco knew these claims were false. But the 50 people in the room on September 20, 2015 did not know that. Neither did the many listservs and international audience of the video sent out by Francesco with Jim speaking about me.

I asked Francesco to kindly allow me to speak about what Jim said, or he, Francesco, could post on his many internet outlets that what Jim said was not true, but Francesco refused. In fact, he got angry that I asked him, and said that the talk was not about me, so he wasn't going to alter anything, and stay away.

A friend of mine who was in the rubber room which I visited when I worked as a Special Representative at the UFT (2007-2010) posted on her website FidgetyTeach about Jim Callaghan, and suddenly Francesco went after her too. He told her that the reason he attacked me was because I had posted on my blog that Randi Weingarten had changed my life by hiring me to go to the rubber rooms of NYC. Francesco then posted on the listserv my friend started, confidential information about her, in retaliation for supporting me.

Evidently this is the way Francesco keeps people afraid of him. I am not.

The first no that I gave him, was several months ago when he set up a new business, EduFOIL, charging people for his writing Freedom of Information requests. I have filed more than 50 FOIL requests, and when asked by someone how to do it, I just show them my blog, or give them the format I use.

Then a person called me to tell me he paid $29-$50 to get the rating of his principal in 2013-2014, was denied, and then the anonymous people over at EduFOIL told him that he could appeal, for $60.00. But wait a minute!!!! Ratings of principals are no longer available under FOIL, so the person writing under EduFOIL does not know this? But is charging money anyway?

Then, on September 20 came the video saying I was a homophobe, which a person in Francesco's "cabinet" sent me. He is a gay man, and was very upset.

The NY POST wrote an article about his breaking into the confidential records of parents:

Teacher’s tweets threaten kids in tenure suit: parents
By Aaron Short and Carl Campanile July 8, 2014 | 2:53am

An angry city teacher recently sprung from a rubber room spewed online threats against the children involved in a lawsuit to end tenure in New York state, the kids’ parents claim.

Franceso Portelos, who was allowed to return to teaching even though charges against him were substantiated, darkly tweeted that another teacher should “look away” from helping the kids of Sam Pirozollo and Mona Davids, who claim tenure protects lousy educators.

“U need your protection removed so if you see a disservice to little Franklin P or Eric D u look away,” Portelos said under his twitter handle, Mr. Portelos.

He was discussing Franklin Pirozollo and Eric Davids, who are among students named in the suit.

Mona Davids, a member of the Parents Union, responded on Twitter: “ru encouraging tcher 2 ignore a child in need.” An hour later, Davids tweeted: “We are taking this threat very seriously.”

On Monday night, Davids said, “He’s targeting our children, my son.”

Portelos denied ill intent.

“No. It was a sarcastic tweet to another teacher,” he said Monday night, while joining 60 other teachers and union activists who showed up at a Staten Island Community Education Community Council meeting to protest the anti-tenure lawsuit.

Portelos also discussed the personal details of the student-plaintiffs on his blog site, protectportelos.org.

He posted a link to a New York Times article about another student-plaintiff in the case, Izaiyah Ewers, who is identified as having a mood disorder and acting out. The report also said the youngster’s mom entered homeless shelters to avoid an abusive husband.

“Really unfortunate story, but . . . Teacher’s fault?” Portelos asks.

Despite his whining, Portelos seems to be the epitome of the kind of teacher for whom the Parents Union is pressing the suit.

Even though a a report by Special Schools Investigator Richard Condon’s office substantiated allegations that he tampered with a school website, and posted student information on his personal website, a state arbitrator refused a city DOE request that he be fired.

He was fined $10,000, and some parents at Staten Island’s Dreyfus Intermediate School 49 defended him as a good teacher.

But the city Department of Education placed him in the absent-teacher reserve pool instead of reassigning him to Dreyfus.

Parents against teacher tenure say they're being harassed by educator

Mona Davids and Sam Pirozzolo of the New York City Parents Union say there were targeted by educator Franceso Portelos in an angry Sunday tweet.

by Ben Chapman, NY Daily News

Sam Pirozzolo

Two city parents who signed onto a suit to end teacher tenure in New York State say they’re being harassed by an educator who backs the protection.

Mona Davids and Sam Pirozzolo of the New York City Parents Union say they were targeted by teacher Francesco Portelos in a Sunday tweet.

“U need your protection removed so if you see a disservice to little Franklin P or Eric D u look away,” tweeted Portelos, referring to to Davids’ son Eric, 6, and Pirozzolo’s son Franklin, 11. “Teachers need to be protected so they can speak up for any disservice to students,” said Portelos.
*************************
Now we see Francesco trying to shovel himself into the release of confidential information citywide in his new toolbox for teachers and parents, posted recently:

Special Ed Info
Our system is unfortunately plagued with countless Special Education violations. Our neediest students suffer and often times their teachers and paraprofessionals are gagged from speaking up. Although there are avenues to report such violations, history has shown us that none of the methods through 311, the UFT and State Education Department have protected these special ed whistleblowers.

UFT Solidarity is committed to assisting these members and children.

Email spedinfo@uftsolidarity.org and we will work with the administration, the UFT and DOE to remedy the situation while keeping your name a secret.

Steps:

Staff member or parent contact spedinfo@uftsolidarity.org with information on the alleged violation or concern. UFT Solidarity Special Education task force contacts administration on member/parents behalf. Five days are given to remedy the situation.
If situation is not remedied in a week, the UFT, school superintendent, deputy chancellor and 311 are contacted. If the violations are not remedied at this level, the NYS Education Department and media are contacted as well as Special Education advocates.
***We are also there to assist and help with ANY special educaton issue whether you believe it is big or small! If you have a SESIS question or a legal question etc message us!***

Who, Francesco, is giving the legal advice? Victor Jordan?

Frightening. This one person, Francesco Portelos, shows the world why tenure should end.