Mona Davids and Campbell Brown Throw Sand at Each Other in the Sandbox

**We apologize for only sending our press release today.  Unfortunately, we are not funded by secret fundersor anyone for that matter, so we do all our public relations, media outreach, communications, website etc. ourselves. We are all parent volunteers, not paid tens of thousands per month to do PR or pay for staff.** For Immediate Release September 17, 2014 Contacts: Mona Davids, (646) 872-7149 @MonaDavids, mona@nycparentsunion.org Sam Pirozzolo, (917) 533-3437 @SPirozzolo, sam@nycparentsunion.org PRESS RELEASE   “We Will Not Be Bullied!  Celebrity Campbell Brown Does Not Represent Us.” New York City Parents Union Statement Regarding Campbell Brown's Attempts To Sabotage Parent-Led Lawsuit Regarding Bad Education Law DAVIDS V. NEW YORK:  THE FACTS On July 3, 2014, the lawsuit Davids v. New York was filed by 11 New York City students against the State of New York, the New York State Board of Regents, the New York State Education Department, the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education. An extension of the ongoing efforts by parents to improve the quality of education in New York State, this lawsuit seeks to declare as unconstitutional certain provisions within New York State’s Education Law that deny students the “sound basic education,” considered a fundamental right under Article XI, §1 of the New York State Constitution. Davids v. New York was filed against the State of New York — not against teachers or any union — pursuant to this State’s constitutional obligation to ensure the availability of a sound basic education for all of its children.  Davids is about modernizing the teaching profession and ensuring that our education system is performance-based and not quality-blind.  Above all, this lawsuit is an affirmation of the importance of teachers to the quality of students’ education and it is a challenge for all of us to do things differently to make sure our students are getting all of the resources they need to succeed.  New books and desks are not enough; there must be a highly motivated, highly effective teacher in each classroom every day. Unlike California -- where Vergara v. California challenged that state’s “Last In First Out” (LIFO) provisions, dismissal provisions and tenure provisions -- we are challenging only New York’s state’s LIFO and dismissal statutes.  Davids v. New York will force essential changes in bad law.  We are not challenging the tenure law in New York due to the recent amendments of the law that require school districts to consider classroom performance as a factor in granting permanent employment.  The fact that New York State now considers “teacher quality” as a component of its tenure decisions is a critical distinction when comparing New York’s education laws with California’s. New York City’s parents chose to take action on behalf of their children and on their own terms, independent of other organizations and agendas.  During a similar period of time, Ms. Campbell Brown, a media celebrity involved specifically with anti-union crusades also decided to pursue legal action.  Her case is titled Wright v. New York.  Ms. Brown’s primary interest was and remains the elimination of tenure for teachers.  The New York City Parents Union’s lawsuit,Davids v. New York, was announced, filed with the court and served prior to Ms. Brown’s filing of her lawsuit and the announcement thereof. On August 7, 2014, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, representing all government agency defendants, filed a motion to consolidate Wright v. New York with Davids v. New York, resulting in a single case.  Mr. Schneiderman also requested that the case be tried in Richmond County -- the Borough of Staten Island -- and that the consolidated case remain titled as Davids v. New York.  Despite the different focus of Brown’s case, the Davids plaintiffs agreed to the consolidation and also agreed to the United Federation of Teachers' motion to intervene on behalf of their union’s members. CELEBRITY CAMPBELL BROWN:  THE OUTRAGE In contrast to the Davids plaintiffs spirit of cooperation, however, celebrity Campbell Brown has engaged in a deliberate and methodical effort to undermine the strength ofDavids v. New York and sabotage the efforts of real parents to improve their children’s education.  Ms. Brown has decided that having her name in the headlines is a top priority and, aided and abetted by others, she has used the threat of “economic sanctions” in an attempt to reduce financial support for Davids v. New York and the efforts of the New York City Parents Union. On August 14, the NYCPU met with Randy Mastro, Esq., a partner with the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, which was providing legal representation to the Davids v. New York plaintiffs.  At this meeting, the plaintiffs were advised by Mr. Mastro that Campbell Brown and her supporters were waging a bullying campaign behind the scenes to undermine and sabotage Davids v. New York, including the threat of clients leaving Gibson Dunn as well as threats to funders of Students Matter, an education advocacy organization that organized the Vergara lawsuit, and threats conveyed to RALLY, a public relations company working with theDavids plaintiffs.  The appalling extreme and sensitive nature of this situation has led involved parties to deny the threats and generate creative reasons for changing their relationships withDavids v. New York. After refusing to go “on the record” addressing or denying these allegations to reporters, and only after agreeing to deny our allegations “off the record,” Ms. Brown finally responded “on the record” in an email to former California State Senator Gloria Romero, the sponsor of the California Parent Empowerment Law and also a columnist for the Orange County Register. On August 28, 2014, after learning that Ms. Romero had confirmation of Ms. Brown's bullying from a credible Students Matter source, Campbell Brown denied our allegations in an email to Ms. Romero and proceeded to instruct Gibson Dunn, our attorneys, to respond to Ms. Romero with a statement. A mere 12 minutes later, Gibson Dunn -- our law firm with whom we had a retainer agreement – proceeded to violate attorney-client privilege by following Ms. Brown's instructions and sending Gloria Romero an email that called our allegations absurd included a statement that Gibson Dunn would no longer be representing the student and parent plaintiffs in Davids v. New York.  This email and statement was sent hours before attorney Randy Mastro actually notified us – his clients -- in a short email that Gibson Dunn would no longer be representing us. CELEBRITY CAMPBELL BROWN:  THE VERY INCONVENIENT TRUTH It was beyond disappointing to be confronted by a bully posing as an ally.  In New York City, we say “No” to bullies.  As real parents with our children’s futures on the line, we will not be bullied!  Celebrity Campbell Brown has chosen to use intimidation as hermodus operandi.  Celebrity Campbell Brown’s ego does not deserve our praise, nor does her obsession with teacher tenure.  Celebrity Campbell Brown does not represent us parents – and she will not stop our children and us from proceeding with Davids v. New York.  Celebrity Campbell Brown is not the saviour of New York’s children from low-income families or black and brown children … and she has no right to represent herself as such when she chooses to use money and connections to trample on the rights of those children and their families. Unlike Ms. Brown's lawsuit, Davids v. New York has been organized by independent, grassroots parents with a long history of advocating on both a legislative and judicial level for our children.  The parents of the student plaintiffs are members of the New York City Parents Union, a parent-led organization dedicated to ensuring that every child receives equal access to a high-quality and affordable public education.  The New York City Parents Union and its members are also plaintiffs in two ongoing school funding lawsuits – actions pursued to ensure that New York's public school children receive all the school funding they are entitled to under the law per the important Campaign for Fiscal Equity court decision. Through this lawsuit, we seek to create an opportunity for education stakeholders — students, parents, teachers, legislators, and organized labor — to create a better review system that elevates teacher quality, raises the prestige of the teaching profession as a whole, and promotes access to a sound education for all students.    # # #   September 11, 2014 Press Conference videos of Davids v. New York parent plaintiffs speaking out against Campbell Brown's bullying, undermining and attempted hijacking of our independent, grassroots, parent led lawsuit. Click the pictures to watch the videos.  Jacqueline Colson - click here to learn more about Jacqueline.      Sam Pirozzolo - click here to learn more about Sam.        Mona Davids - click here to learn more about Mona. .   WWW.DAVIDSvNY.ORG        WWW.NYCPARENTSUNION.ORG

Copyright © 2014 New York City Parents Union, All rights reserved.  You are receiving this email because you are a parent/guardian who cares about educating all children.  Our mailing address is:  New York City Parents Union 225 Broadway Suite 1902 New York, NY 10007 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences   In Teacher-Tenure Battles, a War for Public Opinion Can Obscure the Nuances By Stephen Sawchuk on August 5, 2014 7:42 PM LINK Whoopi Goldberg is the latest celebrity to weigh in on the topic of teacher tenure, fueling what seems to be increasing national attention to the topic. Her comments appear to be prompted by a lawsuit organized by former news anchorCampbell Brown against New York state's tenure and dismissal rules. Fresh off her appearance on "The Colbert Report," Brown has been making the early-morning talk-show rounds. (Not to be outdone, the American Federation of Teachers' Randi Weingarten fought back Tuesday on the MSNBC program "Morning Joe.") At this rate, teacher tenure may exceed the Common Core State Standards as an education policy lightning rod, even as a possible wedge issue in the midterm and 2016 elections. One thing's for sure: There's a war out there to win public opinion on the merits, or demerits, of tenure laws. Advocates like Brown are focusing on broad-brush arguments that tenure rules make it too difficult to get rid of poor teachers. Unions, alternatively, posit that tenure protects teachers from reprisals, and that attacks on tenure are really attacks on organized labor and public education. (The AFT sent back-to-back missives this week urging its allies to tweet and post to Facebook stories to that effect.)  Given the conventional wisdom that perception is nine-tenths of the reality in political warfare, this back and forth makes sense. But it's worth taking the time to remember that tenure laws—which prevent teachers from being dismissed without cause, typically established in a hearing—are actually complex, obscure, and context-specific. State legal codes on tenure go on for pages and pages, spelling out in detail such matters as the reasons constituting just cause for firing, the timeline for filing charges and hearing cases, the type of evidence that can be presented at hearings, the appeals process, and so on and so forth.  For cases of dismissal for incompetence, the picture is further complicated by disagreementsabout what constitutes an effective teacher and how to measure one. And, as with all laws, they can be implemented well or poorly. My point is that there's a lot here in the weeds to examine. We'll do our best here at Education Week to keep you above the fray and understanding these nuances .

The NYC DOE Interview Information Sheet For ATRs

From: ATRInterview@schools.nyc.gov [ATRInterview@schools.nyc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:13 PM
Subject: Interview Information for ATRs
Dear .................................:

We hope the start of your school year has gone well. You are receiving this email because you are currently in the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR). As part of the new contract with the UFT, ATRs will be scheduled for interviews in schools with applicable license-area vacancies within their boroughstarting the week of September 15. These borough-wide interviews represent an expanded opportunity for you to be considered for positions outside of the ATR. This letter provides you with more information about these interviews. Please read all of this information carefully.

Starting later this week, you may receive an email to your Department of Education Outlook account with notification regarding scheduled interviews. These emails will constitute written notification of the interview. Please be aware there are two different types of interviews:

Mandatory Interviews are scheduled during the school day and will be within your borough and license area. You are required to attend such Mandatory Interviews. If you miss two (2) or more mandatory interviews, without good cause, you will be treated as having voluntarily resigned from your employment and removed from payroll immediately.

Optional Interviews are scheduled outside of school hours. You are not required to attend such Optional Interviews but are highly encouraged to do so to take advantage of all opportunities to be considered for a position outside of the ATR. While some optional interview invitations will be for positions that match in license and borough, you may also be invited to interview for positions outside of your borough or in a related license area.

The emails you receive will distinguish between these two interview types.

Below is some additional information in the form of a Q&A about these interviews. Please review all of the information below carefully.

When will I be notified about interviews?

In general, Mandatory Interview email notifications will be made on Saturdays for interviews scheduled for Tuesday through Friday of the following week. Optional Interview notifications may be up to two days in advance of the interview date. You may also receive a cancellation notice up to the afternoon before the interview so please be sure to check your email each afternoon.

How many interviews will I be scheduled for?

The number of interviews scheduled for each ATR will vary considerably and depend in part on the vacancies in each borough and license area. ATRs will be scheduled for no more than one Mandatory Interview per day and, in general, such interviews will only be scheduled Tuesday through Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. The number of Optional Interviews invitations will also vary and may take place any day/time outside of school hours.

What do I have to do about communicating to and going to my assignment school?

The school you are currently assigned to will also receive notification of your interview schedule; however, it is recommended that you submit a copy of your interview notification to the Principal and/or Payroll Secretary. The school notification will advise your assignment school that they must release you to attend the Mandatory Interview. It is still expected that you report before and/or after your interview to your assignment school (leaving time for necessary travel). It is recommended that you obtain documentation from the interviewing school that you attended your interview and submit this proof of attendance to the Principal and/or Payroll Secretary at the school to which you are assigned and hold a copy for your records. If you are covering classes at your assignment school you must remind your Principal or designee about the need for alternative arrangements for the time you will be out for the interview.

Why should I go on the interviews?

Attending interviews means you are able to meet with school leaders in your seniority district and borough who have vacancies in your license area that need to be filled. While every interview may not result in a job, you are able to sharpen your interviewing skills and present yourself for future opportunities. As noted there are also potential consequences concerning your employment with the DOE for not attending Mandatory Interviews.

What if I miss an Interview?

You are required to attend all Mandatory Interviews. If you miss two (2) or more interviews, without good cause, you will be treated as having voluntarily resigned from your employment. If you miss an interview, the principal will record your absence. If there is an extenuating circumstance, you should submit documentation to the interviewing principal and interviewing school payroll secretary, as well as to our office at ATRInterviews@schools.nyc.gov. If you have a regular excusable absence for that day you should provide applicable documentation to your assignment school.

Can I re-schedule an interview?

If it is absolutely necessary, you must contact the interviewing Principal to request to reschedule your interview date and time. You should send an e-mail and also follow up with a phone call to confirm.Please remember, it is at the Principal's discretion whether he/she will accommodate your re-schedule request and just making a request is not considered 'good cause' for not attending the interview.

Who will interview me and will all interviews take place as scheduled?

Principals may conduct the interview themselves or they may ask other appropriate staff to conduct the interview with or for them. Please remember that even as schools make every effort to keep to these schedules, unforeseen events may mean they are not able to do so or in some cases that the position may no longer be available. Please be prepared to be patient and flexible.

If I get an offer, do I need to take it?

If you are offered a position, you must accept this position. As the contract states, an ATR who fails to accept and appear for a permanent assignment that has been offered within two (2) work days of receiving written notice of the assignment without good cause shall be treated as having voluntarily resigned his/her employment. Schools and ATRs can agree to be hired on a provisional basis which means the position is for the school year only and at the end of the year you would only remain in the school by mutual agreement with the principal.

If you have any further questions about interviews, please email our office atATRInterviews@schools.nyc.gov.

Sincerely,

Division of Human Resources

New York City Department of Education

Incompetency Hearings and Education Law 3012-c

In 3020-a hearings, rarely do the Representatives/Attorneys for the Respondent (teacher/educator) bring up Education Law 3012-c.

When I do an incompetency case, I bring it up when I know that my client has terrific student data. Why? Because if an educator is alleged to be totally a failure at teaching, and his/her students have high scores on tests, grades, etc., I believe that the educator cannot be proven to be a failure at teaching. The data is one more item added to the list as part of the defense.

If an educator does not have good scores on tests, then this data is not brought in because there are too many intervening factors to have this data prove that the person is truly incompetent. Thus if the Respondent teacher is appointed to a CTT class or self-contained class, the student data does not reflect the progress or learning of the students, necessarily, as these students may not have been given their services, extended time, and other accommodations.

The data should never be used alone, of course. This is part of an entire defense, planned and implemented by the legal team. Added to the mix are: hostile work environment, hatred/revenge/wrongdoing by the administrators or other people in the building, lies and misinformation. Winning a 3020-a is both time-consuming and work intensive, but worth every minute. The DOE Attorneys have a very heavy burden most of the time. They get half the story - most of which may not be true - and have to argue for termination or resignation, not something in between. How does a late student assessment prove incompetency? How does a lesson plan that does not have a formula in it prove that a teacher cannot teach math? I don't know.

The DOE attorneys argue that the student data is not "relevant". This is also the ruling of one of the most biased against teachers, Arbitrator Haydee Rosario who, in

Haydee Rosario, Esq.

2006, was an attorney for the NYC DOE and prosecuted educators brought to 3020-a.She believes that all student data for a teacher charged with incompetency is not relevant to the charges. Ridiculous. If students have great standardized test scores, certainly a part of the result is due to the teaching that went on in that class that year. At least that's what I think.

In fact teacher data reports include the vague "student progress" in test scores, ruled by New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern, with teacher's names. Now THAT's unfair. Scores and student data are part of a package of facts, and should not be used without all the other elements of bad faith in public policy, the improper determination of probable cause, hostility by a person in the building, grievances filed by the Respondent, facts which can bring charges against an employee and which do not prove by a preponderance of evidence that the teacher is incompetent..

Betsy Combier

N.Y. Education Law 3012-c – Annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals

Current as of: 2013 | Check for updates | Other versions

LINK

§ 3012-c. Annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the annual professional performance reviews of all classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts or boards of cooperative educational services shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section. Such performance reviews which are conducted on or after July first, two thousand eleven, or on or after the date specified in paragraph c of subdivision two of this section where applicable, shall include measures of student achievement and be conducted in accordance with this section. Such annual professional performance reviews shall be a significant factor for employment decisions including but not limited to, promotion, retention, tenure determination, termination, and supplemental compensation, which decisions are to be made in accordance with locally developed procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law where applicable. Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the statutory right of a school district or board of cooperative educational services to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for statutorily and constitutionally permissible reasons other than the performance of the teacher or principal in the classroom or school, including but not limited to misconduct. Such performance reviews shall also be a significant factor in teacher and principal development, including but not limited to, coaching, induction support and differentiated professional development, which are to be locally established in accordance with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law.

2. a. (1) The annual professional performance reviews conducted pursuant to this section for classroom teachers and building principals shall differentiate teacher and principal effectiveness using the following quality rating categories: highly effective, effective, developing and ineffective, with explicit minimum and maximum scoring ranges for each category, for the state assessments and other comparable measures subcomponent of the evaluation and for the locally selected measures of student achievement subcomponent of the evaluation, as prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner. There shall be: (i) a state assessments and other comparable measures subcomponent which shall comprise twenty or twenty-five percent of the evaluation; (ii) a locally selected measures of student achievement subcomponent which shall comprise twenty or fifteen percent of the evaluation; and (iii) an other measures of teacher or principal effectiveness subcomponent which shall comprise the remaining sixty percent of the evaluation, which in sum shall constitute the composite teacher or principal effectiveness score. Such annual professional performance reviews shall result in a single composite teacher or principal effectiveness score, which incorporates multiple measures of effectiveness related to the criteria included in the regulations of the commissioner.

(2) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraph b of this subdivision for the two thousand eleven–two thousand twelve school year and for annual professional performance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraphs f and g of this subdivision for the two thousand twelve–two thousand thirteen school year, the overall composite scoring ranges shall be in accordance with this subparagraph. A classroom teacher and building principal shall be deemed to be:

(A) Highly Effective if they achieve a composite effectiveness score of 91-100.

UFT Schedules Meetings for ATR Members

 



From DTOE: ATR Survey

Cheon Park, Former Owner of a Queens-Based Special Education Provider, Sentenced To 24 Months In Jail

New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli

NEWS 
From the Office of the New York State Comptroller 
Thomas P. DiNapoli 

Contact: Mark Johnson, 518-474-4015 
For release: Immediately, Sept. 4, 2014

DiNAPOLI: SPECIAL EDUCATION CONTRACTOR CONVICTED FOR $2 MILLION FRAUD

The former owner of a Queens-based special education provider, who pleaded guilty to fraud charges earlier this year following a joint investigation by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District Preet Bharara, was sentenced today to 24 months incarceration and ordered to pay $2,151,318 in restitution and forfeit another $1,924,318. 

“Cheon Park enriched himself and deprived children with physical, developmental and emotional disabilities of the help they need,” DiNapoli said. “His conviction today stands as a warning for those who attempt to cheat taxpayers and instead use the money for their personal benefit. I’d like to thank U.S. Attorney Bharara for prosecuting this crime and working with my staff to bring Park to justice and recover stolen taxpayer money.”   

In July 2012, DiNapoli’s office issued an audit of Bilingual SEIT & Preschool Inc. that found Park inappropriately charged New York City’s Department of Education for salaries, vehicle leases and items such as cosmetics and children’s furniture. There were also a number of questionable issues related to staff salaries. For a copy of the audit, visit: http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093012/11s13.pdf.   

DiNapoli referred the findings to United States Attorney Bharara’s office and worked to prosecute Park and recover the stolen funds. DiNapoli also praised the work of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for New York City’s Department of Education, the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Education, and the Queens County District Attorney’s Office for their collaboration in this investigation.   

DiNapoli has identified fraud and improper use of taxpayer funds in a recent series of audits and investigations of special education providers, resulting in multiple criminal convictions and the recovery of over $3 million. His office has completed 23 audits of preschool special education providers, finding nearly $23 million in unsupported or inappropriate charges. There are currently 18 additional audits of preschool special education providers in progress. 

In December 2013, Governor Cuomo signed legislation – proposed by DiNapoli and sponsored by Sen. John Flanagan and Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan – mandating the Comptroller’s Office audit all of the more than 300 preschool special education providers in this $1.4 billion program by March 31, 2018.

###

Follow us on Twitter (@NYSComptroller) and Facebook (facebook.com/nyscomptroller) 

Education Policy Implementation = National Security

Another article I posted on my website Parentadvocates.org in 2004.

Still true, 10 years later.

Betsy Combier

Betsy Combier: Silencing Opposition: Education Policy Implementation Becomes a Matter of National Security

From Betsy Combier, Editor:

E-Accountability OPINION: Governments that want to take public money for politically desired projects without opposition must close the government procurement to prying eyes. This means that contracts are signed without competitive bidding, Freedom of Information requests are not honored, and the media is co-opted. The NYC BOE is our model. by Betsy Combier






Betsy Combier and Colin Powell, SAIS 60th Anniversary Gala, Washington DC October 13, 2004



While attending a course on International Affairs at Columbia University in 1973, I heard about the trillions of dollars spent on armaments by the Pentagon. The class discussed why, when so much money is spent on tanks, bombs and missiles, there has to be a process for creating a war with minimum opposition. A year later, as a student in The School For Advanced International Studies' Master's Program in Bologna, Italy, I researched the growth and development of the Soviet Military Industrial Complex. I saw that the amount of money spent on American defense was not justified because by all accounts the Soviet defense industry was in almost total disrepair at the time. Of course, we know that for 'national security' the end justifies the means, and we must support our military if their work protects us. We needed the US government to keep secret the development of the atomic bomb during World War II, and we need to keep our spies away from exposure. There are, therefore, many reasons for secrecy in providing homeland security and global justice, but even in the defense area there must be oversight and accountability.

The defense industry, nonetheless and by necessity, has perfected a process which uses secret no-bid contracts and highly paid 'consultants' to acquire public support for the spending of public money. This effort is non-partisan, which means that it has nothing to do with the political party in power. It has everything to do with 'who is friends with whom', and who owes someone a 'favor'. Friends help friends make money in the business of defending our country. This is the way the system works. We, the public, elect people to the highest level of power with the hope that they will honor the Common Good while they spend public funds, and few will deny the fact that if you work for the defense industry, or work for one of it's subsidiaries, then you will benefit from the expenditures, even if - especially if -it means war.

An Editorial published October 31 2004 in the NY Times ("More questions About Halliburton") shows the closed government that we are hidden from knowing too much about. Vice President Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton, a company now charged with price gouging and improper influence over providing the Pentagon with lucrative deals in Iraq. The article explains this process:

"There is a reason that big defense contractors often recruit well-connected former government officials as their chief executives. They do not operate in a normal business environment, where companies must compete on the basis of their performance and efficiency. Instead, they sit in a kind of financial wonderland where huge profits can be made with minimal risk. Lucrative contracts are awarded without competitive bidding, and unexpected cost overruns and other dubious charges are simply passed along to the taxpayer. Most of this is, unfortunately, completely legal."

Whether the President is Bush, or someone else, the secret government is here to stay.

This same process is being used in our nation's public schools to stop the public from participating in, or knowing anything about, the allocation of taxpayer money to public school education. Our research into how School Boards, education officials and even PTA Presidents get elected has shown us that this process is not democratic or open. In fact, there is 'systemic sabotage' of open government rules often so complex that a person actually looking for the misinformation or non-compliance has difficulty finding it. But it is definitely there, because the system depends on maintaining control over the process of getting lucrative contracts signed, sealed, and delivered.

Members of school boards often have an agenda that seems to be very similar to the BOE in town and the BOE Attorneys. In addition, many Chancellors across America are 'consultants' for law firms and corporations that make money from the links to education. In order for this to happen smoothly, Boards of Education have taken the defense industry model for procurement and made it their own. The same links between education and industry are there, as are the same tactics used to keep all transactions secret and away from the public eye.

Public education has, in other words, become a matter "of national security". Secrecy, harassment of those who do not go along with The Plan, and whistleblower retaliation are all used to promote and maintain programs designed by Those Who Know What Our Children Need. In New York City, the venue we know best, the 'national security' program for our public school children is called at the present time "Children First". The problem is that Bloomberg/Klein are not skilled defense industry tacticians, and are not implementing correctly the military model they have adopted.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's takeover of the NYC Board of Education in June 2002 was, in our opinion, a good thing. In 2002 many Superintendents were not performing their jobs with integrity, statistics proved that the NYC education system was failing the children, and there was very little proof of any success in the System. Then, it seems that the Mayor and his appointed Chancellor Joel Klein took the defense industry strategies to promote their education reform program, "Children First". Evidence of this top-down defense model includes:

1. Tweed Courthouse has become the education Pentagon, where in the name of security all people entering must be photographed, and everyone sits in open rooms where The Boss rules with an iron hand. We love the lack of closed doors so that everyone can be watched at the same time. This is creative thinking at work, literally.

2. All telephone calls to the Tweed Pentagon are screened so that any serious complaints are not responded to right away or at all, in the hope that the person who made the complaint can be 'persuaded' to leave the issue alone, or go away without resolving the problem. If an issue is responded to - which, by the way, does not mean resolved - false assurances of "I'll look into it" are normal. Complaints are, of course, against "national security".

3. As all complaints by parents, teachers, paraprofessionals or anyone else threaten the security of the system, almost all those who bring a problem to the attention of a BOE employee are told that they are wrong. The complaint is 'not valid'. The issue is not the problem, the person making the complaint is. If a complaint or problem has an easy solution, such as there is no toilet paper anywhere in a school, this may be taken care of quickly because the resolution has nothing to do with changing the core autocractic nature of the system. The BOE employee who obtains the money for the toilet paper gives all credit to Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein, for acting so quickly and decisively, or to "The System" for it's efficiency. Send in the Press! The potential threat to our 'national security' - a complaint - is thus disposed of. No one asks how the bathrooms in our city's public schools got so dirty and decrepit in the first place, or how they stayed that way for 30 years. No one goes back 1 month later to check and see if there is any toilet paper left after the reporters have gone onto another story. Why? Because the story isn't really about toilet paper, it's about media, press releases, and political successes that can be touted in the future. Isn't it interesting that the amount of toilet paper in a school can be made into such a political media event? No one wants to touch the Big Stuff, the $ billions that are misallocated on a daily basis.

Indeed, resolutions of complaints such as the toilet paper issue are staged to get maximum press exposure, and BOE officials all make false promises that they have no intention of keeping. Not only is all this a show, but all the actors know that there are no consequences for what they say or do. No one who works for the BOE in defense of our national security need explain anything to anyone. There is no accountability.

4. Teachers who may jeopardize 'national security', are laid off, fired, forced to resign, or harassed, and the people doing the harassing don't care about the violation of due process going on. We have, over the past four years, heard from countless teachers, paraprofessionals and school aides who, merely by asking questions such as "Where's the money?", or "Why do I have to Teach it this way?" find themselves attacking 'national security' and out of a job. The National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse focuses on this problem, and gives many examples.

A closed government can also go after innocent people in order to 'show' others what might happen to them, and this is one major reason for closing the door.

Leo, a Math teacher given unexplained U ratings, may not understand what he did to incur the wrath of the system, and as he is ushered out the door of his school, still doesn't. Neil, Tom, Ed, Dr. B., Yolanda, Iris and I and so many others have been accused of wrongdoing that was 'made up' by the Tweed ring, and we were all pursued by the Office of Special Investigations whose modus operandi resembles that of the CIA or MOSSAD. We have all been told that our "crime" is known, and the 'proof' has been found, so all we have to do is move out of state, hide, ask for forgiveness, or repent. Neil was told that he could not be hired by anyone but he still doesn't know what his 'crime' was. We presume his name, mine and all the other parents and teachers who have crossed the line into jeopardizing 'national security' are on The Monitoring Unitwebsite.

If these threats dont work to scare off, silence, or put the victim on the run, tougher measures are called for, and one lovely example of this is NYC Office of Legal Services'Chad Vignola's email about my "crimes" and about his very helpful resolution to all the problems, all of which were completely false, sent to all the members of the New York State Assembly on April 1, 2002, April Fool's Day in America.

Attacks such as this serve no useful purpose other than to intimidate. The questions that we, the intended victims, all ask are: how and why do Board of Education officials get away with this? We believe that the answer is in the pocketbooks of the people acting under color of law to make sure no one stops the removal of troublesome people from the process (of secretly taking public money). Keeping the answers to these questions hidden from the public is a matter of 'national security'.

5. Parents are kept out of this web of secrecy for good reason. What is going on in our city schools is, by all accounts, disastrous for the success, health, and welfare of the children inside. In NYC, despite the thousands of pretty fliers streaming out of the Tweed pentagon, our children are not being protected from terrorists; we do not have enough defibrillators or trained personnel who know how to use them (we called approximately 60 schools); safety of the school (building and personnel) comes before the protection of students from discrimination, physical violence and emotional harassment; special education children are being kicked out of their classrooms, locked up, physically and emotionally hurt, and the politico-educational complex is powerful enough to persuade judges at the city and state levels to go along with The Plan.

Below is an email received from a teacher when Chancellor Klein took over and changed the Math Curriculum:

From a Bronx teacher:

"I just wanted to share with you my thoughts on the High School Choice of Curriculum. We all know that a Book is NOT a curriculum, so that is Klein's first mistake... And then he said that he picked this book because it was aligned with Math A. Well I do not know how I will share this with him, but I have on my shelf, and in my possession a Prentice Hall Algebra Book "Algebra, Tools for a Changing World" That is identical to the Prenctice Math A book!!! The only difference is the COVER!!!! The first 500 pages are identical!!! (I am NOT kidding!) SO how could this book be aligned with the regents!!!

Two years ago my school purchased $65,000 worth of IMP books... Last year after fighting the superintendent we purchased $30,000 worth of Amsco Math A books... and now i have to purchase Prentice Hall books???? And did you know that they are $58 each!!! who can afford that!! The IMP book was $35 each and the Amsco book is $20. Is Bloomberg going to help us re-sell our IMP books?? They were only used once?? He is the buisness man.. shouldnt he know what to do? I am going to take a picture of my book rooms on monday and I am going to mail these pictures to the chancellor... Do you think it will make any difference??

Everyone is threatened into silence. Almost everyone, that is.

My story, Tom's story, Leo's story and all the other parents and teachers who have contributed to this report and website are proof that not everyone can be harassed enough to run from the abuse that the NYC BOE levies every day against those 'They' do not like because they cannot control us. This is, for Mayor Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, Michael Cardozo, Richard Condon, Rebecca Loughran and all the others who stand under the 'national security' "Children First" banner, the primary reason for their failure. They simply cannot win a war - education reform - without the support of the troops: the parents and teachers. They will fail, and after a new Mayor is elected and a new Chancellor appointed, many of the mistakes and secret dealings will be exposed for years to come. The tragedy is that the children in our public schools are the victims. Too many of them are not getting the help they need, and are being treated as if they are felons rather than kids in need.

6. The Tweed ring could not succeed at all without the support of the publishers, Editors, and producers of the news. Reporters who work at The New York Post (Rupert Murdoch's newspaper) have told us that they will not use any material that threatens The System, nor are any reporters allowed to quote parents who speak out in opposition to The System. Mr. Murdoch is, we have heard, a teacher for The NYC Leadership Academy. We wonder what he is teaching.

Who is Rupert Murdoch?

The Center for American Progress has on their website: "How one right-wing billionaire uses his business and media empire to pursue a partisan agenda at the expense of democracy". They write that he "has used the U.S. government's increasingly lax media regulations to consolidate his hold over the media and wider political debate in America. Consider Murdoch's empire: according to Businessweek, 'his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered'."

Exerpts from this website: Mr. Murdoch is a Media Manipulator, a War Monger, Neoconservative, Oil Imperialist, Intimidator, Far-Right Partisan, Bush supporter and Bush family employer ( hehired Bush cousin John Ellis), Apologist for Repressive Regimes (China), Union Buster, and more. Some or all of these claims may be true, but the point is to show how politicized our media really is. Money always 'talks'.

Of course, there are powerful others.

Most of us who read the news or listen to TV news know about the memos Dan Rather tried to pass off as true. Yet "ordinary" citizens just trying to find out what happened and why, cannot. We are 'allowed' every once in a while to take a peek behind the curtain, but this is rare. We have been told also by reporters who work at the Daily News that they cannot print anything about the potential breakdown of The NYC Education System because of a close relationship between the paper and Chancellor Klein.

The NYCBOE Office of Legal Services decides on a random basis whether or not to comply with Freedom of Information requests. Not one of my FOIA requests for information on MS 54 Principal Larry Lynch, Superintendent Patricia Romandetto of District 3, or The Review Committee, were complied with from 2001 to 2003. Then Mr. Robert Freeman of The Committee on Open Government told me that he had called the OLS, and someone there told him that they had complied, therefore, Mr. Freeman told me, he could "not give me the material a second time." I called Mr. Freeman up and asked him if he would agree to anything I said if it contradicted the OLS, and he said "no".

Michael Cardozo, Chief Counsel for the NYC Law Department/Corporation Counsel, oversees the attacks on teachers, parents and children who seek special education services and resources, teachers complaining about the lack of due process in NYC, and violations of civil rights. He is also the Legal consultant for NBC television's "Today" Show where my old friend Gabe Pressman works. Gabe asked me, in 1971-2, to accompany him while he taped news shows for channel 5 (now FOX TV). Now he no longer returns telephone calls. Michael Cardozo signed the Motion to Dismiss Federal complaint 03 Civ. 10304 against the New York City BOE, the City of NY, and 11 Defendants, in which he and his Assistant Corporation Counsel state, "Plaintiff also vaguely alleges, without any corresponding prayer for relief, that she has suffered some retaliation due to her actions as President of the PTA at Booker T. Washington MS 54..." Yet his agency sent the parents at Booker T., on the Review Committee, the Contract indemnifying all of them as they were removing me from the PTA as paid employees of the NYC BOE.

The City Law Department wrote, in this Contract, that the parents were paid to scream at me such things as "You abused my daughter", ""You are a liar", and "You have raised too much money for the PTA, therefore you must be intending to steal it." The parents were not paid nor were they employees of the city government, and could not be indemnified. But they were, and Supreme Court Judge Marilyn Shafer ordered that the City sidestep my lawyer and sanction me personally for filing a frivolous case against defendants who were protected by the City Law Department, whose salaries are being paid by my taxes.

Does the Mayor of New York City maintain a closed government? He certainly does. We can use the process whereby SNAPPLE became the drink of New York to prove it.

Tom Robbins on "Deals in the Dark: Snapple Town"
The Village Voice, June 1st, 2004

New York is Snapple Country now, thanks to the first-ever marketing deal that makes the beverage firm the city's exclusive brand. But that's not the only novel aspect of the arrangement. A $126 million pact gives Snapple the sole right to place juice and water vending machines in city buildings, plant its happy-script logo on sundry city properties, and promote itself as the city's official brand. A separate $40 million agreement allowed the company to place its machines in city schools.

But despite their size, neither deal underwent the kind of scrutiny normally accorded such contracts-and city and state officials are asking why not.

Last week, attorneys for comptroller William Thompson were before Supreme Court Justice Richard Braun seeking to overturn the citywide marketing deal on the grounds that Mayor Bloomberg skirted proper procedures by refusing to submit it to the city panel charged with approving all franchise and concessions.

Why didn't it require a vote? Because the deal was for "intellectual property," not tangible property like a parking lot or a bus shelter, which clearly calls for a vote in the city charter, a lawyer for the mayor argued. Thompson's attorney countered that the charter's definition was intended to be much broader. "These are the kinds of matters that need to be exposed to the public," said Judd Burstein, who is representing the comptroller.

The Snapple schools contract also sailed through without the usual vetting process. The mayor's people have dual explanations for that one. On the one hand, the new Department of Education is still under state legislation that doesn't require registration of all contracts with the comptroller. Also, in the case of the Snapple agreement, it was "a revenue type contract," not one involving the expenditure of public monies, an agency spokesman said.

Either way, two state lawmakers, Assemblyman Jim Brennan from Brooklyn and State Senator Eric Schneiderman from Manhattan and the Bronx, are sponsoring legislation that would change the education department's procurement policy. Their bill would obligate the agency to register its contracts, and to put no-bid deals-which have tripled under Bloomberg's reign-before the Panel on Educational Policy that replaced the old board of education.

"There would be the opportunity for sunshine, advance notice, and debate, as well as the necessity for justifying what they are doing out there," said Brennan."

and,

Gulp! How Mayor Bloomberg's business pros dribbled their marketing mission: Snapple in the Apple
by Tom Robbins, The Village Voice, April 27th, 2004

A big part of the rationale for electing a billionaire businessman as mayor was just that: Michael Bloomberg was a businessman, he'd made billions, ergo, he could get the job done.

But consider the flap-now in court-over the Bloomberg administration's maiden voyage into the brave new world of city marketing: its $40 million deal to sell Snapple Beverage Corporation the exclusive right to place its vending machines in city schools, along with a separate, $126 million pact to make Snapple New York's official brand.

Since Bloomberg announced the agreements last fall, city comptroller William Thompson has blasted them as tainted and improper. Last week, Thompson went to court to block the "official beverage" contract, arguing that Bloomberg's aides sidestepped City Charter rules in awarding it. Bloomberg, baring his new tough-guy sneer, dismissed the complaint as "political red tape." Such quibbling, he suggested, threatened some hefty corporate cash for New Yorkers. But just how businesslike has the performance of Bloomberg's team been in handling the Snapple affair?

Not very, according to an audit of the school vending machine contract released by Thompson last month. The audit depicts both outside expert consultants hired by the city and in-house bureaucrats as engaged in bumbling missteps and confusion, while promoting commercialism so crass that even Coca-Cola was appalled. Some examples:

With a pioneering, multimillion-dollar contract in the offing, exactly how did officials go about recruiting possible bidders? Answer: They made a couple of calls. According to the audit, Octagon, the high-priced private marketing firm retained by the Department of Education to handle the project, never sent solicitation letters to would-be vendors. Nor did it advertise. Instead, calls were made to two rather well-known companies, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola (Coke later dropped out, saying it couldn't get adequate information). The five other bidders all said they learned about the city's solicitation from "local vending machine operators." One company, Apple & Eve, told auditors that it learned about the contract opportunity in mid August, only one week before the deadline. In its response, the city said that advertising is ineffective and that Octagon called other firms as well-but they didn't apply.

How many vending machines can fit in the city's schools? This basic question, according to auditors, was a moving target. The outline provided by Octagon to bidders stated that there were 2,500 to 3,000 such machines in the schools. Was that a minimum? A maximum? A guess? One company, Veryfine, said that it was told that 3,000 was the limit. Snapple said it thought it was the minimum. Even those evaluating the bids expressed confusion. Octagon said it wanted to leave room for other vendors to provide milk and snack machines; agency officials said they wanted to keep the number secret to help evaluate the bids. The city response to the audit stated that Octagon and the agency "quite consciously" didn't set a figure.

Were teachers' lounges included? Three of five losing bidders said Octagon told them not to include them. Two others said they were told the opposite. The education department demonstrated just how confused it was on this score when it sought new bids for beverage vending machines in employee lounges just as it was agreeing to have Snapple provide 500 such machines. The new bids had to be cancelled.

How many ads can be beamed at school kids? Octagon's bidders' information package suggested that the lucky winner could place "six pages of advertising" in student planners, and affix its logo on "725 outdoor [basketball] backboards." Such product placements, Octagon said, offered a potential for 97.2 million annual "corporate identity impressions" on students. Logos placed in "general use facilities" could yield an additional 134 million such hits. Auditors said this approach runs afoul of state education policy, a claim the city denies. But Coca-Cola told auditors such direct targeting of students was "appalling," and even Snapple decided to forego the student planner and backboard ads.

Was Snapple's offer the highest bid? The mayor says yes; the comptroller said Snapple came in low, but hiked its bid significantly after Octagon and the director of the city's new Marketing Development Corporation drove to Snapple headquarters in White Plains to urge the firm to do so. Snapple was also preferable, the city said, because it is a popular brand with school kids. But Thompson said he found no evidence of market research to back the claim, despite city insistence that it had such information. Either way, both sides agree that the new 100 percent juice drinks proposed by Snapple for the schools had never been market tested anywhere before they were accepted by the city.

How did New York become Snapple country? The audit cites an exchange of e-mails between city officials and consultants, written on the eve of Snapple's selection, in which the controversial decision to dramatically expand the deal to include a citywide marketing arrangement was made. The decision was prompted by a desire to leave an opening for another city partnership with a carbonated soda firm, and also created a bias toward bigger firms that could handle a larger citywide deal, Thompson said.

In an April 12 letter ordering the comptroller to register the citywide contract, Bloomberg called the Snapple agreements "praiseworthy," but admitted problems. "They have not been the product of a perfected process that the city will seek to replicate in the future," wrote the mayor.

SNAPPLE

The latest stats over the secret SNAPPLE deal shows why no-bid contracts, secret deals, and political procurement processes are not good for taxpayers and non-defense government agencies:

Mayor's 'Snapple plan' running $750K deficit
BY CURTIS L. TAYLOR, NY Newsday

LINK

"The city's controversial new marketing agency ran a deficit of nearly $700,000 during its first year of operation, despite landing a lucrative contract granting Snapple exclusive beverage rights in the Big Apple, according to an independent audit obtained by Newsday.

The York City Marketing Development Corp. had a $692,249 deficit when its first fiscal year ended June 30, according to the audit conducted by the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP.

The agency also had an outstanding loan of $1.2 million from the New York City Economic Development Corp., according to the audit.

The marketing development corporation's biggest expenses during the fiscal year were $1.1 million in personal services and $321,944 in contract costs, the audit showed.

In a statement yesterday, Joseph Perello, who heads the marketing agency, acknowledged the deficit and the outstanding loan but said the not-for-profit agency had been operating in the black since April.

"No other city in the country has a marketing office like this generating millions of dollars in new revenue for New York City to use for essential services," Perello said of the operation, which has exclusive authority to sell the city's sponsorship and licensing deals."

Really? How will the public ever know?

Education policy should not be implemented in secrecy without accountability. Children are not guns, missiles and tanks. We must make every effort to stop the education establishment from simulating the American military-industrial complex.

Related articles:

Debate on Secret Program Bursts Into Open
By DOUGLAS JEHL , NY TIMES, December 10, 2004

LINK

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - An intense secret debate about a previously unknown, enormously expensive technical intelligence program has burst into light in the form of scathing criticism from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

For two years, the senators have disclosed, Republicans and Democrats on the panel have voted to block the secret program, which is believed to be a system of new spy satellites. But it continues to be financed at a cost that former Congressional officials put at hundreds of millions of dollars a year with support from the House, the Bush administration and Congressional appropriations committees.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the panel, denounced the program on Wednesday on the Senate floor as "totally unjustified and very, very wasteful."

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, later called it "unnecessary, ineffective, over budget and too expensive."

Neither senator would say much more about what he was referring to. Even in private on Thursday, most Congressional and intelligence officials who were asked refused to comment about the name, purpose or cost of the program. But former Congressional and intelligence officials who oppose it said it would duplicate capabilities in existence or in development, as part of the country's vast network of satellites, aircraft and drones designed for eavesdropping and reconnaissance.

Among the possibilities suggested by private experts, including John Pike of Globalsecurity.org, a research organization in Alexandria, Va., were that the system might be a controversial unproven program to launch a reconnaissance satellite that adversaries could not detect. Former Congressional officials said they would discount speculation that the debate had to do with any antisatellite space warfare capability.

A number of satellite programs in development, including a Future Imaging Architecture system that Boeing is developing, have been the subject of considerable public controversy, because of technical problems and cost overruns. But current and former government officials said they did not believe that the Boeing program was the subject of the new dispute.

In addition to Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Wyden, two other Democratic senators made their opposition public on Wednesday, saying the money dedicated to the acquisition program could better be transferred to other intelligence gathering as part of what is widely understood to be the $40 billion intelligence budget.

The program being disputed by the senators is to be financed this year, but current and former government officials said Republicans as well as Democrats intended to redouble their efforts to block it.

The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did not respond to a request for comment about the dispute. The Republican chairman of the House military appropriations subcommittee, whose support for the program has been instrumental in keeping it alive, also did not respond to a request for comment.

The most specific public hints on the program were by Mr. Wyden, who said on the Senate floor, "This issue must be highlighted, because it is not going away."

"Numerous independent reviews," he said, "have concluded that the program does not fulfill a major intelligence gap or shortfall, and the original justification for developing this technology has eroded in importance due to the changed practices and capabilities of our adversaries. There are a number of other programs in existence and in development whose capabilities can match those envisioned for this program at far less cost and technological risk."

The Senate Intelligence Committee first expressed concern about the program three years ago, and it has voted to block it for the last two years, Congressional officials said. A former Defense Department official said of the program: "This is something that does not pass muster and is indicative of the inability of intelligence agencies to prioritize or make decisions. There are billions of dollars of waste in the intelligence budget."

A former Congressional official said that "hard decisions should have been made to make choices" when Congress first authorized and appropriated the money several years ago.

"Instead," the former official said, "the decision was made to just go ahead with go with everything."

Even the $40 billion figure attached to the current intelligence budget remains no more than an estimate, because spending figures remain classified by law. But much of the budget is widely understood to be devoted to the design, construction and operation of satellites and other platforms used to collect images, signals and other forms of technical intelligence.

Many critics have long complained that human intelligence programs remain underfinanced, at least in relative terms. In a directive last month, President Bush asked the C.I.A. to spell out a plan and a timetable to increase its clandestine service by 50 percent.

A compromise negotiated between the House and Senate this week provides authorization for continued financing for the disputed program. It was approved by 13 of the 17 senators on the Intelligence Committee and all of their House counterparts.

Because the financing had been approved in a military appropriations bill, Congressional officials said, the authorizing committees did not have the power to transfer the money to other intelligence programs.

But an unclassified version of the conference report released on Wednesday reported that Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, both Democrats, along with Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Wyden, had refused to sign the compromise.

The report said the senators believed that the money dedicated for what was described only as "a major acquisition program" ought to be "expended on other intelligence programs that will make a surer and greater contribution to national security."

Secret Sessions of House and Senate

Texas Attorney General Vows To Prosecute Violations of the Texas Public Information Act.

Silencing Opposition: The Constitution is Suspended in New York City Until Further Notice

ALERT: Pentagon Officials are Considering Using Disinformation as a Tool to Win Allies, Conquer Foes

What happens if New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer decides to prosecute the FOIA violations and other secret no-bid contracts here in New York?

Two Innocent Men Are Freed After A "Fair Trial" Convicted Them - 30 Years Ago

Thirty years from now are we going to hear about all the people who were wrongfully accused, lost their jobs, homes and families after being found guilty for no reason by unfair Arbitrators at 3020-a arbitration?

I hope not. Fight false claims, never give up!

Betsy Combier

TUE SEP 02, 2014 AT 05:56 PM PDT

Does a Supreme Court Justice just say, "oops"?

LINK

Today in NC two innocent men were freed 30 years after being wrongfully convicted of murder.  Which means for thirty years the innocent 11 year old girl left lying in a field after being raped and suffocated to death didn't get justice. Which means that for thirty years the real killer did not pay for his crime.  Which means that for thirty years, the real killer was able to destroy the lives of even more innocent people.

Both men, who have IQ's below 70 falsely confessed to crime.  As is usual in these situations, they confessed after hours and hours of pressure, locked in a room.  Contrary to what people believe, people do confess to crimes they didn't commit.

According to a University of Virginia report released Aug. 21, nearly 20 percent of defendants who have been exonerated by DNA evidence had falsely confessed to the crime.

DNA found at the scene and finally tested after all of these years, exonerated the two men.  The prosecutor did not even oppose the Motion to dismiss the charges against the two men.  In fact, the DNA implicates a man already convicted of similar crimes at a time very close to the time this crime was committed.  But really, at this point, the exoneration of innocent men is hardly big news.  At least 317 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

The real news is below the fold:

What is news in this NC case is that the arrogance and wrong-headedness of a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has been put on display for everyone to see.  In 1994 the Supreme Court turned down a request to hear the appeal in Mr. McCollum's case.  Justice Harry A. Blackmun, an eventual opponent of the death penalty had voted to hear the case.  Justice Blackmun noted that Mr. McCollum had the mental age of a 9-year-old and said “this factor alone persuades me that the death penalty in this case is unconstitutional.”  In fact, Justice Blackmun had completely renounced the death penalty in general saying he would, "no longer tinker with the machinery of death".  He said that decisions involving the death penalty were too subjective and prone to human error for the death penalty ever to be administered constitutionally.

Unfazed by Justice Blackmun's concerns, Justice Antonin Scalia accused Justice Blackmun of attempting to “thrust a minority’s views upon the people.”  Scalia strongly maintained that society had a need for the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for the most heinous of crimes. In fact, as evidence for his opinion he wrote about two cases before the Supreme Court at the time, which he believed made death by lethal injection look “enviable.” One of those cases concerned the brutal rape and murder of 11-year-old Sabrina Buie, committed in Red Springs, North Carolina.  That case, the one that Justice Scalia found to be most deserving of the death penalty, is the murder for which these two men were exonerated today.  

Henry McCollum was 20 when he was sentenced to death for committing the crime Scalia described. Today, he walked out of prison a free man.  Like most of those who are exonerated, Mr. McCollum is looking forward instead of backward.  But the ability of these two men to forgive and forget doesn't mean that the rest of us should ignore the fact that, contrary to the opinion of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, neither of these men deserved a day in prison, much less execution.  The arrogance of a society that thinks taking another person's life is justified so long as they had "a fair trial" is on full display.  The belief that any system that relies on fallible humans can ever be reliable enough to kill in the name of the Government shows a complete lack of understanding basic human nature.  It isn't often that a Supreme Court Justice is shown just how utterly wrong his opinions are.  Luckily today,  at least two men have overcome a system designed to convict the accused and have proven just how fallible our highest court can be.  I wonder what Justice Scalia has to say now.

6:03 PM PT: Please see sydserious' diary that was posted just before mine for more about this.http://www.dailykos.com/...