Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Friday, May 3, 2013

Cathie Black's Emails

E-Mails From 2010 Show Rush to Get Stars to Endorse a Schools Chancellor

Cathie Black

As a groundswell of criticism threatened to capsize her appointment as New York City’s schools chancellor, Cathleen P. Black, a publishing executive with no background in education policy, was increasingly focused on one question: What would Oprah say?
Eager for Oprah Winfrey to offer a testimonial on her behalf, Ms. Black dispatched a deputy mayor to broker an endorsement through Gayle King, a mutual friend. Later, Ms. Black went as far as to suggest talking points for the television star to keep in mind when describing the would-be chancellor.
“Tremendous leadership, excellent manager, innovator, mother of two and cares about the future of all children,” Ms. Black wrote in an e-mail to Ms. Winfrey on Nov. 17, 2010. “Grace under pressure.” She ended the message: “I owe you big time.”
The exchange was revealed on Thursday after the Bloomberg administration lost a legal battle to withhold a series of e-mail exchanges between Ms. Black and city officials, which the city had fought for two years to keep private.
The messages, written in the days before and after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg appointed Ms. Black, capture the anxious efforts within the Bloomberg administration to quell the poor public reception to her selection, as education experts and lawmakers alike questioned her readiness for the job.
Even as City Hall aides arranged for Ms. Black to introduce herself to leading public officials, she appeared focused on securing endorsements from celebrities and socialites.
At one point, Ms. Black suggested that the daughter of Donald Trump could offer kind words: “Would we want Ivanka Trump? Think she would do,” she wrote.
The terse reply suggested that Mr. Bloomberg’s team was unimpressed. “I would skip,” wrote Micah Lasher, the mayor’s legislative director at the time.
Requests for comment sent to Ms. Black and Ms. Winfrey were not answered on Thursday evening.
The Bloomberg administration hoped the endorsements could help persuade the state education commissioner to grant Ms. Black a waiver to become chancellor, which she needed because of her lack of education credentials. Ms. Black eventually received the waiver, and the job. But she resigned just 95 days into her tenure, after Mr. Bloomberg concluded that the situation could not be salvaged.
Mr. Bloomberg overruled several of his top advisers in choosing Ms. Black, then the chairwoman of Hearst Magazines, to replace Joel I. Klein as chancellor. An outcry almost immediately ensued, forcing City Hall into a frantic public relations campaign to shore up her reputation with the public.
Aides gathered a list of notable women for Ms. Black or others to call, including the writer Nora Ephron, the designer Diane von Furstenberg, and the television stars Suze Orman and Deborah Norville. Patricia E. Harris, the first deputy mayor, planned to phone the designer Donna Karan and the actress Whoopi Goldberg, according to a list included in one exchange.
“All our focus needs to be on getting allies to come out in support,” Mr. Lasher wrote in one message. “We will be fine.”
Ms. Black was particularly keen to secure the endorsement of Caroline Kennedy, who served on the board of an education group and had been forced to abandon a rocky bid for appointment to the Senate in 2009. “Obviously,” one aide wrote, “she has some sympathy for what you’re going through.”
In a note to Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Black conceded that the two had met only briefly and offered that she would “make it easy” for Ms. Kennedy to show support by simply adding her name to a letter.
But Ms. Black grew impatient: she complained to Ms. Harris after several hours had passed without a reply from Ms. Kennedy, writing, “I sent this at the crack of dawn but no response. Have you heard anything?” One minute later, Ms. Black sent another e-mail, asking Ms. Harris if she had heard from Representative Carolyn B. Maloney. “I have not and called 2x yesterday,” Ms. Black wrote.
Ms. Winfrey eventually agreed to the endorsement, describing Ms. Black as “tough as nails” and “a tremendous champion for the children of New York” in an interview featured on the front page of The Daily News.
The City Hall team could scarcely believe its luck. “I was surprised to learn that we succeeded in have Oprah knock a crime story off the cover,” Stu Loeser, the mayor’s press secretary at the time, wrote to colleagues.
The e-mails had been requested by a Village Voice reporter in 2010 under state freedom of information laws. City Hall denied the request, and the reporter sued; the New York State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, declined on Thursday to hear the city’s appeal.
The e-mails reveal that Ms. Black was concerned even at the time about her public perception. At one point, she asked City Hall aides whether to “take another course” or “hold steady.” She added, “I am O.K., honestly.”
But in another exchange, she wondered whether she should take added steps for a party she was hosting at her Park Avenue apartment.
“With all of the hullabaloo, should we have security at our apartment?” Ms. Black asked. “Have not in the past ... but someone asked.”
Al Baker, Michael Barbaro and Javier C. Hernández contributed reporting.

Cathie Black's EMAILS

May 3, 2013, 2:32 p.m.
As Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s choice for Schools Chancellor, Cathie Black, came under attack in late 2010, City Hall engaged in a breathless push to rally celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey, to support the embattled nominee.
The mayor’s former chief of staff, Stu Loeser, wrote a victorious email after Winfrey eventually did speak to the Daily News. “Walking past a newsstand this afternoon, I was surprised to learn that we succeeded in have [sic] Oprah knock a crime story off the cover of the News today … Surprise!”
The details surfaced after the Bloomberg administration was forced by the state’s highest court to release a series of email exchanges that have been requested by a Village Voice intern under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. Black’s nomination was ultimately approved by the state education commissioner but she was forced out fewer than 100 days later, in April of 2011, as the negative publicity surrounding her appointment continued to swirl.
The emails between Black and various City Hall officials show how Black grew anxious when attempts to secure endorsements from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Caroline Kennedy fell through.
“Is our strategy working?” Black asked then-deputy mayor Dennis Walcott and legislative aide Micah Lasher, after reading a New York Times story about her nomination on the morning of Nov. 16. “Do we have to take another course? Or hold steady?”
One email listed a spreadsheet of elected officials, plus an aide to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and former New York City teachers union president Randi Weingarten, with notes stating whether or not these individuals would be helpful.
“All our focus needs to be on getting allies to come out in support and on getting you prepared for a tip you as soon as possible,” Lasher said. “We will make a few more base-covering calls, but clearly the political community will do what they will do. We will be fine.”
At one point, Black suggested an endorsement from Ivanka Trump but City Hall declined to pursue it. She did win an endorsement from Gloria Steinem.
The emails were released on Thursday after City Hall lost its last attempt to keep them from going public. Two lower-level courts had ruled against the city, and the state’s highest court declined to hear an appeal.
The original request to release the emails came from Sergio Hernandez, who was an intern at the Village Voice in late 2010. When the city declined his request, he was represented by a legal clinic at Yale University and then by a Manhattan law firm working pro bono.
Hernandez, who is now a business editor at The Week, said he also filed Freedom of Information requests to figure out how much money the city spent fighting the case. He said the total was $25,000 as of the end of 2012 and he is seeking to find out how much the city has spent since then.
“I’m actually more surprised that they spent so much time and effort trying to prevent the release than by anything that’s actually in the emails,” he said.
“It’s interesting to me that not one of the people they reached out to have much to do with education or schools or anything that really would have lended credence to Cathie Black’s qualifications for the job,” he added. “It’s an interesting sort of window into the mayor and his offices thinking during this sort of fiasco.”
He also noted that there was not one direct exchange between Bloomberg and Black. See the emails below.

Michael Bloomberg Sued by Reporter Over Cathie Black Freedom of Information Requests

r-BLOOMBERG-CATHIE-BLACK-large570.jpg
Today, I am suing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Last year, Bloomberg baffled New Yorkerswhen he appointed publishing executive Cathie Black to be the city's next schools chancellor. Black was an unpopular choice, and for months, responses to her appointment ran the gamut of ridicule, confusion, and outrage.
Black's tenure came to an abrupt end in April, when the mayor asked her to step down from the post after just three months on the job. New Yorkers who opposed her appointment were vindicated, but the question remained: What led the mayor to make such a choice?

When he first appointed Black, Bloomberg insisted he'd cast a wide net to find the right fit. "I did have a public search, and I picked the best person," he said.
But critics responded with skepticism, and the New York Times' City Room blog added a healthy dose of snark when it begged anyone who was considered for the job, or even merely heard about it, to come forward.
No one did.
At the time, I was reporting for Runnin' Scared, and in November, I filed a Freedom of Information Law request with the mayor's office to ferret out more details about the "public search" that resulted in Black's appointment. I figured the modern conveniences of e-mail meant there was a decent chance I would find a digital trail leading to Black's nomination.
So on November 19, I asked City Hall for any e-mails between the mayor's office and Black (who, at the time, was still employed at Hearst Magazines). E-mails by city officials are, after all, presumptively public records under New York's FOIL.
The mayor's office dragged its feet (which is not particularly unusual in the case of public records requests, although a spokesman told me for a separate storythat Bloomberg's office received only 38 FOIL requests last year. I guess New York City doesn't have enough lawyers or something). On January 13, a city lawyer wrote that he was denying my request.
The e-mails, he argued, were privileged, internal documents and releasing them would violate someone's (although nobody said whose) privacy. Bullshit.
I appealed the decision, and was blocked again.
By then, I'd left the Village Voice for a reporting stint with the investigative journalism nonprofit ProPublica and dropped the story until late February, when a friend of mine referred my case to the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. In March, one of the clinic's students wrote me back, and we began working together to draft today's petition.
The case is being handled by Elizabeth Wolstein, a partner at Schlam Stone & Dolan and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who used to supervise appellate litigation for the United States in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition will be filed in Manhattan Supreme Court later this afternoon, after which the city will have 20 days to respond.
We'll keep you posted.
Sergio Hernandez is a freelance journalist in New York City. He is currently a reporter forProPublica, a Pulitzer-winning nonprofit, investigative newsroom. Previously, he was a reporting intern for the Village Voice's Runnin' Scared blog and a contributing reporter for Gawker.com.

City Hall Pushed Noted Women to Sign Letter Supporting Candidate for Chancellor


The idea was simple: a letter signed by some of the country’s most prominent women endorsing Cathleen P. Black, chairwoman of Hearst Magazines, to lead New York City’s schools.
But to gain the support of dozens of celebrities, authors and feminist leaders, aides to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg privately advanced an argument they had mostly shied away from in public: that some of the opposition to Ms. Black’s candidacy in 2010 was grounded in sexism.
A trove of e-mail messages released on Thursday revealed the deliberations of Mr. Bloomberg’s political maestros as they sought to salvage Ms. Black’s candidacy.
As they prepared to contact dozens of famous women, his aides planned to use several talking points, among them Ms. Black’s managerial and business accomplishments, according to the e-mails. The aides also planned to argue that there was “clearly a difference” between the ways the public treated Ms. Black, “a female publisher without educational experience,” and her predecessor, Joel I. Klein, “a male prosecutor without educational experience.”
In the end, 28 women signed the letter, including Gloria Steinem, Evelyn Lauder and Whoopi Goldberg.
“Ms. Black has played a critical role breaking through the glass ceiling — not once, not twice, but time and again,” said the letter, which was addressed to the state education commissioner at the time, David M. Steiner.
A few boldface names deemed worth calling in the e-mails were absent from the letter.
One such prospect was Caroline Kennedy, who aides to Mr. Bloomberg thought would be sympathetic because of her awkward experience trying to win appointment to a Senate seat.
Others who did not participate included Bette Midler, Diane von Furstenberg, Liz Holtzman, Anna Quindlen and Deborah Norville.
Ms. Norville said she had been approached by a friend of Ms. Black’s, and she admired Ms. Black and was a friend of hers. But she felt her participation would be inappropriate “as a member of the working press.”
Ms. Holtzman said that to the best of her memory, she was not approached. It was not clear if others refused or had not been reached; a spokesman for Ms. Midler said she had not been asked.
Some women who signed the letter said on Friday that they had no regrets, despite Ms. Black’s turbulent, 95-day tenure as chancellor.  
Ms. Steinem, who got to know Ms. Black when they both worked at Ms. magazine, described Ms. Black’s experience as chancellor as “bruising.” Ms. Steinem said she was concerned that the reaction to the e-mails, released after a protracted legal fight over whether they were part of the public record, would unfairly harm Ms. Black’s reputation.
“It seems as if Cathie got beaten up in public for answering a call to civic service after a long and hard-working career,” Ms. Steinem wrote in an e-mail. “Now she may get beaten up again by the rehashing of memos not her own.”
In an interview early in her tenure, Ms. Black dismissed suggestions that the reaction to her candidacy had been sexist. “Joel Klein had a lot of grief when he first started in this job,” she said. “I have not felt it’s been sexist at all.”
But after she resigned, she told Fortune magazine, “If I were a guy, would I have had the pounding that I did? And the worst pictures!”
The archive of messages also shined light on the political operation in City Hall; officials there declined to comment on them on Friday. There were notes on which people to call, and what City Hall thought of them.
One critic of the mayor’s educational policies, Patrick J. Sullivan, was labeled “not a team player.” John C. Liu, the city comptroller, was called an enemy of Mr. Klein. The Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer, was said to be focused “on bedbugs, among other things.”  
Alain Delaquérière and Vivian Yee contributed reporting.

 

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Bloomberg Loses His Fight To Keep Emails To Cathie Black Out Of Public View

We cant wait to see these emails!!!

Betsy

Bloomberg Loses Final Appeal to Keep Emails Secret

Categories: Bloomberg, Courts, Secrets
Thumbnail image for r-BLOOMBERG-CATHIE-BLACK-large570.jpg
All legal avenues exahusted, Bloomberg must make public emails concerning the hiring of Cathie Black.
Mayor Bloomberg's fight to keep emails concerning the hiring Cathie Black, whose catastrophic career as school chancellor lasted all of 100 days, has finally ended, and Bloomberg has lost.
The story stretches back to 2010, when Sergio Hernandez, then a Village Voice intern, filed a Freedom of Information Law request for emails related to Black's hiring. The city first delayed, then refused. Hernandez appealed, and the city refused again. So he sued, represented pro bono by Schlam Stone & Dolan, and he won.

But the Bloomberg administration really didn't want to let those emails see the light of day; it spent upwards of $25,000 in taxpayer funds fighting the case, appealing to succesively higher courts, consistently losing every time.
Finally, today, the state's highest court declined to hear the final appeal. The city will have to abide by the initial ruling, which called the city's arguments "particularly specious" and "wholly devoid of merit," and required it to turn over the emails to Hernandez within 15 days.
A call to the New York City Law Department was not returned by the time this was posted -- we'll update when we receive their comment.
For his part, Hernandez, who now works as senior business editor for The Week and as a freelance contributor for ProPublica, says he welcomes the court's denial of Bloomberg's appeal. "This is their last stop," he said. "It's a relief to finally have it over with. I'll be curious to see what's in the emails."
He told the Voice he intends to write about what he finds, and is talking with news outlets interested in publishing what he writes.
Go to Runnin' Scared for all our latest news coverage.

 Mayor's Office Releases Cathie Black Emails
Thursday, May 2, 2013  |  Updated 10:38 PM EDT
View Comments (
0
)
|
Email
|
Print




Mayor's Office Releases Cathie Black Emails
AP
Mayor Bloomberg calls Cathie Black "phenomenally competent" a day after she resigns as chancellor of city schools.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office has released emails between its staffers and former schools chancellor Cathie Black.
NBC 4 New York obtainted the emails after the state Court of Appeals rejected a motion by Bloomberg's office seeking to keep the emails private. 
The emails shed light in part on Black's campaign to get a waiver from the state education commission due to her lack of background in education.
Black and Bloomberg staffers discuss reaching out to politicians, businesswomen and other prominent figures in an effort to secure signatures for a letter of support. Caroline Kennedy, Carolyn Maloney, Gloria Steinem and Donna Hanover were some of the names compiled in a list of planned phone calls. 
Black also emails Gayle King, a close friend of Oprah Winfrey, in an effort to secure the media mogul's support. 

Read the emails here. 
The emails were requested by a journalist under the Freedom of Information Law. City lawyers contended the emails were exempt from the law.
Sergio Hernandez sued the administration after officials denied his request for emails concerning Black's hiring and brief tenure in 2011.
A judge ordered the city to release the emails. The city appealed, and an Appellate Court upheld the judge's decision.
The city had sought to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected that motion Thursday.
A spokeswoman for the city Law Department said they would comply with the order.
RELATED: 

Monday, April 29, 2013

MORE on the Expensive Discipline and Punishment of Tenured Teachers in NYC

NYC public still does not realize the intense efforts made to get rid of anyone with tenure, and the enormous financial resources wasted on getting innocent individuals slandered and careers ended for petty or no reason. People need to rise above ideological blockades and end the rubber room process once and for all.

Betsy Combier

From MORE:


Budget Analysis: The Shocking Amount of Money New York City Has Spent to Fire Our Colleagues

 In November of 2007, the Department of Education formed a new group, the Teacher Performance Unit (TPU); a team of five lawyers and consultants who were tasked with the job removing teachers that the department identified as 'bad'. At that time, Dan Wesier, the chief labor relations officer for the DOE was quoted as saying that the TPU would "...ensure we have the capacity to seek the removal of all ineffective tenured teachers..". He also said that the new team would "... also allow us to seek discipline where appropriate in a wider range of cases than before..".
Former UFT president Randi Weingarten responded to the formation of this group by asserting that the DOE was ".. relying on an unnecessarily punitive and counterproductive management style that is intended to create a climate of fear, rather than collaboration, in our city schools."  She lead a candlelight vigil on the 27th of that month to protest the group's forming.
Six years, and a brutal recession, have passed since this policy initiative was launched.  During this time, the ranks of lawyers who work for the TPU, and it's sister group, the Administrative Trials Unit (ATU) have swelled, while many of us who teach in New York City's classrooms have witnessed the numerous attempts to fire our colleagues, many for reasons that we can only be described as frivolous and petty .  The Movement of Rank and File Educators believes that it is time to begin examining how many teachers have lost or have been forced from their jobs by the department since this policy began.
This, to be clear, is no easy task. Anyone who knows anything about  the process of firing teachers in New York knows that much of that process is kept secret. Some of this secretiveness is by statute. The state law that governs the process, 3020-a, guarantees an accused teacher his or her confidentiality throughout the entire process (unless he or she chooses to have its proceedings made public). And some of this secrecy is because the DOE and the union have both agreed to keep the actual numbers -the specific amount of people who have been put through this process- secret. The resulting fact is that there is no data that tells people how many tenured teachers lost their job in New York City in any given year. As a consequence, no one  actually knows how many teachers the city has fired, or even how many it has tried to fire since the formation of what Weingarten termed the 'Gotcha Squad'.  There are guesses and  nuggets and tidbits of information that has surfaced from time to time. But there is no real hard number that anyone can point to. This number could be ten or it could be ten thousand and none of us would know. The first step in finding out is to examine exactly how much money was spent since these years in the pursuit of firing teachers. 
It is, of course, is impossible to track every dollar that has been spent pursuing 3020-a charges of tenured teachers.  The school district who decides to fire a teacher pays much of this expense. It is responsible for any investigation related or leading to its decision to begin a 3020-a proceeding. It must also provide a venue where the hearing can occur, a place where that teacher will report to work while he or she is suspended and don't forget  the salary of a replacement teacher during the time of the suspension. Most importantly, the district must pay the fees of the lawyer(s) who will try the case. The state teacher union (NYSUT) is, when a member so decides, responsible for the fees representing the teacher during his or her defense. It is simply not possible for us to account for all of the money has been spent.

But it is possible to track the amount of money spent on hearing officers. Those are the arbitrators who are tasked with presiding over a 3020-a case and ultimately decide whether or not a teacher should be fired. In New York State, nearly every teacher who faces 3020-a dismissal charges has a hearing officer assigned to their case and, as it so happens, every hearing officer submits their fees to the same New York Sate Education Department office;  the Tenured Teacher Hearing Unit. This unit
"... manages aspects of the statutory process, including receipt of charges, maintenance of case files and case information, and facilitation of the assignment and payment of hearing officers/arbitrators and court reporters."
Referring to this unit, New York's Deputy Commissioner of NYSED, Theresa Salvo described the state's role in the disciplinary process like this (here):
". The [Education] Department’s role in the tenured teacher disciplinary process is primarily ministerial....The Department has little or no ability to control costs associated with the Tenured Teacher Hearing (TTH) process." (emphasis added)"
This unit also manages a  fund called the Tenured Teacher Hearings Fund. This is actual account out of which hearing officers and court reporters are paid. This account has an annual budget of approximately $3 Million. Its monthly expenditures are reported on their own line in the NYSED State Education Department Monthly Fiscal Report.

So tracking how much money is spent on trying to fire teachers isn't so difficult after all: We must simply examine how much money is spent on the fees for hearing officers in any given year from the state's Tenured Teacher Hearings Fund.  If NYSED was compelled to spend more from this fund than usual, then we know that school districts in New York tried to fire more teachers than usual.
 In New York State, the fiscal year ends on March 31. So, in any given year, any money that the state has spent through this date (called "actual expenditures"), and in NYSED's case, any money that is earmarked to be spent through the rest of the school year (called "projected expenditures") is reflected in the monthly fiscal report for March of that year.
Below is the total amount of money that was spent by the Tenured Teacher Hearing Fund between the years of 2005 and 2013 as presented in the Monthly Fiscal Reports for March (the end of the fiscal cycle) of each year. (As you may find the documents a bit dense, I suggest searching for the term "Tenured Teacher Hearings" in each of them.)
Year
Original
Budget
Actual
Money Spent
$2.1m
$2.1m
$3.3m
$3.3m
$3.3m
$3.3m
$3.3m
$3.3m
$2.8m
$4.2m
$3.1m
$6.0m
$3.6m
$10.1m
$3.6m
$12.6m
$3.6m
861,851
It isn't difficult to see that, beginning FY 2008/2009, and continuing through FY '11/'12, there was a significant increase in spending from this fund on fees for 3020-a hearing officers. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that during, and just before, this period of time, hearing officers -who's only job is hear the 3020-a hearings of teachers who were in the process of being fired by their district- were presiding over a great many 3020-a cases -many more than usual. So much, in fact, that the fund ran in deficit. During these years, more money was spent on fees for hearings officers and court reporters than NYSED or the state legislature had anticipated.
You'll also note an increase in spending from this fund just two years after the formation of the 'gotcha squad' of at least $2 million each year. In 2007, with New York City's Rubber Rooms still open, it took approximately that long to bring a teacher to trial.  While some of this money is, indeed, carry over debt from previous year, an examination of the budget reports will show you that new money -at times at an alarming rate- was spent from this fund during the subsequent four years.
Just another look at the line graph depicting expenditures from this fund..
We now know that more teachers experienced the 3020-a termination process during these years than ever had before. While he hesitate to guess the amount of teachers, we anticipate that this number must be staggering. That money, however, reflects 3020-a hearings from all across the state, not only here in New York City.  In order to show that the lion's share of this money was spent firing city teachers, it's important to seperate New York City's expenditures from the Tenured Teacher Hearings Fund from the rest of the state's 694 school districts. Fortunately, there is a way to do that.
In May of 2011, NYSUT's Andrew Pallotta offered testimony to the New York State Senate about the process of disciplining teachers. During those remarks, he made it a point to draw a stark dividing line between New York City's 3020-a experiences and the rest of New York State. Time and again he reminds the committee that, when talking about 3020-a, there is a difference between New York City and the rest of the state. He starts off here
 "There are over 120,000 tenured teachers in New York State, not including those working in New York City."
And then reminds the committee here (twice)
"During the 2005-06 through 2009-10 school years, our office handled an average of 104 new cases annually outside New York City.  In other words, fewer than one 3020-a case is filed for every seven school districts per year outside New York City."
And again here
 "We have studied the results in the 351 cases handled by NYSUT attorneys brought outside of the City of New York, which began and ended in the last 5 ½ years. In about 35% of the cases, the teacher resigned soon after charges were filed."
And when he addresses New York City's 3020-a statistics, he specifically mentions that remarks pertain to (only) the city:
In New York City, despite a number of attempts to improve the disciplinary system in the last ten years, the UFT felt that this system was not working for our members or the DOE.
This difference between the city and the rest of the state when discussing the 3020-a process is no coincidence. Thanks to the 2005 UFT contract, the actual process for terminating teachers in New York City is much more different than it is in the rest of the state (see here).
Let's take another quick look Vice President Pallotta's testimony about the 3020-a statistics outside of New York City:
"During the 2005-06 through 2009-10 school years, our office handled an average of 104 new cases annually outside New York City.  In other words, fewer than one 3020-a case is filed for every seven school districts per year outside New York City."
The number he sites reflects only those teachers who were charged, who chose the free legal defense from NYSUT (a great number of teachers opt to hire their own private defense attorney) and who's charges were not settled before the hearing concluded. Anecdotaly , we know that the overwhelming majority of charges  filed end up in settlement. A settlement is an agreement entered into between the department and the teacher who has been charged whereby the teacher agrees to some type of penalty. In the past, this penalty has included a letter to file, a course (that the teacher must pay for) and in many settled cases, a monetary fine that is deducted from the teacher's pay over a series of months. The numbers Mr. Pallota cites represent the smallest fraction of teachers who have been charge: Those who were charged, were not offered (or didn't accept) a settlement and did not opt for private attorney representation, instead choosing the services that NYSUT offers. However,  using this number, which we have no reason to doubt, we are able to estimate that approximately 208 teachers outsideof New York City experienced this process through it's entirety (with NYSUT representation) between September of 2009 June of 2010.
Vice President Pallatto accounts for this same period of time, and the same percentage of teachers who experienced the full process and opted for a NYSUT attorney, when revealing how many teachers within New York City:
Over the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years, a period which covers both the backlogged and the newly filed cases, we have completed 561 cases.
That's 561 cases (counting the backlogged cases that lead to the famous April, 2010 agreement to end the rubber rooms and speed up the process) that were handled by NYSUT attorneys within New York City. We can now see that, according to NYSUT, 353 more teachers cases were handled by NYSUT inside New York City during the same period of time.
There are 120,000 tenured teachers across the rest of New York State, where 208 cases were settled during this time. In New York City, it is generally understood that approximately half of that amount, 60,000, enjoy the same protections. Yet it seems the amount of city teachers who have faced termination charges double. In fact, using these numbers, it becomes clear that city teachers during  were at least 4.6 times more likely to face 3020-a charges than were teachers from across the rest of the state.
We can now see that between the years of 2009 and 2012 New York City spent the lion's share of $32.8 million in state funds, running the state into a $19.7 million deficit in the process, to dutifully try to fire more than four times the amount of teachers as anywhere else in the state. Only two possible conclusions can be drawn from this realization: Either an astoundingly high amount of teachers here in the city are bad, or our employer, the city's Department of Education, has zealously pursued a course to fire as many teachers as it can.
We  believe the latter: That, instead of spending badly needed money on children and on schools during the depths of the recession,  the department engaged in a zealous attempt to fire as many teachers as possible and used the state's money -more than $19 million of which it did not have- to prosecute those attempts. We also believe this policy continues to today.
Former president Weingarten's  prediction was correct; the DOE has created a climate of fear and intimidation in our schools.  This climate of fear has had an adverse effect on the working conditions of our colleagues and must end.  We must establish an open environment of collaboration if we expect our teachers to excel. In addition, the department must  direct as much money as possible to the actual classroom -to actual students-  instead of using it in an attempt to fire teachers (at a rate at almost five times as frequent as other districts throughout the state) if they expect their schools -our schools- to be successful.