From Hal Lanse: I Received No Help From Mike Mulgrew, UFT President

Mulgrew Gives Rank and File the Cold Shoulder
by Hal Lanse

Here’s the update on my case. First, I have requested that Michael Mulgrew, UFT President become personally involved in my case. His office has read my request, but Mr. Mulgrew has elected to respond with silence. Since this test case has implications for the entire teaching force, Mulgrew has in essence given the entire rank and file the cold shoulder.

There was a step 1 grievance which was a joke. The so-called supervisor (the one who took two weeks to introduce herself to me) now knows that she has violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement. She has proceeded to suspend my pay and health care.

Oh sure, the UFT will go through the standard grievance process but here’s the problem: By permitting the DOE to allow this procedure to move at the typical snail’s pace the Union (or what’s left of it) has given tacit approval to a dangerous precedent. In the future, we may no longer see the 3020a process—which teachers are permitted by law. Instead, teachers will be illegally terminated without pay. How many of us can last a year or more without pay and without health care? We will be forced to resign in order to take lower paying jobs (if any are available) just to have some money coming in. And how many of us can afford private lawyers to litigate?
Do you see? By taking a hands-off approach, the UFT President has in effect given away your right to due process. If you are outraged, email him and tell him so. And I’d appreciate a copy of your email just so I can know if anyone takes this as seriously as I do. Mulgrew’s email is:

mmulgrew@uft.org.

From Betsy Combier:

Another teacher called Leroy Barr and told him that she has been in a rubber room since December 2009, without any charges and no notice of an investigation by either the SCI or OSI. She asked what she could do to get back to her school. The answer: "Sorry, we can't help you".

By the way, Mr. Mulgrew, why were you removed from Grady High School in 2004 and moved to the UFT, along with teacher Eva Mendez? Please let me know.

Thanks,

Betsy

Here is the previous email from Mr. Lanse:

Email from Hal Lanse, former Rubber Room teacher at 501 Courtlandt Avenue in the Bronx:

After blowing the whistle on my principal and contacting the Daily News after he ordered teachers to falsify grades, I was hit with false charges and sent to the rubber room for the better part of a year. Although my case was dismissed in August the DOE refused to honor their agreement to make me an ATR. They have kept me in a rubber room at 1 Fordham Plaza. (Yes, there ARE still rubber rooms!) My agreement with the DOE was that I'd become an ATR. The DOE's agreement with the UFT stipulates that teachers like me should be sent back to our schools. None of this has happened. I was given no work for two weeks until I fell asleep on a couch. (I refused to sit in the corner as ordered. My lawyer says this is corporal punishment.)

Then, I was given a few menial tasks like collating papers and stuffing folders with papers. I refused, however, when the DOE stooped to ordering me to put paper clips on stacks of papers. (A job that can be done in seconds by the office coy machine.) I pointed out that my contract stipulated a particular job: ATR--a substitute teacher.

Last week, my supervisor yelled at me in front of other to "Get back to your seat, NOW"; and when she followed this up the next day by closing the distance between us when I said to her "I don't want to be verbally harassed again; please move away from me," I filed a complaint. The DOE refused to log-in the complaint, so I followed the UFT's advice and called the police.

The result: More retaliation. I have been suspended without pay just five weeks before going on terminal leave. The DOE cited no law or regulations allowing them to do this. Below is my letter to Michael Mulgrew regarding this matter. This suspension has citywide and possibly national implications.

If you think Mulgrew's reacting should be swift and strong contact him and tell him so.

Dear Michael Mulgrew,

I am involved in a situation that is so unprecedented it could put an end to due process as we know it. I have been suspended without pay even though the DOE failed to cite any law or regulation justifying such an action. I believe this is a test case. If the situation is allowed to stand then the DOE can argue in the future that the UFT has given tacit approval of this action and has set a precedent by failing to protest. I believe that we will see the 3020a process replaced by blanket, open-ended, unpaid suspensions.

I am asking you to personally handle my case. I am scheduled to meet tomorrow (Tuesday) at 3 PM with Bronx Special Rep. David Kazansky. Can you please attend?

Fraternally,

Hal Lanse

The Terminator: PIP+ Observer

After spending almost three years investigating the PIP+ process of evaluating teachers, while I worked for the UFT and after, I have become what some people may describe as an Expert Witness to the errors and pitfalls of the program.

When a Principal wants to get rid of you, he or she will "offer" you the "remediation" of the PIP+ and tell you to sign the contract agreeing to participate. He or she may also add, if you hestitate, that if you do not sign up for the PIP+ then this information will be brought to a 3020-a and the arbitrator will see this as convincing evidence for your termination. DONT FALL FOR THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PIP+ IS VOLUNTARY AND YOU CAN SAY "NO".

In fact, a teacher said no, and at the 3020-a the NYC DOE Gotcha Squad lawyer tried to argue for termination based upon the refusal to participate, and arbitrator Randi Lowitt said that she would not consider any penalty for not participating in a voluntary program.

Sandra Kase, PIP+ Director at RMC, told an assembly of NYSUT attorneys (and a NYSUT Attorney told me), that the PIP+ is to help Principals get rid of staff, not to help teachers improve their classroom teaching skills.

Don't get caught, read the documents below. Also, when you read the Training Manual, you will see that the RMC Employee hired to observe you must model for you the constructs that he/she wants you to use. Ask your observer to model for you, and see what happens. Dont forget to have a secret tape recorder hidden in your pocket.

Oh, by the way, let me remind all those warm and fuzzy Department of Education and NYSUT/UFT people who desperately want me to stop writing on this blog and/or my website, I am not an attorney and the information below is just my opinion. Besides, you should have kept me on payroll so I would have had to continue to send my opinions to all the other blogs in town.

Here are two(2) truths:

If you signed up for PIP+ (Peer Intervention Program Plus), you probably were observed by someone who knows little or nothing about the subject area or the curriculum, and is in the school to serve the interests of the principal. The observer is there to complete and substantiate the claims of the administration of your school that you should be fired and you cannot improve under any circumstances.

When you go to 3020-a, on charges that you are an incompetent teacher, you will be terminated unless you defend your competency aggressively (videos, tapes, affirmations, letters in support, etc.) and submit to the arbitrator through your attorney the documents below.

How did this program start? For many years one of the objections teachers have had concerning the annual rating sheet is that the principal, who gives the rating, is biased. The argument is, if a principal is out to "get" you - fired, excessed, removed, re-assigned - by giving you two or more "U" ratings at the end of two school years, then this person will come into your classroom to observe you suddenly without notice, and then staple this informal observation to the rating sheet along with the 45 other formal and informal observations he/she did in the space of a month (this is a little exaggeration, but this is my blog, and I can exaggerate to make my point). This is not proper procedure. An observer is supposed to give you a date for a pre-observation, observe the scheduled class, and then discuss the observation with you later the same day or as soon as possible. Formal observations are supposed to be used not in a punitive way but to assist you in improving your teaching.

Randi Weingarten heard the complaints of members, and agreed to allow a program to start in 2007 called the PIP+ that would give some of the power to determine "incompetency" to an independent and neutral party, a PIP+ observer brought in from outside the school. The job of running the program was given to The RMC Corporation, as I found out after filing a Freedom of Information request for the PIP+ contract (I paid $52.00 to the NYC DOE). Here is the PIP+ agreement between the RMC Research Corporation and The New York City Department of Education (the UFT is not mentioned), OLS Contract Log No. 17053:

An Agreement By and Between the Board of Education of the City of New York and the RMC Research Corporation (pp. 1-53)
Request For Authorization (pp. 54-105)
Proposal (pp. 106 -incomplete)

and here are the pages on the Training Manual, that show how the entire program is driven by the principal:

Peer Observation and Evaluation Part 1(#RO116)
Training Manual Part 2

By the way, I also FOIL'd the personnel file of Sandra Kase, and will post this soon on these pages.

The problem is that the Peer Intervention Program+ was never implemented correctly. RMC is a consulting group that works alongside The Gotcha Squad. I first heard this from a teacher who had signed up for PIP+, and taught 3rd grade (very successfully) and suddenly was told to switch to fifth grade. The principal from hell was driving all teachers away, the scores of the school were falling, everything was wrong. The PIP+ observer came in and told her (the teacher) that she, the observer,  had taught 3rd grade in 1969 for 6 months, before moving to California. She asked what the Workshop Model was. Then, after ten weeks, told the Principal that the teacher was too incompetent to keep, that this tenured teacher was absolutely incapable of ever being remediated in any way and recommended termination. In another case, a PIP+ observer who had worked with the Principal several years earlier came to the school to end the career of a teacher who the principal wanted out because she wanted that position for her niece. etc.

At 3020-a, the arbitrators are respecting the "neutrality" of these observers, and their "professional opinions" to the extent that almost everyone who signed up is being given harsh penalties, which should be appealed (Article 7511, New York State Supreme Court). In other words, the arbirators believe them, and find them credible. You must prove otherwise.

So, what is a PIP+ victim to do?
1. The NYCDOE attorney will make a big point of the "fact" that the PIP+ is a collaboration of the UFT and the DOE (especially if you get Gotcha Squad attorney Dennis Da Costa, who treats Respondent teachers as serial killers - can someone report him to the First Department Disciplinary Committee? Or, send me your transcripts and I'll send them over, with a cover sheet) and submit to the arbitrator the UFT 2007 contract as if this was the agreement that RMC uses as their contract. This is not correct.
In the agreement  above, look at on pp. 15-16 where says that the RMC Corporation is paid by the Chancellor and the Chancellor shall decide if the job is done well or not. This makes the RMC Corporation anything but neutral. Point out this to the arbitrator, and submit the agreement as evidence.

2. The manner in which the teacher is observed is key to proving that the PIP+ is a principal-driven tool to get rid of the teacher. The PIP+ observer gives his/her observations to the principal, once the observation is written...sometimes the principal does not give the observation to the teacher until weeks later. This cannot be the way a teacher is "helped". In order for a teacher to be assisted in his/her pedagogy, he/she must have immediate feedback. All training programs 'know' this, but the PIP+ program is a "Gotcha" program, so there is no remediation involved. (For a teacher to be fired there must have been a remediation strategy in place that failed over time to make the teacher capable of teaching).
Have your attorney point out the time lags between the observation and the discussion with the teacher of the observation, or the day that the teacher gets the observation comments. And, if the year-end rating is stapled to informal observations, counseling memos and letters to file, ask the arbitrator to have the NYC DOE attorney submit only the formal observations with the rating sheet, as allowed in the UFT contract.

3. Have a student witness come in and say what a great teacher you were, and how well you performed in your class.
Arbirators I know give alot of weight to a child who, when he/she enters the room, seems very happy to see his/her teacher, and testifies about how wonderful the teacher is in the classroom. I remember one hearing I sat in on when a charming seven year-old was asked by the NYC DOE to testify against her teacher. The little girl came into the room and waved to the teacher, and said a big hello. The arbitrator told her to tell the truth, she said that she would, and then she started scribbling on a little piece of paper. The arbitrator asked her if she would like a bigger sheet (probably thinking this would keep her from figgiting too much). She said yes, and proceeded to answer questions while scribbling on her paper with her red pen.
The DOE Attorney wanted the girl to admit that the teacher had pinched her nose. The girl kept saying she didnt recall anything like that. Getting a little frustrated, the DOE attorney said loudly (and in a leading way) DONT YOU REMEMBER THAT YOUR TEACHER PINCHED YOUR NOSE DURING CLASS???? The girl said something to the effect, "yes, I guess so".
She then finished scribbling, and I was interested in seeing what she had drawn (I have a certificate in Art and Drama Therapy).
The little girl handed the artbitrator her sheet of paper with the following in big red letters: "NO". I heard the arbitrator (one of my personal favorites) ask the smart-as-a-whip little witness whether he could have her "drawing", and after she said "yes", he slipped the paper into his file of exhibits, saying to her, "thank you."
So kool.

Betsy Combier

The New Underhanded Sleazy DOE Policy To Get Teachers To Resign On The Spot
LINK

The DOE in their never ending search to find ways to get veteran teachers to leave the system has came up with a new procedure to do just that. Tweed's Teacher Performance Unit (TPU). Otherwise known as the "firing squad" or gotcha squad" has come up with a sleazy procedure to railroad and pressure teachers accused of incompetance into resigning. The TPU has sent a resignation form to the Principals' that allows the teacher to resign on the spot and our union has not objected to this sleazy program. How does this new procedure to get rid of teachers work?

It starts with the Principal "U" rating the teacher for the first year. Then during the second year the Administration gives the poor teacher "U" observations. The teacher is given the Peer Intervention Program (PIP) and despite sometimes glowing reports, the Principal "U" rates the teacher for the second year. During the third year, the "U" observations pile up and the teacher is given the DOE termination program called PIP+. Usually given by an F status administrator or teacher who relies on the DOE supported income and won't go against the Principal. Finally, the Principal, with another administrator will call in the unsuspecting teacher, sometimes without the Chapter Leader since it is not a disciplinary hearing and offers the teacher a deal. The deal is as follows:

" If the teacher signs the resignation paper, handed to the teacher at the meeting, the Principal will remove the "U" ratings and give the teacher an "S" rating for the previous two years and the current year. Further, the DOE will give a neutral recommendation to other school systems. Finally, the teacher will be reassigned out of the school and be paid for the rest of the school year. Of course the resignation paper states that the teacher cannot work for the DOE ever again. If the teacher refuses to sign the resignation paper the Principal falsely claims that the teacher will be brought up on expedited 3020-a charges and go after not only the City license but the State license as well and that the teacher will be terminated before the school year is over."

This scare tactic frightens the teacher and without guidance some teachers sign their careers away. The reality is that if the teacher properly refuses to sign the resignation paper here is the most likely scenario that would ensue. The Principal will file 3020-a charges for incompetence and the teacher will be reassigned. In two to three months, maybe longer, the 3020 charges will be given to the teacher. Three to six months after receiving the charges the teacher will be assigned a NYSUT lawyer, free of charge, by the union and a 3020-a arbitrator will be assigned. Between six and 12 months after receiving the lawyer & arbitrator, the teacher will finally have a pre-hearing where it is quite likely the DOE lawyer will offer the teacher a settlement by paying a fine of between $2,500 -$6,000 and a course without going through a 3020-a hearing. If no such settlement is offered, expect the 3020-a hearing to last six months or more before it ends. Because transcripts from Albany are very slow in coming, an Arbitrator's decision could take another three month or more. That means from the time the teacher is reassigned from the school to the arbitrator's decision expect it to be a minimum of 20 months and in most cases it is over two years! Finally, very few teachers are terminated for incompetence and the teacher is eventually reassigned to another school as an ATR.

Why our union allows the DOE to get away with this deception is mind-boggling. The district reps should be telling the Chapter Leaders to make sure that no teacher sign a resignation paper and encourage them to fight the charges. Instead it seems that the union takes a neutral position and leaves the teacher on her own with no guidance and the likely scenario if the teacher does not sign the resignation paper. It appears to me the union is aiding and abetting Tweed's sleazy teacher resignation program by keeping the hapless and targeted teacher ignorant of their options if they fight the charges.

Shame on Tweed for their underhanded ways to pressure teachers to resign and the union for allowing this DOE program to exist without putting up a fight.

Note: I am pretty much disappointed that many of my fellow bloggers have not commented on this serious new development on how to get teachers to resign in the school. We need to put the union on notice that they must have meetings to inform teachers about this new DOE action plan. I understand that Edwize and Leo Casey could care less about the classroom teacher but we do care and this issue can affect us all!

Posted by Chaz at 5:32 PM
Thursday, January 08, 2009

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Settlement offers are made by DOE to teachers because the punishments and fines handed out by arbitrators are less severe than the settlement punishments and fines. A frightened teacher who does not know that is ripe for settlement.

In all but the most obvious incompetence cases a teacher is much better off in the hands of an arbitrator. Of course DOE wants the settlements (makes it easier to get rid of the teacher next time) and of course the NYSUT lawyers want the settlement but the teacher should not. It is no secret that a 3020a settlement that includes a fine is going to be viewed as an admission of incompetence or guilt at subsequent 3020a hearings. Let me be frank, if you settle for a fine and a course than you are toast at your next 3020a hearing. An honest NYSUT lawyer will admit that to you.

7:44 PM
Monday, March 23, 2009

NYC teachers: Beware of the new PIP+ !

New York City's Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers have established the Peer Intervention Program to assist teachers that have received two unsatisfactory, or “U” ratings in a row. (The principal wants the teachers out of the school and the profession.) The PIP observers observe the teachers for ten weeks.

The are several problems of grave concern to the teachers under review in the new version of the Peer Intervention Program. PIP has changed from the original program format. The new program is the “PIP+” program. In the new design of PIP+ there are aspects of secrecy, of non-transparency, that work against the teacher, and in favor of the principal.

The intent of the original PIP program was to provide teachers with an opportunity for growth. Experienced teachers could be trusted to work in confidence with teachers, and as aides with the teachers. Under the original PIP program teachers would be spared the risk of being observed by an administrator for the period of months that the teacher was being observed by the PIP observer.

In the new PIP+ program, the PIP+ observers do not show the observations to the teachers, instead, they only show their reports to the principals. The observations only are revealed to the teachers when they are charged at the 3020-a hearings (incompetency hearings, to strip teachers of their teaching license). These observations are used as ammunition against the teachers, as part of the charges against them in the 3020-a process. The teachers have been told that if they do not participate, this will be used against them as act of insubordination at the 3020-a proceedings.

The PIP+ observers write things about the teacher that might not even be true. The teacher will not have any defense. One PIP+ observer told a teacher that she was an ideal teacher, that she did not actually understand why the observed teacher was being subjected to the program. However, the observer wrote in her report that the teacher was incompetent in performing her lessons.

The observers have the appearance of being independent outside observers, but they are being hired by and paid by Department of Education. There is a known case in which a principal called a PIP observer, asking her to come in, to observe a teacher. The observer testified under oath that she had never been in the school before. However, the teacher in question hired a private-eye to find the truth. The investigator uncovered that the PIP observer had previously been in the school, that she had lead a professional development session at the school.

The conclusion that teachers and their advocates should draw from these details is that a teacher should not sign up with the PIP+ program. Teachers that are pressured to sign up with PIP+ should ideally say, “I don't want to say anything or participate in anything that could wrongly jeopardize an assessment of my performance. I need to know that what actually happened in the classroom is going into the observation report.”

Posted by NY_I at 6:10 AM 0 comments

Hal Lanse, Teacher in the "New" Rubber Room, is Suspended Without Pay

As I wrote previously (See The Rubber Room Diaspora), former rubber roomers are now scattered throughout the City of New York, so that the massive violations of civil rights, labor and employment law, legal malpractice and denial of due process can be swept under a rug and "forgotten" by the general public as we head into the November elections. The UFT, NYSUT and the New York City Board of Education (the legal name) are all hoping that the news of all that has gone wrong over the past eight years will be stale by now, and the politicians, staff and employees of these three groups can "forget" about being terrified of someone holding them accountable for ruining the lives and careers of not only thousands of teachers but also thousands of children and young adults who were used as pawns in the deadly game of fraud, extortion and theft.

I am, of course, talking about money. If there was no money to be taken by the folk that brought you The Rubber Room (all locations and the process of "rubberization") I believe none of this (the rubberization of the workforce) would have happened, or at least it would have been kept within lawful boundaries, but for the fact that there is alot of money for those who can successfully grab it. An example of this is the harassment of tenured employees by NYSUT attorneys and the NYC BOE to sign settlement agreements. If a teacher is going into a 3020-a, it really doesn't matter if he or she is guilty or innocent. Mayor Bloomberg has decreed that the 'rubber rooms' issue is not good for him, politically speaking, therefore every case must be completely over by December 31, 2010. Thus the "Respondents" (teachers) are forced to give the Board $5,000+ to go back to a school as an ATR (a title that someone made up) or else they are going to be terminated. The new agreement and the terms of most of the current settlement agreements significantly harm the due process rights of anyone going through 3020-a right now.

Email from Hal Lanse, former Rubber Room teacher at 501 Courtlandt Avenue in the Bronx:

After blowing the whistle on my principal and contacting the Daily News after he ordered teachers to falsify grades, I was hit with false charges and sent to the rubber room for the better part of a year. Although my case was dismissed in August the DOE refused to honor their agreement to make me an ATR. They have kept me in a rubber room at 1 Fordham Plaza. (Yes, there ARE still rubber rooms!) My agreement with the DOE was that I'd become an ATR. The DOE's agreement with the UFT stipulates that teachers like me should be sent back to our schools. None of this has happened. I was given no work for two weeks until I fell asleep on a couch. (I refused to sit in the corner as ordered. My lawyer says this is corporal punishment.)


Then, I was given a few menial tasks like collating papers and stuffing folders with papers. I refused, however, when the DOE stooped to ordering me to put paper clips on stacks of papers. (A job that can be done in seconds by the office coy machine.) I pointed out that my contract stipulated a particular job: ATR--a substitute teacher.


Last week, my supervisor yelled at me in front of other to "Get back to your seat, NOW"; and when she followed this up the next day by closing the distance between us when I said to her "I don't want to be verbally harassed again; please move away from me," I filed a complaint. The DOE refused to log-in the complaint, so I followed the UFT's advice and called the police.


The result: More retaliation. I have been suspended without pay just five weeks before going on terminal leave. The DOE cited no law or regulations allowing them to do this. Below is my letter to Michael Mulgrew regarding this matter. This suspension has citywide and possibly national implications.


If you think Mulgrew's reacting should be swift and strong contact him and tell him so.


Dear Michael Mulgrew,
I am involved in a situation that is so unprecedented it could put an end to due process as we know it. I have been suspended without pay even though the DOE failed to cite any law or regulation justifying such an action. I believe this is a test case. If the situation is allowed to stand then the DOE can argue in the future that the UFT has given tacit approval of this action and has set a precedent by failing to protest. I believe that we will see the 3020a process replaced by blanket, open-ended, unpaid suspensions.


I am asking you to personally handle my case. I am scheduled to meet tomorrow (Tuesday) at 3 PM with Bronx Special Rep. David Kazansky. Can you please attend?


Fraternally,


Hal Lanse

'Rubber room' teachers in make-work jobs
By KEVIN FASICK and YOAV GONEN, NY POST, Posted: 3:27 AM, September 9, 2010
LINK

The city is transforming hundreds of high-priced, do-nothing teachers accused of wrongdoing into pricey paper pushers.

The teachers -- who for years spent their time dozing, playing games or doing zilch while earning full pay in infamous holding pens known as "rubber rooms" -- are now being dispersed to DOE offices around the city as they await disciplinary hearings.

"I'll be doing clerical work, which means they'll be paying me $100,049 to be making photocopies," said Hal Lanse, a Bronx teacher who learned yesterday that he's being assigned to a district office in The Bronx.

He said he was accused of sexually harassing a colleague but claims the accusation was payback for exposing grade-tampering.

"The rubber rooms are not being closed," said Lanse. "They are just being diffused around the city."

Under an agreement between the United Federation of Teachers and the schools chancellor reached in April, the bulk of educators charged with misbehavior are obligated to pitch in with busy-work.

That deal was also meant to expedite a disciplinary system that at times pulled more than 700 teachers out of the classroom for years on end.

"The agreement's working," said UFT President Michael Mulgrew, who put the current figure of reassigned teachers at about 400. "We've cut the number almost in half. Hopefully after we finish the backlog this will never be an issue again."

In the meantime, former Rikers Island teacher Vera Ifudu, 62, said she was told to report to Department of Education food services in Long Island City.

"Whatever they give me, I will try to make lemonade out of lemons," she said.

Ifudu, who was earning close to $80,000 last year, was sidelined for lateness, insubordination and misconduct, according to DOE officials.

She claims the misconduct charge stemmed from her giving prisoners paper masks to wear on Halloween.

"I miss the classroom and teaching, but I still have a job. I'm still being paid," she added. "Hopefully it is not just another rubber room."

A Department of Education spokeswoman emphasized that teachers who are being assigned to offices will all have individual work assignments.

"Whereas in a reassignment center they were doing nothing, they will now be given administrative work," she said. "A few educators could be assigned to the same room or conference room, but it's not the same as a rubber room."
yoav.gonen@nypost.com

The Rubber Room Diaspora

Dear Mr. Mulgrew:

You said that as of September 1, 2010 the Rubber Rooms would no longer exist. No one believed you.

What has happened is that your members are scattered in different locations so that you can hopefully hide their existence. As I told Ellie Engler during one of her many "Dont you want to quit, Betsy?" talks at the UFT, the placing of up to 150 people in the same room while they waited for judgment was one of the biggest errors ever made, and the UFT has to be proactive WHILE THE MEMBER IS STILL IN THE SCHOOL. Remember the Teacher Advocacy Initiative that I gave to Leroy in July 2009?

People talk. People told to report to one location every day for years get to a point where they are "colleagues" in the loosest sense of the word; they share a common experience. These people may not like each other, but they share a space. What happens when they talk? They compare stories of you, Joel, others, how the UFT special reps never return calls, never visit, never help. This builds confidence, because these "imprisoned" members realize that they are Not Alone, and that their concerns are similar to those of others who share their space.

Washington Heights Rubber Room (West 193rd st.)

rubber room, basement of 355 Park Place, Brooklyn

outside 25 Chapel Street (10th floor is TRC)

501 Cortlandt Avenue, 4th floor, Bronx

rubber room, 333 7th avenue, 8th floor, Manhattan

388 West 125th Street, 6th floor, Harlem NYC

Not pictured: Staten Island and Queens rubber rooms.

Then on April 15 2010 you signed an agreement with Joel Klein to change the setting for all rubber roomers, to new, smaller, isolated locations. For example, 10 teachers are sitting at a table at the very back of the 4th floor of Tweed Courthouse (52 Chambers Street, Manhattan). Funny story: these teachers were originally assigned the third floor conference room, but Joel Klein came in and saw them, looked disgusted (he wanted the table, it seems) and they were moved the next day. Teachers are assigned the Woolworth building; 4 teachers are in 49-51 Chambers Street, 5th floor (Office of Family Engagement and Advocacy); some are sitting at 333 7th avenue; many are at Linden Place, Queens, and Vernon Boulevard, Queens; 335 Adams Street, Brooklyn, 26th floor; 65 Court Street, Brooklyn. and here is a picture of a room that a re-assigned teacher was told by the custodian at her new assignment to use to do her paperwork. I love it! It's a boiler room!!!!!!!!!! The member assigned there took the picture below with her cell phone and emailed it to me. This is what you and Joel consider appropriate for your professional membership?
Puleeeese.

so, thanks, Mike!!! the story continues........

Betsy

Winning Your 3020-a Arbitration: Fire Your NYSUT Attorney, Don't Settle

I think that it is time to get to the basic problem with the 3020-a process, as I, an observer for 7 years ( a member of the general public at an open and public hearing) and then a paralegal assisting UFT members and/or Attorneys with 3020-a,  see it: NYSUT lawyers and the arbitrators on the NYC panel do not protect your due process rights, and the hearings are not "fair". Due to the fact that most charges are being preferred by a principal, the arbitrator does not have the jurisdiction or authority to rule on the charges thus given to a tenured pedagogue due to Education Law 2590-j   which gives the right to remove and discipline a teacher to a community superintendent...not a principal. But there still must be a vote. 3020-a goes into how the school board must vote on specifications (see Ed. Law 3020-a(2)(a)) preferred against a teacher before the teacher is given the charges. Everyone charged with 3020-a in New York City must see that the Notice of Determination of Probable Cause has no date for the Executive Session, and is signed by the principal or Superintendent, neither of whom has any authority to sign that piece of paper.

I wrote this article originally in October 2010, I am re-posting here:

Therefore an argument can be made that the arbitrator does not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine Just Cause and the hearing must be delayed, thus effectively dismissing the charges. I have a Motion To Dismiss written by NYSUT New York Counsel Claude Hersh and Attorney Neil Dudich which says just that. Why wont NYSUT Attorneys bring this up at 3020-a hearings?

By the way, what happens to this clause when the person appointed to the title of Chancellor doesn't have a contract, as Joel Klein does not, and yet Education Law 2590-h says that he MUST? Read this:

"* § 2590-h. Powers and duties of chancellor. The office of chancellor of the city district is hereby continued. Such chancellor shall serve at the pleasure of and be employed by the mayor of the city of New York by contract. The length of such contract shall not exceed by more than two years the term of office of the mayor authorizing such contract....."

Please review my articles:
Look at Article 61 in A Personal View From Betsy Combier On NYSUT And What The Attorneys Do Wrong In The 3020-a Process;

I filed a freedom of information request for Mr. Klein's contract in 2005 and again in 2007:
The "Who Are You Kidding??" Award Goes To: Joel Klein, New York City Board of Education Pretender

 NYC Teacher Hipolito Colon Makes History and Sues the NYC BOE, The Panel For Educational Policy, and NYSUT For Violating His Rights

Mayor Michael Bloomberg as Co-Partner in Chief of the New York City Department of Education: Performance Review

Editorial: The New York City Department of Education is a Sham and Mike Bloomberg is the Flim-Flam Man (7/7/2007)

Betsy Combier Speaks Out on the Constitutional Mess Created by Mayoral Control of the New York City Board of Education (7/22/2007)

Another issue that the NYSUT attorneys ignore is the right a teacher has to an open and public hearing. While this decision is a right given to the Respondent not only in 3020-a but also in the UFT contract, if the teacher going through the 3020-a does not ask for an open and public hearing at or before the pre-hearing conference, then he/she does not get it. The hearing will be closed. No NYSUT attorney discusses this unless the teacher brings it up. More often than not if a teacher brings up the issue, the NYSUT Attorney will say, "You better not have an open hearing because then the NYC DOE will bring in the press, and your story will be in the news."

Baloney. Press almost never comes to the 3020-a hearings of any teacher, unless asked by the teacher - aside from Steve Brill who was told by Joel Klein to attend the 3020-a hearing of teacher Lucienne Mohammed because she had filed a federal lawsuit against the NYC DOE and needed to be put into her place [of shame]. So, what is so scary about the press arriving at your hearing if you are innocent of all charges?? If you are innocent, and the news is that you are guilty, then you can take action and get damages. David Pakter just sued the New York Post and won release of the name of the person who told the newspaper that he was charged with "sexual misconduct". He is about to pursue an action against the person who was the source for the false claim.

Or, the NYSUT Attorney will say, "you shouldn't have an open hearing because I dont feel comfortable. (So? What are you trying to hide?) Or, "The arbitrator wont like you and will terminate you or give you a worse penalty than you would have had if you did not have an open and public hearing." (WHAT?? This is crazy).

Most people - including me - believe that an open and public hearing is the best way to honor your due process rights. If you have observers in the room with you, you have an extra set of eyes on what is going on, and this is always good. Of course, all people who attend the 3020-a should be silent at all times while the hearing is on the record, and should never make any movement that might seem in any way suggestive of comment. There is no passing of notes. But any lawyer who tries to keep a hearing closed is, we believe, saying, I want to hide something. In fact, on friday morning I was at 51 Chambers Street for a hearing and a NYC DOE attorney told me, "Betsy, are you coming to my hearing? All my hearings should be public, because I have nothing to hide." Exactly.

It is interesting to note that about two weeks ago I was asked to attend a hearing with a new arbitrator, Leona Barsky. I walked in the room with the Respondent and the private Attorney, and Ms. Barsky came up to my face and screamed, "Who are you? What is your name? Who sent you here? Who do you work for?" My replies were that I was a member of the general public, my name is Betsy Combier, and no one sent me, I am just an observer. She was not convinced. As it turned out, she immediately made the hearing a "pre-hearing" (which is closed) and I went to the hearing of another teacher who had asked for me to attend, starting at the same time. I wonder what Ms. Barsky is worried about. I'll be probably following her cases on this blog, as she seems clearly worried about the public watching her.

Even more important to the issue examined here is my suggestion (not legal advice, because I'm not an attorney) that if you are not guilty of any of the charges preferred against you, DONT SETTLE. Go through your 3020-a. This way you preserve your right to sue the New York City Department/Board of Education for actionable misconduct relevant to your specific circumstances (you should discuss this with a private attorney). Many teachers are discussing a class action and I have began searching for a large law firm.

By not settling you are establishing your rights to complain about the process that brought you to the 3020-a hearing in the first place, because this is where the NYC DOE fails. They created a mess by ignoring laws, rules and regulations that prevent angry principals from throwing false claims at people who work in their schools and have them stick. The New York City DOE knows this. For example, a teacher who was charged started his 3020-a and then was scheduled for "mediation." Simultaneously he decided to fire his NYSUT Attorney (Mitch Rubenstein) and hire a private attorney, who was going to accompany this teacher to the "mediation". The mediation was cancelled.

Now there could be many reasons for Theresa Europe (pictured above), head of the Gotcha Squad, to cancel the mediation at the last minute, but my guess is that she did not want the private attorney in the "mediation" session. The "mediation" that she is talking about seems, from the reports of many of the people who have gone through this, to be not what the average person would think of as mediation. Basically what happens is, a teacher is given a date to come to 51 Chambers Street and he/she meets with a "mediator" - an arbitrator on the UFT/DOE NYC panel who has been designated a 'mediator' for the case, but is NOT the arbitrator appointed to hear the teacher's 3020-a - and he/she is told "you better take the deal/pay the fine in the settlement agreement/retire/resign or else you will be terminated at your 3020-a".

Too few teachers are saying "Sorry, no" and walking out.

A private attorney probably would see immediately how wrong this is. Also, if a document is signed under duress, after extreme harassment or other actions that compel, then the document can be rescinded.

If you are a teacher who is extremely afraid of your 3020-a and all the threats that you have heard start making sense to you, take a deep breath and go into your alpha level and try to get back the sensibility to go through with your hearing to the end. A settlement may be good for a short while, but it may not be. Think about this:
- Does your settlement/deal include a clause that says that you will be immediately removed from the ineligible/inquiry list? Get this into your final settlement!

- Does your settlement/deal say that all charges will be removed from your file and will never be used at another hearing in the future?

I will give you an example:

In 2002 or thereabout, teacher X taught swimming at a school. He was tenured, and taught for many years. He typically started races by shooting a starter pistol. On one particular day a student who disliked him complained that he had shot a pistol in the school. He was brought up on disciplinary charges, and his attorney told him to just pay the fine and the charges would be dropped, and only a letter would be placed in his file. He agreed. (why, I dont know). In 2010 he was accused of saying something to a girl, thrown into a rubber room, and brought to 3020-a. His charge was saying something improper to a student, which he fervently denied, but then the NYC DOE handed in the prior charge of shooting a pistol in a school in 2002, and the arbitrator terminated his employment saying that these TWO wrongs showed a history of bad character. Yet the pistol event was never adjudicated at a 3020-a, this teacher only got a letter to file, and it was to end there.

Settlement is admitting guilt. If you are not guilty, why are you paying a fine and admitting that you did something wrong? What are you paying for?

The question of where the fines go remains unanswered, at least publicly. No one is answering this question - which I, for one, ask all the time. And, please tell me, all you NYC DOE readers, what District 65 is?

I'll find out eventually. Here is a funny story: a teacher went through her 3020-a and was fined by arbitrator Howard Edelman $8500. Only, he found her not guilty of any misconduct, he only wanted to stop her from turning around quickly in the classroom ever again. She appealed, and Judge Paul Fineman overturned Edelman's decision as "shocking to the court's conscience". However, before the decision came down, the NYC DOE demanded the money. Cheryl Smith, the NYC DOE Attorney on the case, told this teacher, "You can pay us in cash or by money order, but you cannot give us a check."

What did this teacher do? Paid her fine by check, and gave me a cancelled copy so that I could see what the Bank account of the NYC BOE was. I'm still seeking information on District 65, so please email me at betsy.combier@gmail.com if you have any information. I dont need your name.

To sum up, NYSUT attorneys are now trying to rush all their clients through the system, first by "mediation" that in my opinion resembles extortion, then through unfair procedures enacted as part of an expedited 3020-a hearing.

Wikipedia defines extortion as follows:
"Extortion, outwresting, and/or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.^"

Everyone should dig his/her heels in the ground and put a stop to this rush to judgment and perfect storm of injustice by hiring an excellent private attorney who will use the law to stop the NYC DOE from taking away your career and stigmatizing your professional life. I have met and can suggest terrific people. Unfortunately, they are not 'free' (you've paid for legal representation with your mandatory dues to the UFT), but I guess I can say that the following applies here: "You get what you pay for".

Betsy Combier

PS: Fidgety, a fellow blogger, posted the following:

May 17, 2010

Why I fired my DOE (oops!) NYSUT Lawyer...
LINK

At our first meeting, I clearly requested an "Open and Public" hearing so that my lawyer could give notice to the arbitrator and DOE lawyer. I followed up on this request with an email asking for confirmation.

By our fourth meeting, I noted that my lawyer had still not solidified my request with the hearing officer and asked her why.

I said, "I sense that you don't want me to have and open and public hearing." "Well, she said, "You sensed right". She then proceeded to paint an ugly picture of an out of control hearing room filled with unruly reporters and friends of the Principal. "If you have an open hearing, the Principal can bring in anyone he wants to. Anyone. That may not be in your best interest. You never know who he might bring in". And, "Do you really want the press distorting your story the way they have done with other cases?"

Armed with the confidence that somehow, "The truth will set me free", I still insisted on an open and public hearing despite the obvious dismay of my lawyer.

I could only reach my NYSUT lawyer through the NYSUT office, that is... when it was open, which meant that I had to call when the office was open, even just to leave a message. The recording said that if you know the '3 digit code' of the person you are trying to reach, please enter it now. As a client, I asked my lawyer for her 3 digit code. Her response was, "Uh, what do you need it for? Has there been a gap in our communication?" "Yes,as a matter of fact. I called you five days ago and this is the first time you have returned my call." "Well...Is there a problem with that? I am very busy."(doesn't want to be bothered)"Yes, there are times when I would like to be able to leave you a message." Her response was, "I think that we've been emailing just fine, don't you?" "No". (Obviously I wouldn't be asking for your code if I was able to reach you, idiot).

After several months of sending emails with scant response from my lawyer,I was beginning to get nervous. When she called me on a Sunday night at 10pm on the last day of spring break, I asked her again for an alternative number. Again, she refused to give me one. Her excuse was that she'd had trouble in the past with clients(teachers) calling her at all hours of the night and had reservations about ever giving out her cell phone number to a teacher again...(I wondered if that reservation included calling her clients on a Sunday night at 10pm.)

When I asked what concerns she had, she responded that she'd rather not divulge that information, and... "Is this the reason you called me?- to pick a fight?"

My paranoid NYSUT lawyer wouldn't allow anyone to sit in on my meetings with her. I found it unusual that I couldn't be accompanied by someone, anyone of my own choosing. Her reason was that she had not established 'confidentiality' with that person. (They were my support system stupid, not yours.)

Before our third meeting, I asked my lawyer why she wouldn't allow me to bring someone in with me for support. Her response was that she didn't feel 'comfortable'. I said that, "It's not about 'you' feeling comfortable. I am the client. This is my case. I am choosing to bring this person in. I trust this person". As a client, I should be able to bring in anyone that I want. (Shouldn't I?) Her response was, "Well, what do you know about lawyers? How much experience have you had with lawyers anyway?"

Does this sound professional to you?

It started to become very clear to me that my DOE-(oops!)NYSUT lawyer was not working in my best interest when she divulged private information to my Chapter Leader without my permission. It seemed that she- my lawyer, needed assurance that the events I had described to her actually occurred the way that I described them. Who was breaching client-lawyer confidentiality now?

My NYSUT lawyer was completely overwhelmed with too many cases and it was adversely affecting the preparation of my hearing. As the amount of documents that I submitted to her grew, so did her disorganization. Each time that I met with her, it was like starting from square one. As we were going through the documents I had submitted to her at previous meetings, I came across one that didn't seem familiar. As I began to read it aloud, her response was, "Oh that's not yours", grabbing it out of my hand. "I was wondering where that document was! I don't know how that paper got in there". That document, that 'confidential document', was from another teacher's case that she was working on. I began to wonder how many of my documents had been mixed up or 'fallen' somewhere that they shouldn't be... And she was the one concerned about "confidentiality?".
It was obvious that my lawyer had her own set of rules which she felt didn't apply to her. I had no confidence that she was working for me and not the DOE or some other ultimate plan. Three weeks before my hearing, I fired my DOE-oops! 'NYSUT' lawyer and hired a private one. I believe that it was the best decision that I have ever made. There was no doubt that the new lawyer had the experience and knowledge that the NYSUT lawyer was clearly lacking. He was one step ahead of the DOE and UFT's tricks which I believe included assigning me a ridiculous and severely inept NYSUT lawyer.

Must Teachers Be Saints?

Teachers: Must we be Saints or Sinners?

By Anthony Cody on October 1, 2010 12:29 PM
LINK

Our national focus on education driven by Waiting for Superman and NBC's Education Nation programming is drawing to a close, and it leaves me with a disturbing concept of what it means to be a teacher in America today. One source is Geoffrey Canada, urging teachers to donate an extra hour a day to their schools. He was quoted as saying to one teacher, "You ought to stay until the job is done."

We have arrived at a disturbing concept of what it means to be a "good teacher" in America - especially if you choose to work in schools where the students live in poverty. When you accept this poorly paid job, you are expected to take full responsibility for the 160 students in your classes, and that means you should make yourself available to them at all hours, give up your lunch and free time, and stay at school ten hours a day. You must be "effective," which means that you are able to move their test scores up fast enough to recover the years they are behind and put them on track for admittance to a university. You must not worry about the fact that your school has no supplies and a reduced support staff, due to budget cuts, and you must use your own money to purchase supplies and even food for your students.

When you speak of your work, you may describe some incremental success you have had, but then you must acknowledge that whatever you have achieved "isn't good enough," because you still have students who are working below grade level. You must disavow the need for any job security because it sometimes means "bad teachers" are protected. You place blind faith in the administration's ability to know YOU are a GOOD teacher, and speak critically of others who cling to such protections.

This self-sacrificing stance allows you to claim the sainted title "good teacher." But of course, there can be no saints without sinners. The sinners in our schools are the teachers who arrive, put in their day's work, and clock out by 4 or 5 pm. Then they selfishly go home to their own children, and leave the school's children to fend for themselves for the rest of the day and night. They take home papers to grade, and they call parents when necessary, but they do not give their students their cell phone number. When students are below grade level and need extra help, they refer them to the after school tutoring program, rather than staying late to work with them themselves. Their students gain, on average, about a year's academic growth during their year in their class - but this is plainly immoral, because the students are below grade level, so these bad teachers are not closing this gap. Their classrooms are sometimes lacking in supplies because they do not spend much of their own money to buy them, instead selfishly spending their money on clothing and food for their own families.

I do not know if this duality is related to America's strain of religious beliefs, but it reinforces a very simplistic view of our profession. Coupled with the fact that our profession has traditionally been mostly female, this suggests that teachers are being asked to be society's self-sacrificing saints, taking on for all of us the burden we are unwilling to bear.

I have no problem with teachers who do many of the things the saintly teachers do. I have done many of them myself. But if I choose to spend my weekend taking my students on a field trip, or stay after school to help them with their homework, or spend part of my meager salary on classroom supplies, I want it to be out of choice, rather than to preserve my "goodness."

It is true that without extraordinary effort, students in poverty will have trouble succeeding in large numbers. But I have several problems with placing all this responsibility on the shoulders of our teachers.

• First of all, I remain skeptical about the viability of sending all our students, or even significantly more of them, to four year colleges. I see statistics that indicate the areas with the most job growth continue to be service sector positions, so I wonder if the jobs for college graduates will actually be there, and with costs rising, I think many high school students drop out when college admittance is made out to be the sole purpose for their education.

• Teachers have families as well, and ought to be allowed to enjoy and nurture them. They ought to be able to spend their spare time with their own children, and likewise not be expected to sacrifice their own family's budget to buy classroom supplies.

• Many students DO need extra help, but this should be organized and funded by the school system, and not rest on unpaid volunteer hours from teachers.

• A teacher's primary job ought to be to organize and engage his students in powerful lessons. This is a challenging thing, which requires imagination, collaboration with colleagues, engagement in professional growth, and time to plan. If a teacher is taxed with late days tutoring, he is not going to have the energy to plan an innovative and exciting curriculum.

• The very idea that schools are the only solution to intractable poverty in society seems a flawed one. If we simply produce more children ready for college, but college costs more than families can afford, what have we accomplished? If we produce more college graduates, but the jobs that used to be the foundation for the middle class are evaporating, how has this helped?

• We seem to have turned a basic concept on its head. Our schools ought to prepare students for a bright future that beckons them. But in our neighborhoods of poverty, no such future beckons. Unemployment and hunger surround these schools, but they and their teachers are expected to conjure hope up out of thin air.

We are a profession suffering a bit of traumatic shock from the public assault to which we have been subjected. There is most likely a political/economic drive underway to strip from us the due process protections we have secured in some states. We have even seen teachers publicly named as ineffective by a major newspaper.

Individual teachers may be able to reach the level of self sacrifice that has been demanded for a few years, but this is not sustainable over a career. We see evidence of this in the very high turnover rates in many high-poverty schools, and in charter schools such as KIPP especially, where ten to twelve hour days are the norm.

We need to reclaim and reassert what it means to be a good teacher. Of course good teachers can make a huge difference in the lives of our students. But we cannot be expected to deliver entire communities from the grip of generational poverty singlehandedly. And we must reject the need to be martyrs, sacrificed to atone for the sins of our selfish society.

What do you think it means to be a "good teacher" today? Should we redefine this?

COMMENTS
plthomas wrote:

Anthony, A key strategy of the myth-bearers (neoliberals, conservatives, et al.) is to NORMALIZE exceptionality. . .thus MOST people are doomed to fall short. . .thus we can assign the locus of blame to the people themselves. . .

This distracts any possibility of system weaknesses, social failures, or cultural weaknesses. . .

This strategy has been used to marginalize women, minorities, etc. . .

It is possible and needed to clarify what it means to be a good teachers. . .and that definitions can be both achievable by most and rigorous without being distorting and self-defeating. . .

10/1/2010 1:46 PM EDT on EdWeek
Voting Citizen wrote:

This questions depends on whose perspective.

The FED's perspective: Do you as you a told. No asking questions.

The kids' perspective: Do you accept me for who I am warts and all?

The parents' and guardians' perspective: Depends on who you are speaking with.

The general public: My school has good teachers; other schools don't
So, what it takes from my perspective to be a good teacher is to know your theory re: child and adolescent development, language acquisition, the importance of books and access to books, dealing with the whole child and the child's family, engaging students in learning with purpose and joy, teach them how to observe, question the status quo, and generally use critical thinking to understand all the propaganda coming at us these days. A good teacher helps students question.

10/1/2010 1:58 PM EDT on EdWeek
Tonym wrote:

Anthony,

As always, a well-written commentary. I can feel your frustration and angst and appreciate your efforts to defend our profession. These are troubling times for teachers and I feel that the worse is yet to come. But remember that the truth you speak will eventually win the day. Saints and sinners need each other to balance the scale and to point fingers.

10/1/2010 6:56 PM EDT on EdWeek
vpientka wrote:

Anthony,

Another well stated commentary. I would further add that as we have become the unofficial parental replacements, without any of the entitlements of consequences I might add, we undermine the joy, frustration, and determination that goes along with the job of parenting school age children. It is the expectation that we replace mom/dad sitting down with us at the dinner table, until we learn the math facts/times tables, spelling words, etc. This is how parents come to know their our own children from another lens, and we as teachers are put into the position of assuming this role that should not be ours. True, the middle class has been squeezed either out of jobs, or into working two jobs to stay afloat, but teachers have their own burdens in their own families.

Someone said education is the civil rights issue of our time. With the exception of the wealthy, this statement is true. Children of poverty come into the school system with extreme disadvantages. Middle class children are also showing the wear and tear of "pre-occupied with survival" parenting. And yet, because our profession is not respected in this society, it is assumed that teachers will mediate for societies' injustices.
It shouldn't, can't and won't happen

Teacher Performance Evaluations: How Fair Are These Assessments?
 
THE DEATH AND LIFE OF THE GREAT AMERICAN SCHOOL SYSTEM by Diane Ravich
 
Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable: Parents Can Sue School Officials Under Discrimination Laws
 
No Child Left Behind Law and the Challenge of Meeting the Needs of Title 1 Schools and Special Needs Children

A Personal View From Betsy Combier On NYSUT And What The Attorneys Do Wrong In The 3020-a Process

To all NYSUT Attorneys who know me and wish I had never attended any 3020-a hearings: stop belittling me to your clients. It never ceases to amaze me that you feel that you can threaten, yell at, and otherwise intimidate your clients and think that they will not talk to me and others about every word you have said. Some of you say I am a terrific advocate, but all of you tell your clients not to talk with me, and certainly not to listen to me because I dont know what I'm saying. Teachers, dont listen to this. It's their fear that compels them, their fear of ending up on this blog or somewhere else, with a true picture of their wrong-doing in the 3020-a hearing (yours) when a decision comes back saying that you have been terminated or suspended without pay for a year after your defense successfully proved your guilt. That's right, you are guilty until proven innocent at these hearings.

NYSUT attorneys are not doing their job of proving that the charges brought against you do not rise to the level of termination, a year without pay, or some other award. A point of clarification: if you are guilty of maliciously harming a child, deliberately deceiving or stealing  from someone, I am not talking about you. Let's assume for the rest of this post I am referring to all tenured folk who never did anything wrong, or accidentally touched a shoulder or some accident happened that got you into the guilty column at the NYC headquarters.

Back to the wrong-doing. I'll give you some examples to think about. Did your NYSUT attorney tell you that he/she will subpoena your principal and AP so that you can get direct testimony from the people who charged you? (Cross-examination only allows your representative/lawyer to ask questions relative to what opposing counsel asked already). Were all exhibits you provided your attorney that showed your innocence submitted to the arbitrator as exhibits in your defense? Is your attorney arguing that as 3020-a states that your charges must be voted on by a school board before you are charged (look at your packet for 3020-a, APPENDIX A), your charges must be dismissed? If not, perhaps you should think about getting other representation.

I'm not an attorney, it's true. I'm an advocate, which means that I am a person who "assists, defends, or pleads for another...An assistant...pleader of causes." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition - p.55 -thanks, Polo). I read law books, I do my legal research at all the law libraries in town, due to the kind donations of wonderful folk who contribute to my work. I do not represent anyone in a courtroom, nor do I give legal advice. Legal information easily accessible on the internet, and what I see and hear with my own two green eyes and my ears is mine to give to whomever I want to talk to, which is everybody.

More than a year ago I asked Claude Hersh, chief counsel at NYSUT NY (52 Broadway, 9th floor, 212-533-6300), to please ask Attorneys Mitchell "Mitch" Rubenstein and Melinda Gordon to stop threatening dire consequences if their clients spoke to me. Neither of these attorneys stopped, and I have heard that both are being fired by their clients (not just because they say not to speak with me) as a result of their perceived incompetence or intimidating tactics. In fact, later today, September 27, 2010, I have been asked to attend an open and public hearing where the client fired Melinda last week, and found a new private attorney. I defend rights, and I cannot and will not be silent when the due process rights are denied to anyone. This is the bottom line.

And what's even better, I get to decide when, where, and by whom these rights are being violated, on these pages, and on my website Parentadvocates.org and my other blogs, including New York Court Corruption, another topic that breaks my heart (and caused my heart to almost stop on July 22, 2006).

So, back to NYSUT and what the attorneys do wrong. I'm not going to list everything here, I'll just leave you with a few examples. Maybe my speaking out will make things worse, maybe better. What matters is that if you are yelled at and treated without respect by your NYSUT attorney - or anyone, for that matter - tell me. Tell someone. It's not ok.

To all readers who have been fortunate enough not to have this experience, let me give you a general picture, taken from seven (7) years of attending 3020-a hearings at the request of respondent tenured teachers who know that it is their right to have an open and public hearing. Read the contract for rules of the 3020-a arbitration. Oh yes, let's not forget that no attorney wants you to have an open and public hearing. Think about it. If you are allowed to have people -unknown people - come into your hearing and sit there, this person or these people can watch your attorney do his/her job, and that's not a good thing if you are the attorney, and you know that you are not doing a good job, not following the law or your ethical mandate, and/or the deal has been pre-set as to penalty before you ever begin. You dont want any extra eyes watching you, unless you know you are doing an excellent job of defending your client. At least that's what I think. I, for one, know who you are.

Below is Article 61, Section 3020-a, copied and pasted exactly as it is on the internet. Read it, and if your charges were not voted on by the New York City school board (Panel For Educational Policy), then how  come the arbitrator thinks that he/she can determine Just Cause?

Think about it.

Betsy Combier
September 27, 2010

New York Education - Article 61 - § 3020-A Disciplinary Procedures and Penalties

§ 3020-a. Disciplinary procedures and penalties. 1. Filing of charges.


All charges against a person enjoying the benefits of tenure as provided in subdivision three of section one thousand one hundred two, and sections two thousand five hundred nine, two thousand five hundred
seventy-three, twenty-five hundred ninety-j, three thousand twelve and three thousand fourteen of this chapter shall be in writing and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board
during the period between the actual opening and closing of the school year for which the employed is normally required to serve. Except as provided in subdivision eight of section two thousand five hundred
seventy-three and subdivision seven of section twenty-five hundred ninety-j of this chapter, no charges under this section shall be brought more than three years after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct, except when the charge is of misconduct constituting a crime when committed.

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

(b) The employee may be suspended pending a hearing on the charges and the final determination thereof. The suspension shall be with pay, except the employee may be suspended without pay if the employee has
entered a guilty plea to or has been convicted of a felony crime concerning the criminal sale or possession of a controlled substance, a precursor of a controlled substance, or drug paraphernalia as defined in article two hundred twenty or two hundred twenty-one of the penal law; or a felony crime involving the physical abuse of a minor or student.

The employee shall be terminated without a hearing, as provided for in this section, upon conviction of a sex offense, as defined in subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision seven-a of section three hundred five of this chapter. To the extent this section applies to an employee acting as a school administrator or supervisor, as defined in subparagraph three of paragraph b of subdivision seven-b of section three hundred five of this chapter, such employee shall be terminated without a hearing, as provided for in this section, upon conviction of a felony offense defined in subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision seven-b of section three hundred five of this chapter.

(c) Within ten days of receipt of the statement of charges, the employee shall notify the clerk or secretary of the employing board in writing whether he or she desires a hearing on the charges and when the charges concern pedagogical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgment, his or her choice of either a single hearing officer or a three member panel. All other charges shall be heard by a single hearing officer.

(d) The unexcused failure of the employee to notify the clerk or secretary of his or her desire for a hearing within ten days of the receipt of charges shall be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing.

Where an employee requests a hearing in the manner provided for by this section, the clerk or secretary of the board shall, within three working days of receipt of the employee's notice or request for a hearing, notify the commissioner of education of the need for a hearing. If the employee waives his or her right to a hearing the employing board shall proceed, within fifteen days, by a vote of a majority of all members of such board, to determine the case and fix the penalty, if any, to be imposed in accordance with subdivision four of this section.

3. Hearings. a. Notice of hearing. Upon receipt of a request for a hearing in accordance with subdivision two of this section, the commissioner of education shall forthwith notify the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter "association") of the need for a hearing and shall request the association to provide to the commissioner forthwith a list of names of persons chosen by the association from the association's panel of labor arbitrators to potentially serve as hearing officers together with relevant biographical information on each arbitrator. Upon receipt of said list and biographical information, the commissioner of education shall forthwith send a copy of both simultaneously to the employing board and the employee.

b. (i) Hearing officers. All hearings pursuant to this section shall be conducted before and by a single hearing officer selected as provided for in this section. A hearing officer shall not be eligible to serve as such if he or she is a resident of the school district, other than the city of New York, under the jurisdiction of the employing board, an employee, agent or representative of the employing board or of any labor organization representing employees of such employing board, has served as such agent or representative within two years of the date of the scheduled hearing, or if he or she is then serving as a mediator or fact finder in the same school district. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the hearing officer shall be compensated by the department with the customary fee paid for service as an arbitrator under the auspices of the association for each day of actual service plus necessary travel and other reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of his or her duties. All other expenses of the disciplinary proceedings shall be paid in accordance with rules promulgated by the commissioner of education.

(ii) Not later than ten days after the date the commissioner mails to the employing board and the employee the list of potential hearing officers and biographies provided to the commissioner by the association, the employing board and the employee, individually or through their agents or representatives, shall by mutual agreement select a hearing officer from said list to conduct the hearing and shall notify the commissioner of their selection.

(iii) If the employing board and the employee fail to agree on an arbitrator to serve as a hearing officer from said list and so notify the commissioner within ten days after receiving the list from the commissioner, the commissioner shall request the association to appoint a hearing officer from said list.

(iv) In those cases in which the employee elects to have the charges heard by a hearing panel, the hearing panel shall consist of the hearing officer, selected in accordance with this subdivision, and two additional persons, one selected by the employee and one selected by the employing board, from a list maintained for such purpose by the commissioner of education. The list shall be composed of professional personnel with administrative or supervisory responsibility, professional personnel without administrative or supervisory responsibility, chief school administrators, members of employing boards and others selected from lists of nominees submitted to the commissioner by statewide organizations representing teachers, school administrators and supervisors and the employing boards. Hearing panel members other than the hearing officer shall be compensated by the department of education at the rate of one hundred dollars for each day of actual service plus necessary travel and subsistence expenses. The hearing officer shall be compensated as set forth in this subdivision. The hearing officer shall be the chairman of the hearing panel.

c. Hearing procedures. (i) The commissioner of education shall have the power to establish necessary rules and procedures for the conduct of hearings under this section. Such rules shall not require compliance
with technical rules of evidence. Hearings shall be conducted by the hearing officer selected pursuant to paragraph b of this subdivision with full and fair disclosure of the nature of the case and evidence against the employee by the employing board and shall be public or private at the discretion of the employee. The employee shall have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself or herself and an opportunity to testify in his or her own behalf. The employee shall not be required to testify. Each party shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to subpoena witnesses, and to cross-examine witnesses. All testimony taken shall be under oath which the hearing officer is hereby authorized to administer. A competent stenographer, designated by the commissioner of education and compensated by the state education department, shall keep and transcribe a record of the proceedings at each such hearing. A copy of the transcript of the hearings shall, upon request, be furnished without charge to the employee and the board of education involved.

(ii) The hearing officer selected to conduct a hearing under this section shall, within ten to fifteen days of agreeing to serve as such, hold a pre-hearing conference which shall be held in the school district or county seat of the county, or any county, wherein the employing school board is located. The pre-hearing conference shall be limited in length to one day except that the hearing officer, in his or her discretion, may allow one additional day for good cause shown.

(iii) At the pre-hearing conference the hearing officer shall have the power to:

(A) issue subpoenas;

(B) hear and decide all motions, including but not limited to motions to dismiss the charges;

(C) hear and decide all applications for bills of particular or requests for production of materials or information, including, but not limited to, any witness statement (or statements), investigatory
statement (or statements) or note (notes), exculpatory evidence or any other evidence, including district or student records, relevant and material to the employee's defense.

(iv) Any pre-hearing motion or application relative to the sufficiency of the charges, application or amendment thereof, or any preliminary matters shall be made upon written notice to the hearing officer and the adverse party no less than five days prior to the date of the pre-hearing conference. Any pre-hearing motions or applications not made as provided for herein shall be deemed waived except for good cause as
determined by the hearing officer.

(v) In the event that at the pre-hearing conference the employing board presents evidence that the professional license of the employee has been revoked and all judicial and administrative remedies have been
exhausted or foreclosed, the hearing officer shall schedule the date, time and place for an expedited hearing, which hearing shall commence not more than seven days after the pre-hearing conference and which shall be limited to one day. The expedited hearing shall be held in the local school district or county seat of the county or any county, wherein the said employing board is located. The expedited hearing shall not be postponed except upon the request of a party and then only for good cause as determined by the hearing officer. At such hearing, each party shall have equal time in which to present its case.

(vi) During the pre-hearing conference, the hearing officer shall determine the reasonable amount of time necessary for a final hearing on the charge or charges and shall schedule the location, time(s) and date(s) for the final hearing. The final hearing shall be held in the local school district or county seat of the county, or any county, wherein the said employing school board is located. In the event that the hearing officer determines that the nature of the case requires the final hearing to last more than one day, the days that are scheduled for
the final hearing shall be consecutive. The day or days scheduled for the final hearing shall not be postponed except upon the request of a party and then only for good cause shown as determined by the hearing
officer. In all cases, the final hearing shall be completed no later than sixty days after the pre-hearing  conference unless the hearing officer determines that extraordinary circumstances warrant a limited extension.

4. Post hearing procedures. (a) The hearing officer shall render a written decision within thirty days of the last day of the final hearing, or in the case of an expedited hearing within ten days of such expedited hearing, and shall forthwith forward a copy thereof to the commissioner of education who shall immediately forward copies of the decision to the employee and to the clerk or secretary of the employing board. The written decision shall include the hearing officer's findings of fact on each charge, his or her conclusions with regard to each charge based on said findings and shall state what penalty or other action, if any, shall be taken by the employing board. At the request of the employee, in determining what, if any, penalty or other action shall
be imposed, the hearing officer shall consider the extent to which the employing board made efforts towards correcting the behavior of the employee which resulted in charges being brought under this section through means including but not limited to: remediation, peer intervention or an employee assistance plan. In those cases where a penalty is imposed, such penalty may be a written reprimand, a fine, suspension for a fixed time without pay, or dismissal. In addition to or in lieu of the aforementioned penalties, the hearing officer, where he or she deems appropriate, may impose upon the employee remedial action including but not limited to leaves of absence with or without pay, continuing education and/or study, a requirement that the employee seek counseling or medical treatment or that the employee engage in any other remedial or combination of remedial actions.

(b) Within fifteen days of receipt of the hearing officer's decision the employing board shall implement the decision. If the employee is acquitted he or she shall be restored to his or her position with full pay for any period of suspension without pay and the charges expunged from the employment record. If an employee who was convicted of a felony crime specified in paragraph (b) of subdivision two of this section, has said conviction reversed, the employee, upon application, shall be entitled to have his pay and other emoluments restored, for the period from the date of his suspension to the date of the decision.

(c) The hearing officer shall indicate in the decision whether any of the charges brought by the employing board were frivolous as defined in section eight thousand three hundred three-a of the civil practice law
and rules. If the hearing officers finds that all of the charges brought against the employee were frivolous, the hearing officer shall order the employing board to reimburse the state education department the
reasonable costs said department incurred as a result of the proceeding and to reimburse the employee the reasonable costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees, the employee incurred in defending the charges. If the hearing officer finds that some but not all of the charges brought against the employee were frivolous, the hearing officer shall order the employing board to reimburse the state education department a portion, in the discretion of the hearing officer, of the reasonable costs said department incurred as a result of the proceeding and to reimburse the employee a portion, in the discretion of the hearing officer, of the reasonable costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees, the employee incurred in defending the charges.

5. Appeal. Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer's decision, the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the
decision of the hearing officer pursuant to section seven thousand five hundred eleven of the civil practice law and rules. The court's review shall be limited to the grounds set forth in such section. The hearing panel's determination shall be deemed to be final for the purpose of such proceeding. In no case shall the filing or the pendency of an appeal delay the implementation of the decision of the hearing officer.