Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Monday, May 26, 2014

The Gill Commission Report (1990) and the Denial of Due Process Rights By the "Investigators" in the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI) Office

Anyone in the NYC public school system today must read an article I wrote in 2009 for my website Parentadvocates.org on the establishment of the office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI). The way that Mike Bloomberg and his appointed non-Attorney, Richard Condon, family friend of Rose Gill Hearn and her dad James Gill, have used their authority to destroy lives and fracture due process is astounding and, in my opinion, ugly.

SCI office at 80 Maiden Lane

Parents, teachers, administrators, and children are made victims by so-called "investigators" who are given immunity as they falsify records, change careers and commit fraud.

My highlighting these agents of doom is part of my expose of the harm that the Department of Education continues to do to innocent people, all for political/financial gain.

By the way, former Department of Investigation head Rose Gill Hearn now works for Bloomberg Associates, of course......and the Campaign Finance Board. She's really busy.

More to come.

Betsy Combier

Dear Mike and Joel: Give Us the Money
The Arrogance of Immunity and Fraud Behind Rose Gill Hearn, Richard Condon, SCI, OSI, and OEO
Lawrence Scott III, Agent of the NYC DOE Office of Special Investigations (OSI), Sexually Assaults Teacher Natalya Sokolson-Gordon at Her School, PS. 329 in Coney Island, Brooklyn
Secret Emails About Office of Special Investigations Being in Chaos

Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon
Two Reports, "Investigating The Investigators", and 'The Gill Commission Report' (1990) Dont Improve New York City Public Schools

LINK
Editorial: Every person of any age or title who is involved with the NYC public school system is in danger, as long as Richard Condon is Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City Public Schools. I have finally copied two books published in March and April 1990 which show the corruption inside New York City's education department: "Investigating the Investigators" and "Findings and Recommendations of the Joint Commission on the Integrity of the Public Schools". Nothing has changed...in fact, the corruption is worse than ever. Betsy Combier





James Gill



On March 15, 1990, Mr. James F. Gill, the appointed Chairman of the Joint Commission on Integrity in the Public schools, wrote a letter to New York City Mayor David N. Dinkins, the Honorable Robert F. Wagner, Jr., President of the Board of Education, and the Honorable Joseph A. Fernandez, Chancellor, in which he expressed his dismay at incompetence of the Board of Education’s Inspector General, Michael P. Sofarelli:

“I am sad to report that the Commission found the Inspector General’s operation woefully inadequate. The office wastes scarce resources that should be devoted to investigating serious crime on ineptly-run investigations of internal management matters. The office lacks experienced personnel and meaningful supervision. The office does not keep track of it’s own work accurately or generate reliable statistics that would enable the public to assess it’s effectiveness.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the office has forfeited the confidence of the system’s employees: 41 percent of the teachers and supervisors who responded to our survey reported that they believed the Inspector General was either minimally effective or completely ineffective. This pervasive distrust of the system’s watchdog is a devastating indictment of the office’s performance and a critical impediment to effective policing.

Because of these findings, the Commission recommends that the Mayor immediately appoint a Special Commissioner to Investigate the Public School System. The new Commissioner should attack crime and corruption with the goal of building solid, prosecutable criminal cases against real criminals. The Commissioner’s staff should be an effective strike force ofcriminal attorneys, police officers, and investigators. The Commissioner’s office should – at least temporarily until it earns the confidence of parents, employees and the public at large – be independent of the Board of Education.”

(Yes, Mr. Sofarelli was removed, but he was then hired by Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to investigate Medicaid fraud in NYC, and the work was so bad that Pataki ordered an overhaul in 2005. Mr. Sofarelli 'retired' from investigating Medicaid in 2003. - Ed)

Mr. Gill then published his findings in a book, “Investigating the Investigators”, which I copied and have made available below:

Investigating the Investigators (Introduction – p. 43)
Investigating the Investigators (pp. 44 – 86)

One month later, Mr. Gill wrote to the same people a letter that became the introduction to his final report:

“Dear Sirs,

This is the final report of the Joint Commission on Integrity in the Public schools, and it contains the Commission’s findings and recommendations I regret to report that we found serious corruption or impropriety almost wherever we looked”…

Findings and Recommendations Of The Joint Commission On Integrity In the Public Schools (Introduction – p. viii)
New Tammany Hall pp. ix – xviii
New Tammany Hall pp.1-37
New Tammany Hall pp. 38-77
New Tammany Hall pp. 78-102
New Tammany Hall pp. 103-163
New Tammany Hall pp. 164-193

Executive Order No. 11 was issued on June 28, 1990 by NYC Mayor David Dinkins, creating the office of the new Deputy Commissioner.

Rose Gill Hearn
Rose Gill Hearn
The facts of the corruption of New York City public schools was very much in the media in 1989-1990:

Panel Urges Watchdog Agency for N.Y.C. Schools
By Ann Bradley, Education Week, Published: June 13, 1990
LINK

A commission charged with investigating corruption in the New York City schools has released a final report calling for the establishment of an independent investigatory agency appointed by the mayor to monitor wrongdoing in the district.

The final report of the Joint Commission on Integrity in the Public Schools, released May 31, summarized findings that had previously been made public.

But it also contained new criticism of the board of education's procedures for disciplining teachers and principals, and fresh disclosures of $94,000 worth of missing computer equipment in one community school district. The report revealed, in addition, that the same community district had spent $17,000 to give its employees electronic paging devices.

In a news conference held to announce the report's release, James F. Gill, chairman of the commission, blamed Robert F. Wagner Jr., president of the board of education, for many of the system's failings.
Mr. Gill called the board a "sleepy-eyed lumbering brontosaurus primarily interested in grazing."
When asked who was to blame for the situation, Mr. Gill responded: "I'll say it--Bob Wagner. He's the president of the board of education. Bob Wagner. Bob Wagner. Bob Wagner."

However, Mr. Gill said in an interview last week that he had "no intention of attacking Bob Wagner personally."
"I hold him in high regard," he said. "The board of education is the group that has overall responsibility for everything in the system, and it should be accountable."

Inspector General's Powers
Mr. Wagner said last week that he attributes Mr. Gill's comments to the fact that the two disagree over what powers an independent inspector general should be given.
The board president said he favors giving the inspector general special prosecutory powers; Mr. Gill said such powers would conflict with the duties of the regular prosecutors' offices.

Mr. Gill charged that the board of education's current inspector general, Michael Sofarelli, has been lax in conducting investigations. "It's an investigatory failure, not a prosecutorial problem," he said last week.
Mayor David Dinkins is expected to make a recommendation on the issue within a month.
Mr. Wagner also noted that several of the commission's criticisms, including the charge that the board had failed to discipline teachers, were in areas affected by state regulations that were not within the board's control.
The commission was appointed by former Mayor Edward I. Koch and the board of education in 1988. The most dramatic moment of its investigation came last year, when the board of Community School District 27 was suspended following allegations of corruption made by Colman Genn, the district's superintendent.
Mr. Genn, who had secretly taped conversations with board members and school employees, testified that board members had made it clear his contract would not be renewed unless he agreed to hire their friends and political associates. (See Education Week, Nov. 1, 1989.)

The report recommended that the New York legislature give district superintendents, rather than community school boards, the power to hire teachers' aides and paraprofessionals. It did not endorse Chancellor Joseph A. Fernandez's proposal to take away local boards' power to appoint school administrators.

June 1, 1990
Wagner Faulted for Schools' Failures by Inquiry Panel Head
By JOSEPH BERGER, NY TIMES

LEAD: The chairman of a commission investigating New York City's schools yesterday called the Board of Education a 'sleepy-eyed lumbering brontosaurus primarily interested in grazing' and singled out its president, Robert F. Wagner Jr., for blame.

The chairman of a commission investigating New York City's schools yesterday called the Board of Education a 'sleepy-eyed lumbering brontosaurus primarily interested in grazing' and singled out its president, Robert F. Wagner Jr., for blame.
'I'll say it - Bob Wagner,' said James F. Gill, chairman of the Joint Commission on Integrity in the Public Schools, when asked whom he was holding responsible for the school system's continuing failures. 'He's the president of the Board of Education. Bob Wagner. Bob Wagner. Bob Wagner.'

In a telephone interview later, Mr. Gill said: 'I don't mean to single him out, but a lot of these things happened on his watch and he is the chief executive officer. So he along with the entire board has to share responsibility when things go wrong, particularly when we make revelations that they haven't acted upon.'

Mr. Gill made his initial remarks at a news conference at the midtown office of his law firm to release the final report on the commission's 17 months of work. The 193-page document contained fresh disclosures about $94,000 of missing computers in one Bronx district and new criticism of the central board for what it said was an inability to discipline teachers.

'An Excuse for Failure'
Mr. Gill, whose commission was created by former Mayor Edward I. Koch and the Board of Education in the wake of a series of disclosures about school corruption, attacked the central board, its bureaucracy and its leadership for what he said was a desire to use the decentralization of the system 20 years ago into 32 local districts 'as an excuse for failure.'
'They seem to have believed that they could just let those districts stew in their own juices, just send them a memo or directive once in a blue moon and then let them sink or swim on their own,' Mr. Gill said.

But even more startling was the attack on Mr. Wagner. The son of a former New York City Mayor, the grandson of a former United States Senator and a confidant of Mr. Koch, Mr. Wagner has been been one of the city's most prominent political fixtures for two decades and played a key role in appointing both the commission and Mr. Gill. By picturing himself as a reformer intent on overhauling a shabby school system, he has generally been able to elude the criticism that regularly befalls that system. His term as board president, a part-time position for which he is paid $20,000 a year, expires at the end of this month. In an interview yesterday, Mr. Wagner, board president since January 1986, dismissed much of the criticism as unfair, saying Mr. Gill was attacking failings that he and the other board members can do little about. He spoke of his battle for legislation that would abolish the Board of Examiners, the agency that tests and licenses teachers, and give the chancellor a greater role in choosing district superintendents.

Mr. Gill said Mr. Wagner was 'very dedicated' and his 'heart was in the right place.' But, he said, he and the rest of the board were 'lumbering' along and had not even responded promptly to repeated findings by his commission of corruption and inefficiency within the school system.

Criticism on Sofarelli
Mr. Wagner, he said, did not dismiss his Inspector General, Michael Sofarelli, even though the commission revealed significant inadequacies in how the office conducted its investigations of wrongdoing by employees. 'Why would you want to continue a guy who has run the office in the way he had run it,' Mr. Gill said in an interview. Mr. Wagner, he said, also did not 'exert his influence' to obtain the removal of the chief investigator for the Board of Examiners after the commission exposed serious flaws in the screening process for new teachers. That process, Mr. Gill said, permitted a teacher convicted of sexual abuse to get appointed to a Bronx junior high school.

More than a year ago, he said, his commission revealed that the board was not certifying parents for eligibility to vote in school board elections, thereby exposing the balloting to fraud.
But the officials responsible, Mr. Gill said, were never disciplined. Eight months ago, he said, the commission tape-recorded a Queens teacher, Richard Lipkowitz, as he boasted of his ability to influence the appointments of the district's administrators. The charges against that teacher, Mr. Gill said, are 'still pending.'
'This kind of inertia, stagnation and inaction is extremely distressing,' Mr. Gill said. 'The kids deserve better. They deserve leaders who will act on their behalf and act in a timely way.'

Roots of the Problem
In response, Mr. Wagner said the disciplinary process for teachers is controlled by state laws and union contracts that carefully protect teacher rights and salaries until the proceedings have run their course. The response to the election certification, he said, was bedeviled by a faulty legal opinion, and, he said, affected only a few voters in any case. The Board of Examiners, he said, is a independent agency that is not under the control of the Board of Education.

Mr. Wagner speculated that Mr. Gill's harsh words have roots in their disagreement over what kind of office should police corruption within the schools. Mr. Gill would like to see the present Inspector General replaced by a Special Commissioner appointed by the mayor who would have subpoena power and a staff of professional investigators. Mr. Wagner prefers an independent special prosecutor who would also be able to bring cases to trial. Mr. Gill thinks Mr. Wagner's proposal impractical since it would be opposed by the city's district attorneys.

Mr. Wagner has also expressed displeasure with the personal attacks on the Inspector General, Mr. Sofarelli, in an earlier report by the Gill Commission.
'It's a reflection of Jim's impatience about the pace of change within the system and how difficult it to make things happen,' Mr. Wagner said.

New Disclosures
In contrast to the criticism of Mr. Wagner, Mr. Gill used only complimentary language in talking about Schools Chancellor Joseph A. Fernandez. But Mr. Fernandez was said by aides to be unhappy with the Gill Commission's refusal to endorse his effort to strip the 32 community school boards of their power to appoint principals and assistant principals.

These aides, who asked for anonymity, said Mr. Gill had personally indicated to Mr. Fernandez that the boards, many of which have been implicated in patronage, should not be permitted to appoint school administrators. But the aides said Mr. Gill then found himself outweighed by three members of the commission and sought to preserve its unity. The account was confirmed by two officials familiar with the Gill Commission's deliberations.

The report was largely a review of the commission's findings over its 17-month life. But there were several new disclosures. On a single day last September, the commission's investigators visited 17 of the 33 schools in School District 9 in the southwest Bronx and found that 80 computers, or 17 percent of those purchased for the schools, and 37 printers, or 26 percent of those purchased, could not be located. Many of these, the investigators later discovered, were moved to other districts but no records were kept of the transfers.

Others 'were left sitting in storage' and went unused by students. Still others, the report said, 'simply disappeared,' though the investigators could not determine whether they were stolen or misplaced.
The commission also found that District 9 spent $17,000 a year so that 68 officials could have beepers, or paging devices. It also found that the district became embroiled in a scheme to allow 40 relatives and friends of district employees to have beepers, but that in many cases the district was not repaid for their use.

The commission also took issue with the school system's unwillingness to discipline teachers. In the 1988-89 school year, it said, 99.7 percent of the system's 65,000 teachers were rated satisfactory, a level of quality that Mr. Gill, a lawyer in private practice, said sardonically could not be matched by any other profession, even his own. Only 12 teachers were dismissed or forced to resign as a result of disciplinary proceedings.

In its recommendations, the commission asked the State Legislature to give district superintendents, rather than local school boards, the power to hire teacher aides and paraprofessionals. It asked the central board to articulate clear policies about discipline 'so that those in charge of discipline are no longer left at sea about what they should consider misconduct and what punishments they should seek.'

March 16, 1990
Investigators For Schools Are Criticized
By JOSEPH BERGER, NY TIMES

LEAD: In a stinging report issued yesterday, the commission examining the New York City public school system said the work of the Board of Education's chief investigative arm was 'reminiscent of the Keystone Kops' and deserved blame for much of the corruption and crime within the system.

In a stinging report issued yesterday, the commission examining the New York City public school system said the work of the Board of Education's chief investigative arm was 'reminiscent of the Keystone Kops' and deserved blame for much of the corruption and crime within the system.

The most dramatic example of ineffectiveness by the school system's Office of Inspector General, the Gill Commission charged, came in the case of Matthew Barnwell, a Bronx principal arrested by the New York City police in November 1988 on charges of buying crack. The Inspector General, the commission said, learned that Mr. Barnwell was using drugs a year before the arrest, but bungled its investigation with 'aimless, lethargic and sporadic' work.

'The investigation was so shoddy that it could be a textbook example of how not to conduct a criminal investigation,' said the report by the commission, which is known formally as the Joint Commission on Integrity in the Public Schools.

Unit Established in '80

The arrest of Mr. Barnwell set off a wave of investigations into allegations of corruption in the school system. This week, three former Bronx school officials who were indicted in one of the inquiries were acquitted of charges stemming from the removal of a baby grand piano from a school. [Page B3.] In its report yesterday, the Gill Commission recommended that the office be replaced with a 'special commissioner to investigate the public schools' who would be appointed by the mayor, be in charge of a squad of police officers, and be given the power to issue subpoenas and make arrests, powers the Inspector General's Office now lacks.

The Inspector General's Office was set up in 1980 to serve as the school system's internal watchdog and handle a wide variety of crimes and violations of school regulations, including thefts of property, political hiring and abuse of students.

In December 1988, after Mr. Barnwell's arrest and several newspaper accounts of corruption, the Gill Commission was created. One of its purposes was to look at how well the school system was policing itself.

The commission's study, titled 'Investigating the Investigator' constituted a 'scathing indictment' of 'bloated, largely ineffective operation whose investigations are often reminiscent of the Keystone Kops,' the panel's chairman, James F. Gill, said at a news conference.

'Significant Illicit Activity'

The Inspector General's 60 investigators, the report said, lack law-enforcement and legal experience, are hamstrung by poor supervision and are not scrupulous about protecting the confidentiality of their sources.

The office's $3.8 million dollar annual budget, Mr. Gill said, 'is squandered on trivial matters instead of focused on significant illicit activity' and more energy seems devoted to 'papering the file than to detecting wrongdoing.'

'I cannot escape the conclusion that some of the responsibility for the corruption that we have uncovered in the school system rests squarely on Inspector General Michael Sofarelli's office,' Mr. Gill said.

In a response, Mr. Sofarelli said the report was 'written in a sensational headline-hunting way' and took unnecessary 'cheap shots at him and his staff. He said his office's inquiries had led to 70 arrests since 1987, including the conviction of 26 school building inspectors charged in a kickback scheme and the suspension or indictments of three school district superintendents.

Low Salaries

He said his office, like the offices of the 26 other inspectors generals at city agencies, was hobbled by low starting salaries for investigators, who are paid about $25,000 to start, which made it difficult to recruit the best investigators or former police officers.

Mr. Sofarelli's deputy, Conrad W. Reitz, said investigators for the Gill Commssion had themselves bungled the arrest of a high school teacher who was buying drugs.

The Gill Commission saved its most vitriolic language for a case study of the Inspector General's handling of a complaint against Mr. Barnwell. On November 24, 1987, a year before Mr. Barnwell's arrest, the board received an anonymous telephone call from a teacher at Public School 53 who said Mr. Barnwell was 'discriminating against non-blacks' in hiring, was borrowing money from teachers without repaying them and was 'a drug user.'

One Interview a Month

Mr. Sofarelli, the report said, was informed of the call the following day, but the first interview to try to confirm the allegation was not conducted until March 10, more than three months later. A chronology provided in the commission's report indicates that the investigator on the case conducted interviews at the rate of one a month with parents, teachers and administrators.

Before any action could be taken by the office, Mr. Barnwell was arrested - without the office's knowledge or participation - by the New York City police as he tried to buy two vials of crack on a Manhattan street. He was convicted of drug possession in January and dismissed.

Mr. Gill said that the Inspector General should have begun a prompt surveillance of Mr. Barnwell, rather than concentrating on interviews with his colleagues. The office's investigator, he said, failed to consult the board's own files on Mr. Barnwell, which would have revealed earlier complaints that Mr. Barnwell 'sat in his office all day playing video games.'

In his rebuttal, Mr. Sofarelli said the original allegation of drug use was included almost as an 'afterthought' in the memorandum he received and so failed to trigger the appropriate urgency. Moreover, he said, the office handles 2,900 complaints a year and many of them are efforts to 'get back' at people.

Three Lawyers

His office's investigator was handling many other cases, he said. And his office, he said, did not try to shadow Mr. Barnwell because it was never told where he used drugs and 'we couldn't follow the man around for 24 hours.'

Mr. Gill's concerns about the Inspector General were more sweeping than just the Barnwell case. The office, he said, had only three lawyers, and only one of those - Mr. Sofarelli, a former prosecutor in Brooklyn - has any experience in criminal matters. Only one of the office's 60 investigators, Mr. Gill said, has a background in police work.

'Sofarelli was on the scene for nine years,' Mr. Gill said. 'He should have done something about it.'

'If he was working for me, he'd go,' Mr. Gill added. Mr. Sofarelli serves at the pleasure of the 7-member board of education and was not hired by the chancellor.

Mr. Gill also told of breaches in confidentiality, including one investigator who left his name and title at the school that was being investigated. Such breaches, Mr. Gill said may explain why Colman Genn, the superintendent of District 27 in Brooklyn, went to the commission rather than the Inspector General with his startling allegations of political hiring.

Mr. Gill said that a survey of school employees taken by the commission showed that 44 percent of those interviewed would feel 'uncomfortable bringing a complaint' to the Inspector General.

In responses to the commission, both Mayor David N. Dinkins and Robert F. Wagner Jr., indicate interest in or support for supportive the idea of creating an investigative agency totally independent of the Board of Education. Mr. Wagner, however, pointed out that unless salaries were raised, the independent office would also not attract the best law and police school graduates.

October 24, 1989
New York Times
Tapes of School Officials: Ante Becomes 'Little Higher'

LEAD: These are excerpts from conversations taped by Colman Genn, superintendent of School District 27 in Queens, with James C. Sullivan, the school board treasurer, Samuel Granirer, board vice president, and William Sampol, a former Republican state legislative aide seeking a $42,000-a-year district job, and others over a course of seven months.
These are excerpts from conversations taped by Colman Genn, superintendent of School District 27 in Queens, with James C. Sullivan, the school board treasurer, Samuel Granirer, board vice president, and William Sampol, a former Republican state legislative aide seeking a $42,000-a-year district job, and others over a course of seven months. The opening excerpts are from a conversation that generally revolved around Mr. Sullivan's and Mr. Granirer's complaints that Mr. Genn had hired too many black assistant principals and not enough of the people they wanted. Feb. 6, 1989
GENN: Jimmy, you're not going to take all the blacks off the list because . . .
SULLIVAN: Yes. If you're gonna put them in, we're gonna take them out. Yeah. If there was movement to play, I'd play. You know what I mean? (A few minutes later)
SULLIVAN: And a year from now, your contract is going to be up. And I'm telling you this, as your friend. As board members who'll probably be sitting here.
GENN: I'm sure you will all be sitting here.
SULLIVAN: O.K. Do you understand what the considerations become then? And how the ante becomes, becomes a little higher under those new guidelines?
GENN: I understand, but I can't let that become.
GRANIRER: (Unintelligible)
GENN: How I run my life . . .
SULLIVAN: I understand that. But you understand what our concerns are.
GENN: I understand that I would not get another contract.
SULLIVAN: It's possible. Sept. 13, 1989
SULLIVAN: You know, nobody's looking to fleece anybody. Honestly we're not, Cole.
GENN: Yeah, I understand.
SULLIVAN: If I thought, if I thought that they were really hurting instruction, wanting a whole (expletive) piece that would make a big, major difference, I wouldn't go for it. Honestly, at the end of the day, I'm a political leader - that's why I'm here.
GENN: Yeah.
SULLIVAN: And I make sure my people get (expletive) jobs. When I came into this district, and it's true, Cole, there were three Irish supervisors out of 157 people. Now, when the blacks come up, they say, 'Well, don't tell us that there aren't enough blacks that are qualified.' That's true.
GENN: Mmm-hmm.
SULLIVAN: But don't expect me to believe that about my own people either.
GENN: Mmm-hmm.
SULLIVAN: Except that the avenues were never there for them to participate, because Marvin (Aaron, former district superintendent) hired out of the synagogue. That's between you and I.' Sept. 18, 1989
GENN: You left a resume with Tony (an unidentified district worker) .
SAMPOL: Yes, I did.
GENN: O.K., you brought him the resume. The resume that you brought him is, really doesn't focus at any education kinds of activities.
SAMPOL: O.K.
GENN: Umm, and it's my understanding that, according to Jimmy (Sullivan) , that he wants me to tailor it, the job description, umm, to meet you skills and your background.
SAMPOL: O.K. Or I can change my resume around a little if you like. What, whatever.
GENN: Yeah. I think I'll . . . if you could get me a current resume.
SAMPOL: O.K.
GENN: And focus on the educational things that you've done.
SAMPOL: O.K.
GENN: Umm, and deal with those kinds of issues, umm. I can then either sit with you or, umm, you know, work it out with you.
SAMPOL: O.K.

See also the NY Times' articles on District 27.
Ed Stancik investigated. (I love the last line of his report, in a footnote p. 9:"...Ms. Russell('s)...motivation was political self-preservation, not prejudice.")

Genn died at the age of 68 in July, 2004 - Editor

Ed Stancik was appointed as the first Special Commissioner of Investigation of the New York Public Schools in 1992. Hisindependence from the Board of Education and the Mayor bothered both Commissioner Hearn and Mayor Bloomberg, so when he died at the age of 47 on March 12, 2002, there was alot of talk about how to control this office...so that "favored" administrators, teachers, and parents would not be caught. Mayor Bloomberg issued EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 15 on June 18, 2002, which changed the Special Commissioner's required background from an Attorney to a person with "at least five years of law enforcement experience". Then, Rose Gill Hearn, the Commissioner of the Department of Investigation, (and James Gill's daughter) appointed her dad's friend, Richard Condon.

Mr. Condon is not an attorney, as required in Executive Order No. 11, he was appointed by his friend Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn after Mayor Bloomberg changed EXECUTIVE ORDER 11 to EXECUTIVE ORDER 15, which opened the door to an individual who was not an attorney to fill the Special Commissioner's job. It is fair to say after speaking with parents, teachers, and administrators of NYC public schools that Mr. Condon has brought the NYC Public School system to a new level of lawlessness and corruption. The case of Teddy Smith is an example of this. By all accounts, he has created a reign of terror that will never be forgotton, nor, sadly for the current education administration, forgiven.

See also "Investigating the Investigators and the Gill Commission Final Report"

Betsy Combier
Editor

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Principals From Hell: Marcella Sills Now Accused of Fraud Along With All Her Other Crimes Against Children at PS 106

Add caption
School of No’ principal accused of fraud


LINK
The Department of Education has officially charged “School of No” principal Marcella Sills with ripping off the city as well as her students.
Sills stands accused of “time/attendance misconduct, conflict-of-interest violations, defrauding the DOE of funds and negative notoriety,” DOE spokesman David Pena told The Post.
Because the DOE had granted her tenure, Sills is entitled to an administrative hearing on the charges. A trial date is pending.
The DOE yanked Sills from the school in February after Special Commissioner for Investigation Richard Condon found she had lied about her attendance while collecting full pay.
Richard Condon
 
His probe followed Post reports that Sills routinely showed up late and often played hooky over the nine years she led PS 106. Staffers complained to DOE officials soon after she started, but nothing was done.
Sills will collect a $128,207 salary pending the trial.
She has been “assigned to administrative duties,” Pena said. Officials would not say what she does, where she works, or whether she shows up.
The Post dubbed PS 106 the “School of No” because it had no books for the Common Core curriculum, no gym or art classes, no nurse’s office and no special-ed teachers for classes with learning-disabled students.
Marcella Sills in the NY POST

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Mark Naison: 5 Reasons To Vote NO on the New UFT Contract

5 Reasons to Reject the UFT Contract
(Friday May 23, 2014)

Recently, the administration of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), worked out a contract with Mayor Bill de Blasio. Now, Michael Mulgrew, president of the UFT, is trying to cajole and bully members of the union to accept this contract. However, this contract is horrible for what it proposes and what it leaves out. Below, we have summed up 5 basic reasons why UFT members should reject this contract. If you are a UFT member please VOTE NO, if you know someone who is a UFT member, please share this information and ask her/him to VOTE NO!

1. Tomorrow is Not Promised to Anyone!
In this new “contract” the UFT members are promised raises that we were supposed to get when Mayor Bloomberg was in office. However, unless you are retiring by this June, you won’t see all the money that’s owed to you until 2020, two years after de Blasio’s term in office expires. Why would I wait to get what’s owed to me in 2020, when money later is worth less because of inflation and the rising cost of living? Also, when the Transit Workers negotiated their contract they were paid their money up front, not later when it is worth less. If we are serious about adequately paying our education workers then let’s not rip them off, let’s pay them now! Who knows if we will be here tomorrow to collect what de Blasio is keeping from us now? Tomorrow is Not Promised to Anyone!

2. We need to Unite, not be Divided and Conquered!
Currently, almost half of the active members of the UFT are not teachers, yet they are treated like second-class citizens. When paraprofessionals are under investigation they do not receive any pay, even when they are totally innocent. Also, out of the eleven UFT officers only one is elected to represent non-teachers and only if they don’t work for the Department of Education. Moreover, there is nothing in this contract that addresses the disappearing of Black and Latino educators. As less and less people of color are being hired to teach in our schools, and more and more of them are becoming ATRs (education workers without permanent schools), our teachers are looking less and less like our students, yet this contract says nothing about this racist injustice. To make matters worse, with this new contract, education workers are further divided by allowing some teachers to make more money by evaluating other teachers and being promoted to “master” and “ambassador” teachers. Using union members to regulate other union members violates a very fundamental union principle; In Unity there is Strength!

3. We Need to Stop the Lies and the Double Dealing!
Last year Mulgrew told union members that it was in our benefit to keep records of everything we did so that we could submit “artifacts” and justify our jobs. In this new contract he is now saying that we don’t need to do that. In the recent past, he said that we needed our evaluation to have 27 domains (or things to worry about) but now he says we only need to worry about 8 domains. Now, he is also telling us that ATRs should have a quicker process for being fired… but … they won’t be fired. Well, which is it? How is this supposed to be good for education workers, parents or students? It can’t be that everything is good for us as long as Mulgrew says it is. Can’t we figure out right from wrong? We need to demand RESPECT! Let’s stop the Lies and the Double-Dealing!

4. Privatization of our Public Schools Continues!
Despite Mulgrew and de Blasio’s supposed opposition to Charter Schools and the privatization of our public schools they have done nothing to stop this process. In fact, the current UFT administration has a contract with a company called Green Dot Public Schools to run charter schools. Moreover, the mayor is now trying to win over the Wall Street hedge-fund millionaires who are funding those privately run “charter” schools that are receiving public space and money. Instead of working to ensure that every neighborhood school provides a quality education for all of our children, there is not one single initiative that works towards this most basic principle of public education. This contract also does not challenge the current mayoral dictatorship of our schools! What happened to support for Popular Control of our schools, where parents lead the decision making process in collaboration with administrators, education workers and students? We need Popular Control of our schools!

5. Racism and Patriarchy Continue in the Curriculum!
There is nothing in this contract that changes or moves our current curriculum away from static, mind numbing racist, sexist and homophobic ideas and interpretations. In fact, the new “Common Core” and Danielson Evaluation have made it more difficult for educators to innovate and expand learning in their classrooms. All subjects should push to be more truthful about the accomplishments of all societies and people in our global village. We should also be more willing to challenge students with alternative answers and questions, which will enable them to be more creative, thoughtful and engaged in the learning process. However, there is not one word about challenging the curriculum status quo in this new contract. This contract also does not adequately address the current over-testing madness, the lack of funding for services students need, overcrowded classes, school discipline or the school-to-prison pipeline. There is too much that this contract leaves out!

Prepared by the Education Workers of the
People Power Movement-Movimiento Poder Popular
For more information please contact (917)289-0964 or
email 2011peoplepower@gmail.com 

Retired Teacher And Former Bronx HS UFT District Rep Lynn Winderbaum Analyzes ATR Status

The perils of the ATR

MAY 20, 2014 AM31 6:25 AM
Lynn Winderbaum
 
by Lynne Winderbaum, retired ESL teacher, JFK HS, and former Bronx High School UFT District Rep
For the greater part of the 44 years that I have been a member of the UFT teachers truly believed that an assault against one of us was an assault against all of us. The idea of union was that if we all held together, we could accomplish what we never would be able to as individuals. There was one job title of teacher and we all enjoyed the same rights. I am puzzled now, or maybe just too old and nostalgic to understand, how under our most recent agreement, a certain category of teachers has been singled out for disparate treatment. The teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve have required more protection, not less. Their job security and their outlook have been shaken to the core by the fact that they are no longer appointed to a school.
When the wholesale closing of traditional high schools began under the Bloomberg administration, the borough hardest hit (and most embracing of small school creation to replace them) was the Bronx. Morris, Monroe, Taft, Roosevelt, Walton, New School, Evander Childs, Stevenson, and soon Kennedy and Columbus, shuttered. Veteran teachers were displaced not through any fault of their own, but as collateral damage in the effort to show that a reform was underway that would benefit students. Well, no such benefits have been the result and the loss of the large high schools has been an irreversible destruction. Graduation rates inflated by bogus “credit recovery”schemes (Education critics blast high school credit recovery – NY Daily News)  (Students earning credit with dubious make up work – NY Post) , changing of IEPs, waivers on providing special education and English Language Learner services, screening of students, and closing of many of the replacement small schools that were supposed to provide better instruction. (The New Marketplace: Executive Summary – The New School, Milano Institute of International Affairs, Center for New York Affairs)
In the final year of these closing ghost schools, the last students going down with the ship were often underserved as the Department of Education staffed them with a handful of remaining teachers to teach the last seniors. The city abandoned these students. But there was always a cadre of teachers in each school that refused to turn their backs them. These were usually veteran teachers, nearing retirement, who told me they felt an obligation to the students in a dire situation and would not leave for another school and make matters worse for them. When the doors finally closed, these dedicated teachers were in excess.
At a staff meeting of the UFT I rose to point out that this category of excessed teacher created by the massive school closings were unlike any other prior group of excessed teachers. For years “last in, first out” (LIFO) put in excess the most junior teachers in license on a staff that had a contraction of positions. So teachers who had one or two years of service were at risk. But the excessed pool now included hundreds of teachers with 20-30 years of satisfactory classroom service who had dedicated their entire professional lives to the students of New York City. This was new.
Since 2005, when the category of Absent Teacher Reserve was created, teachers in the ATR have always had a sense of uneasiness. I cannot recall a single school visit when an ATR teacher did not approach me and ask if the union would protect them. Will the next contract let us be fired? I always assured them that the UFT would stand by them. And that the ATR category was created to give them job protection. ATR’s could not be fired without the same due process as every other teacher in the system.
At the same time I recall when Joel Klein, former chancellor of New York City schools, returned from a trip to Chicago. He learned there that the Chicago school system resolved their teacher displacement problem from school closings by firing excessed teachers who could not find a new teaching position within twelve months. “For years, Chancellor Joel Klein has trumpeted Chicago’s method of laying off teachers, which gives out-of-work teachers a year to remain on salary and find a new job in the schools. Klein’s new list of demands would shrink that window to four months.” (Among City’s Contract Demands: Flexibility to Lay Off Teachers- Chalkbeat)
But in order to make such a move palatable, the teachers in the ATR had to be vilified and portrayed in the media as unemployable losers who could not find jobs and were a drain on the budget of the Department of Education and the taxpayers. And how the city officials threw themselves into that campaign! Joel Klein wrote, “We’d also be forced to keep teachers in what’s called the “Absent Teacher Reserve”pool—a bureaucratic name for those let go from downsizing or closing schools but who remain on payroll. Many of these teachers haven’t applied for new jobs despite losing their positions as long as two years ago. And many who have looked for a job can’t find a school willing to hire them despite many vacancies. Yet none of these teachers can be laid off, even during a budget crisis.” (We’re firing the wrong teachers – Joel Klein)
Steven Brill, wrote in his book “Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools”. “These were the teachers who were excessed but had not taken positions elsewhere. Some hadn’t even gone on job interviews…the prospect loomed that they would continue to be paid even if the city had to dismiss thousands of real teachers because of the budget crunch.”p. 129
Of course nothing could be further from the truth. I remember the day that Randi Weingarten, then president of the UFT, put out a call to the district representatives to counter such arguments by bringing a group of ATRs to a press conference. I went to Evander Childs HS and gathered a group of about a dozen from the library and brought them downtown from the Bronx to tell tales of the many online applications sent through the Department of Education website, the many resumes they sent out to principals, and the interviews they went on, all to no avail. None had ever received an unsatisfactory rating. But they were tenured, older, expensive, and they were turned down in favor of fresh new hires, many on probation. They were losing hope and to add insult to injury, they were being painted with the insulting brush of pundits like Brill. Eventually, even Brill saw the superficiality of his opinion in 2011 and reversed course. (Teaching with the enemy – The New York Times)
But the drumbeat did not stop. Even now, the New York Post writes, “Ineffective teachers from the Absent Teacher Reserve are headed back into the classroom.”And the New York Daily News warns “The mayor must hold firm [against forcing principals to hire ATRs]. Otherwise, he would dump teachers of poor quality on unlucky students and schools (Expel these teachers – NY Daily News)
So they insist that the 2/3 of the ATR pool who have never been accused of wrongdoing or had unsatisfactory performances be characterized as “poor quality”and “ineffective”and worthy of firing. The truth is that the Department of Education has never made a secret of its desire to fire the ATRs. It’s been raised in every contract negotiation. But the union has up to now provided protection for this group because they are valuable teachers and members whose predicament was created entirely by the Department of Education. As a 31 year veteran teacher from Kennedy High School, a school not slated for closing for many years as other Bronx high schools met their demise, I often thought “There but for the grace of God go I”.
The UFT not only saw that displaced teachers were not fired, we reached agreement with the Department of Education that they could only be moved once a semester. This gave them stability for at least half the school year. It was humane. Many got regular assignments saving the city money on hiring long term substitute teachers for teachers on leaves for child care or health issues. (Although the city and the press still just multiply the number of ATR’s by their salaries and calculate that as a drain on the city’s resources without deducting the savings). ATRs were also serving as per diem substitutes for daily absentee teachers. Another savings. A survey we were asked to do by the union in 2009 showed that hundreds of ATRs were serving in this capacity—not sitting around idly doing nothing and collecting salaries.
Recently, this all changed for the ATR pool. They are now shuffled around week to week, from school to school. They are observed teaching students they do not know while covering classes out of license. It is not only a recipe for wasting talent if there ever was one but a sure path to thinning the ATR pool. “Until recently, the city allowed ATR teachers to remain at a posting for a full school term, during which the school principal could decide whether to hire them. That changed with the weekly reassignments, which went into effect in October as part of a deal with the United Federation of Teachers to avert layoffs.” (City’s Unwanted Teachers Drift Through a Life in Limbo – DNA Info)
This brings us to the new contract and it’s agreement regarding this maligned and vulnerable group of teachers.
The city has been looking for a way to fire this teachers since before Klein’s Chicago jaunt. The Memorandum of Agreement now under consideration makes this much easier. It streamlines the process for ridding the city of the ATRs. It proposes a separate and unequal disciplinary system that will end the career of an ATR in a way that cannot happen to an appointed teacher.
Memorandum of Agreement:
If a principal removes an ATR from an assignment to a vacancy in his/her license area because of problematic behavior as described below and the ATR is provided with a signed writing by a supervisor describing the problematic behavior, this writing can be introduced at an expedited §3020-a hearing for ATRs who have completed their probationary periods
            The term “problematic behavior”is unacceptably vague. What is it? It can’t rise to the level of a violation of Chancellor’s regulations because that has always allowed for removal. In instances of language belittling or causing emotional distress, corporal punishment, misappropriation of funds, excessive absence and/or lateness or any other clearly defined violations under the Chancellor’s regulations, teachers could be removed and charged. Two years of unsatisfactory ratings could lead to removal and charges.
So “problematic behavior”must fall into a category of actions beneath these violations. Let me give you four examples that I have heard from ATRs: Leaving four minutes early on a staff development day after receiving a phone call about a son’s medical emergency, scolding in front of students for not wearing a tie, dozing off in the teachers’lounge on a day when he was given no assignment or classes to cover, making a statement in the classroom that sounded like religious proselytizing. One might concede that these actions are “problematic”but they never would have led to more than a file letter in the past! Now, they can rise to the level of such severity that the career of the beleaguered ATR can be ended forever. Who will decide what’s “problematic”? The panel of arbitrators whose standard we agree is a mystery at the moment? The two consecutive principals who may have marked certain teachers for discipline possibly because they spoke up when they were given five classes in a row to teach, or reported a special ed violation, or cheating on a Regents? Or maybe they just seemed too confrontational or not compliant enough? Or maybe didn’t wear a tie! Without clearly defining “problematic”behavior, we have provided a roadmap for showing the door to ATR’s.
I have read that the ATR’s cannot “automatically”be fired. They would feel more secure without the modifier. The grounds for their removal and ultimate firing are far different from those required of regular appointed teachers. Do we have the right to create a new and lesser category within our own family?
The speed with which an ATR can be dispatched is breathtaking. No regular appointed teacher could be pushed out the door with such haste. There is due process and then there is what the MOA calls the“exclusive”due process for ATRs. The union should stand behind one 3020a process for all its teachers.
EXCLUSIVE DUE PROCESS FOR ATRS ONLY:
If, within a school year or consecutively across school years, an ATR has been removed from a temporary provisional assignment to a vacancy in his/her license area by two different principals because of asserted problematic behavior, a neutral arbitrator from a panel of arbitrators jointly selected for this purpose (the panel presently consisting of Martin F. Scheinman, Howard Edelman and Mark Grossman) shall convene a 3020-a hearing as soon as possible Based on the written documentation described above and such other documentary and/or witness evidence as the employer or the respondent may submit, the hearing officer shall determine whether the ATR has demonstrated a pattern of problematic behavior. For purposes of this program, problematic behavior means behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations established for professionals working in schools and a pattern of problematic behavior means two or more instances in a vacancy in the ATRs license area of problematic behavior within a school year or consecutively across school years. Hearings under this provision shall not exceed one full day absent a showing of good cause and the hearing officer shall convene a §3020-a hearing as soon as possible.
 The parties agree that in order to accomplish the purpose of establishing an expedited §3020-a process, the following shall serve as the exclusive process for§3020-a hearings for ATRs that have been charged based on a pattern of problematic behavior in accordance with this agreement.
  • The ATR shall have ten (10) school days to request a hearing upon receipt of the §3020-a charges;
  • At the same time as the ATR is charged, the Board (DOE) will notify the UFT as to where the ATR is assigned at the time charges are served;
  • The employer shall provide the Respondent all evidence to be used in the hearing no more than five (5) school days after the employer receives the Respondentrequest for a hearing;
  • Within five (5) school days of receipt of the employerevidence, the Respondent shall provide the employer with any evidence the Respondent knows at that time will be used in the hearing;
  • The hearing shall be scheduled within five to ten (5-10) school days after the exchange of evidence is complete;
  • The hearing time shall be allocated evenly between the parties, with time used for opening statements, closing statements and cross-examination allocated to party doing the opening statement, closing statement or cross-examination and with time for breaks allocated to the party requesting the break;
  • The hearing officer shall issue a decision within 15 days of the hearing date.
For the purposes of charges based upon a pattern of problematic behavior under this section only, if the DOE proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the ATR has demonstrated a pattern of problematic behavior the hearing officer shall impose a penalty under the just cause standard up to and including discharge
            I know many ATRs because the displacement of veteran high school teachers has been so great. It is a problem of the Department of Education’s own making. From the dumping of these teachers into a special pool, to the changing of their assignments every semester, to their bouncing from school to school every week, to the special and unique expedited 3020a hearing that adheres to a timetable that no other teacher must be suffer, these life-long teachers have been beaten down.
They have been mandated to apply for jobs online, mandated to attend interviews, and mandated to accept assignments for years. But many are never offered jobs because principals prefer to hire probationary teachers that can be fired at will. I served on many hiring committees for new schools every June. They were looking to staff their entire schools. There was a constant parade of new, uncertified teaching fellows getting hired to the exclusion of the veterans who interviewed.
The unsettling feeling I have now is that the worst fears that the ATRs shared with me all of those years have been realized.

UFT President Mike Mulgrew Tries To Squash Opposition To Ratification of the New Contract

Mike Mulgrew

 MULGREW MANGLES DEMOCRACY BEYOND RECOGNITION AT DA AS CONTRACT IS SENT TO MEMBERSHIP
May 8, 2014
It was a very sad day indeed in the history of democracy at the May Delegate Assembly.  The meeting was moved to the NY Hilton.  I am going to dispense with my usual lengthy summary of what President Mulgrew said because you've already seen most of it in the UFT propaganda literature or you will hear it when union representatives come to your schools.

Mulgrew made the case for the contract for over an hour and then doubled the question period to half an hour to speak some more.  He finally allowed for debate on the contract after 6:00 pm when there is an automatic adjournment at 6:15 p.m. His basic argument is that the city has no money for raises because former Mayor Bloomberg depleted the labor reserve. The one sided discussion was worse than even the usual DA mangling of democracy.  It was a complete sham.

After Mulgrew finally finished talking, one Unity person (majority caucus of the UFT which does not allow dissent) spoke in favor of sending the contract to the membership for ratification and then Mulgrew pointed to a second Unity member and that is when I sprung forward and called for a point of order.  As everyone who regularly reads this blog knows, debate is supposed to alternate between speakers for and against every topic according to Robert's Rules.  Since there was a speaker for the contract, there should be one against.  The Unity speaker was willing to yield the floor so Mulgrew gave it to me.

I had a thorough speech ready (see below) where I was about to go point for point to refute much of what Mulgrew said.  I started right out on the economics. 

"Up until two months ago at the DA, Mulgrew was telling us that the city has money but they always say they are broke.  I keep reading in the papers that the city surplus is growing."

(
Mulgrew in February:
“We look at the city’s fiscal numbers all the time; it is clear to us that there is money out there. We need our teachers to be paid at least at the level of the school districts around us, which we are not.”)

I continued: "The city is not in bad shape financially so why are we settling for so little.  If we take out the 4% + 4% for the first two years that just equals the last pattern (and we won't see it until between 2015 and 2020), the pattern we set for the rest of municipal labor is 10% total over 7 years."  That is the worst pattern in municipal labor history (at least as long as I have been around)."  At this point, Mulgrew stopped me and said I was wrong.  I responded that according to Robert's Rules when I have the floor, he has no right to interrupt me. I also told him that I have an interpretation of what's in the agreement and so does he and that doesn't make me wrong.

Someone then called a point of order and said that during the question period we agreed that people would only get 30 seconds to ask a question so I was only entitled to the floor for 30 seconds and my time was up.  Mulgrew said I could make one more point and I responded by telling him that the 30 second rule was for the question period.  I also stated that I sat and listened to him politely for an hour motivating the contract and now it was my turn.  He claimed that was my one point and time was up.  I then proceeded to say that I wished I was being recorded (earlier he said UFT policy is no recording) because the entire membership should be permitted to see how he treats people who are dissidents.  There was fairly loud applause as I walked away. 

Maybe I should have stayed and further held my ground but I felt I blew away his no money argument and other people could handle some of the other issues as well or better than I could.

Unfortunately, they never had the chance.  The opposition's next speaker took his 30 seconds to point out how Mulgrew was wrong on his 30 second rule as it pertained to the question period.  We had one other Delegate who had the chance to speak.

Mulgrew then stopped the debate at exactly 6:15 p.m. and called for the vote.  The overwhelming Unity majority obeyed their caucus obligation and supported the contract.

Time allotted for contract discussion: 
Pro contract side talked for well over an hour. 
The opposition was given about 3 minutes of which half of the time was spent trying to keep the floor and tell the president he was out of order.  Would you call that a fair debate?

I have written out the points I wanted to make and will instead make them here.  Below that is a statement on health care.  We don't have to make up anything about the contract.  It is bad enough to fall on its own.


Opposition to Contract 2014
This Contract is based on deferred payments. President Michael Mulgrew told us that we have had wages deferred before.  He mentioned a wage deferral from 1991(in an email).  Let’s go look at that deferral and compare it to the current proposal. 

Back in 1990 we had a union friendly mayor who gave us a one year pattern bargaining busting raise of 5.5% however the economy was about to go into recession and the city soon thereafter found itself in a cash crisis.  The city threatened to lay off thousands of teachers including me.  To bail the city out, the UFT agreed to loan part of our raise to the city.  In order for the city to get us to accept loaning them our money, they had to sweeten the deal.

In return for loaning the city much of our raise, we gained:
* An ironclad no layoff agreement
* The February midwinter recess (we used to work that week)
* The ability to retire directly after a sabbatical
* A very generous retirement incentive that gave people up to three years pension credit allowing those with thirty years in the system to leave as early as 52 years old
* 9% interest on the loan when we got the money back in 1996.

Thanks to the majority of the members of this union who agreed that solidarity with our most vulnerable members like me was important, my job and the jobs of thousands of other teachers were saved.

Let’s fast forward to today where again we have a union friendly mayor but now we have been beaten down by corporate school reform for a long time.  The city again wants us to defer money. This time it is the 4% + 4% raises other unions got that we are owed since 2009. In addition we are setting the worst pattern in municipal union history that other city unions will have to swallow of 10% over 7 years. I look at the city budget and I don’t see a crisis.  I see surpluses but let’s accept the premise that the money is tight.

If unions accept less money, then what are the sweeteners in this deal for us?

* Changing the use of the 37.5 minutes.  By my count, the extended time provision has been reconfigured 6 times since it went into the contract in 2002.  What makes anyonethink this change of two days of professional development and parent outreach will be better than the tutoring or other uses of extended time? It is not a gain.
* Merit pay or career ladder.  The ambassador teacher, model and master teachers just creates different classes of teachers.  It flies in the face of union solidarity.  We are one union. Funny how there is money for merit pay and the hard to staff school differential but not for our raises. As for the argument that it isn't really merit pay, paying select teachers more than their peers is merit pay. Don't they need to be highly effective or effective which means it will be based in large part on student test scores? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it usually is a duck.
* We get a curriculum.  Not exactly a gain. We also now have to write unit plans.
* Up to 200 schools will be run like charter schools with short contracts.  I thought the UFT started a charter school to show how schools can succeed if they follow the contract. Now we want to run schools like charter schools without contracts.  
* Slightly altering Danielson but still basing our ratings in part on student test scores.  No gain there as now the whole lousy evaluation system is part of the contract.
* No interest on the deferred money unlike in 1991 when we got 9%.
* An insulting severance package for ATRs.
* Weaker tenure for ATRs.  Two documented occurrences of "problematic behavior" and we are in a 3020a hearing.  This provision divides the union into two types of membership; regular and ATR.  It’s antithetical to union  solidarity. We are one union; we should have one tenure system for all of us. If this new system for ATRs is so good like the President says, why not give it to everyone?  How can one argue this isn't worse than a major giveback? 

If we are deferring our money, where are the gains?  Where are the sweeteners?  All I see is the acceptance of the basic tenets of Bloombergism but tweaking them a bit. Those are not gains.

In 1990, The DA rejected a loan to the city and sent the Negotiating Committee back to the table to get a better offer.  They did.  In 1995 against a tough mayor, the membership rejected a contract and got a better offer a few months later that had a retirement incentive, a 25 year longevity reduced to 22 and a 5% reduction in new teacher pay was eliminated.  Where are our sweeteners now?

Yes these are tough times for unions and educators but this union has a choice: we can accept this contract which basically leaves the Bloomberg anti-teacher system in place or we can follow the lead of the teachers in Portland, Oregon and St Paul, Minnesota who have fought back and gotten better deals for their schools including lower class sizes.  The UFT did better in 1991 after this DA rejected an original loan proposal and we did better in 1995 when the membership voted down a contract. We can do better now. 

VOTE NO!


The contract is bad enough on its own.  We don't need to say anything that isn't true.  This is what UFT Welfare Fund Director Arthur Pepper said on healthcare.

Healthcare
Arthur Pepper reported that the UFT found the necessary savings the city wanted so there will be no effect on members.  We will have the same access to doctors, hospitals and the drug plan won't change.  There will be no premium for members.


Sadly Leroy Barr's mom passed away so our thoughts and prayers go out to Leroy and his family.


Posted by James Eterno at 5/08/2014 01:28:00 AM 

Michael Mulgrew Says Bloggers Propagate Myth

LINK
 
 

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Arbitrator Deborah Gaines Rules That Lesson Plans Are For The Personal Use of the Teacher

 UFT wins lesson-plan grievance

Specifics of plan must be left up to teacher

UFT President Michael Mulgrew said the ruling validated what the union has insisted throughout the yearlong arbitration hearings: “You as the teacher should decide what information you need to write down in order to teach a particular lesson.”
While arbitrator Deborah Gaines acknowledged that written lesson plans are required of all teachers, she specifically noted that “the specifics of the plan will be left to the professional judgment of the teacher.”
Mulgrew noted that the arbitrator’s decision “also helps to reduce the amount of paperwork required of teachers, a goal that is mirrored in our proposed contract.”
The union-initiated grievance charged that the Department of Education was violating Articles 8E and 20, specifically Special Circular 28, which was agreed to in contract negotiations in 1990, by allowing principals to require that teachers include specific elements in their lesson plans. The contract articles and the circular establish that what goes into a lesson plan is up to the discretion of the teacher and further prohibits the “routinized and mechanical” collection of lesson plans in schools.
Celebrating the victory she helped to achieve, Grievance Director Ellen Gallin-Procida noted, “As someone who was teaching in 1990, I remember just how significant this change was, and I find it unthinkable that they would try to take away our voice.”
The arbitrator pointed out that since the lesson plan is only a part of the whole process of planning a lesson, it can serve as a starting point for a conversation on planning but cannot be evaluated in isolation. She made a distinction between evaluating an actual lesson, which supervisors have every right to do, and evaluating a lesson plan in a vacuum, which they may not do.
Addressing the union’s concern that the DOE might try to circumvent the ruling, the arbitrator warned the DOE not to “institute policies to serve as a smoke screen for the mechanical, ritualized collection of lesson plans or other types of impermissible activity under Article 8E of Special Circular 28.”