Chancellor Carranza Appoints Executive Superintendents

Richard Carranza, his wife (left) and former Chancellor Carmen Farina

CHANCELLOR CARRANZA ANNOUNCES APPOINTMENT OF LINDA P. CHEN AS CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER AND NAMES NEW EXECUTIVE SUPERINTENDENTS

The nine Executive Superintendents will streamline supports, bring resources closer to schools, and create a clear line of accountability from each classroom to the Chancellor

 

NEW YORK – Schools Chancellor Richard A. Carranza today announced the appointment of Dr. Linda Chen as Chief Academic Officer and also named the nine Executive Superintendents who will oversee the community and high school superintendents and Field Support Centers in their districts and ensure schools and families are served efficiently and effectively.

 

“I’m excited to bring these proven experts on board and I’m confident they are ready to hit the ground running and move our school system forward,” said Schools Chancellor Richard A. Carranza. “We’re focused on supporting and empowering school communities to achieve equity and excellence for every student, and I know that these are the right leaders to help us build a world-class education system.”

 

The new Chief Academic Officer will unify and streamline instructional supports – including professional development and curricular resources and materials – to make rigorous teaching accessible to all learners, including students with disabilities and English Language Learners. The nine Executive Superintendents will provide greater alignment between superintendents and Field Support Centers to expand our work to support school principals, educators, students and families. The CAO and nine Executive Superintendents are:

 

Dr. Linda P. Chen, Chief Academic Officer

Dr. Linda P. Chen will oversee instructional supports for all learners and manage the Divisions of Teaching and Learning, Special Education, and English Language Learners. Chen previously served as Chief Academic Officer of Baltimore City Public Schools, Deputy Chief Academic Officer of Boston Public Schools, and Assistant Superintendent and Deputy Chief of Teaching and Learning in the School District of Philadelphia. She currently serves as Vice President, Engagement and Implementation at Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE). Chen started school speaking very limited English and brings a deep knowledge of serving English Language Learners and students with disabilities to her position. Prior to joining the School District of Philadelphia, Chen was principal of PS 165 in Manhattan, literacy supervisor in Queens, and taught elementary school at PS 163 in Manhattan.

 

“I’m excited to return to New York City public schools as Chief Academic Officer and be part of the Mayor and Chancellor’s bold Equity and Excellence for All agenda,” said Dr. Linda P. Chen. “I’m looking forward to working with our great New York City educators and hearing about what’s working and where we can improve. Together, we’ll ensure that the work we do at a central level supports our schools and provides all our students with the rich academic experiences they deserve.”

 

Recy Benjamin Dunn, Executive Superintendent for Affinity Schools

Recy Benjamin Dunn most recently served as Chief Operations and Growth Officer at YES Prep Public Schools in Houston. In New York City, he served as regional director for the nonprofit New Leaders and led major initiatives within the DOE as Executive Director of the Office of Early Childhood Education and later the Office of Charter Schools. Prior to his work in New York City, Dunn also held critical roles in Prince George’s County Public Schools and the District of Columbia Public Schools.

 

Barbara Freeman, Executive Superintendent for Brooklyn South, Districts 17, 18, 20, 21, and 22 

Barbara Freeman has served as superintendent of district 13 in Brooklyn since 2011, leading the district to increased student performance in Math and ELA. She has served at the DOE for over 30 years, beginning as an early childhood teacher and director, and later working as assistant principal, and then principal of the Don Pedro Albizu Campos School.

 

Tim Lisante, Executive Superintendent for Transfer Schools, District 79, and Adult and Continuing Education

Tim Lisante began his career as a teacher and assistant principal at Alfred E. Smith Vocational High School, before becoming principal at Island Academy on Rikers Island. He then served as a local instructional superintendent, and Deputy Superintendent in the Office of Adult and Continuing Education. Since 2011, he has been superintendent of District 79, New York City’s Alternative Schools District.

 

Anthony Lodico, Executive Superintendent for Staten Island, District 31

Anthony Lodico began his professional career as an English and Drama teacher at Port Richmond High School. He later served as assistant principal of Port Richmond High School, principal of Edward R. Murrow High School in Brooklyn, and superintendent of high schools in the Bronx and Manhattan. He has been superintendent for District 31 and Staten Island high schools since 2014, where he oversees 69 schools and 3 Pre-K centers.

 

Lawrence Pendergast, Executive Superintendent for Queens North, Districts 24-26 and 30

Lawrence Pendergast has served as a teacher, educational coach, instructional specialist, assistant principal, principal, and network leader. He was founding principal of Urban Assembly School of Design and Construction in Manhattan, and executive principal of Leadership and Public Service High School. He has been the Executive Director of the Queens North Field Support Center since 2015, supporting 168 schools.  

 

Marisol Rosales, Executive Superintendent for Manhattan, Districts 1-6

Marisol Rosales began her career as a physical education teacher, and later became an assistant principal and principal before becoming a network leader. She served as principal of Bedford Stuyvesant Preparatory Academy, and has been superintendent of Manhattan High Schools since 2012, where she currently oversees 47 high schools. She also served as Executive Director of Leadership in the Office of Leadership at the DOE central office.

 

Meisha Ross Porter, Executive Superintendent for the Bronx, Districts 7-12

Meisha Ross Porter served as a long-time principal and assistant principal of The Bronx School for Law, Government, and Justice, a school she helped found in the 1990’s. She has been superintendent of District 11 in the Bronx since 2015, where she oversees 45 schools and four pre-k centers. In her role as Superintendent, Ross Porter has been invested in deepening school leaders’ equity lens and building collaborative practices across schools. 

 

Andre Spencer, Executive Superintendent for Queens South, Districts 27-29

Andre Spencer previously served as a regional superintendent in the Houston Independent School District, and a network team leader in Baltimore Public Schools. He served in the US Army and began his teaching career in Baltimore where he worked as a science teacher, assistant principal and principal. He most recently served as superintendent of schools for Harrison School District Two district in Colorado, from 2013 to 2018.

 

Karen Watts, Executive Superintendent for Brooklyn North, Districts 13-16, 19, 23, and 32

Karen Watts was born in Guyana and began teaching there at the age of 16. She later served as a high school science teacher in New York City, before becoming principal at Wadleigh Secondary School for the Performing and Visual Arts in Manhattan, and then ACORN High School for Social Justice, now the Brooklyn School for Law and Technology, in Brooklyn. She has been the superintendent of Brooklyn North high schools since 2010.

   

The Executive Superintendents and Chief Academic Officer will start on September 5, 2018 and support schools as they start the new school year. These new appointments will further advance the Mayor and Chancellor’s Equity and Excellence for All agenda to ensure that, by 2026, 80 percent of students graduate high school on time and two-thirds of graduates are college and career ready.

 

The Equity and Excellence for All agenda is building a pathway to success in college and careers for all students. Our students are starting school earlier, with free, full-day, high-quality education for three-year-olds and four-year-olds through 3-K for All and Pre-K for All; and our schools are strengthening foundational skills and instruction earlier, with Universal Literacy and Algebra for All. Our schools are also offering students more challenging, hands-on, college and career-aligned coursework, as Computer Science for All brings 21st-century computer science instruction to every school, and AP for All works to give all high school students access to at least five Advanced Placement courses. Along the way, our schools are providing students and families additional support through College Access for All, Single Shepherd, and investment in Community Schools. Efforts to create more diverse and inclusive classrooms are central to this pathway.

 

###

Contact:  Chancellor’s Press Office (212) 374-5141

More information from Editor Betsy Combier:

We found this article on Google:
Banished by the School, Beloved by Its Parents
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS, APRIL 17, 2005

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/nyregion/banished-by-the-school-beloved-by-its-parents.html

As the principal put it in a formal disciplinary letter, the assistant principal had "failed to attend to a life-threatening emergency." He had ignored the needs of an unconscious child in a classroom. Instead, he had chosen to do the hokeypokey and the Macarena with 120 kindergartners. It seemed an open-and-shut case.
Except for one thing. The word in the halls of Public School 165 on the Upper West Side was very different. In a "Rashomon"-like twist, parents, teachers, secretaries and custodians all defended "Señor Howard," as they called him.
The conflicting narratives reveal the often yawning gulf between the rule-bound, corporate-style management of schools these days, and the more nuanced view on the ground. To listen to the city's Department of Education, the school system is defined by regional offices, local instructional superintendents and strict chains of command. To the people closer to the ground, a place like P.S. 165, on West 109th Street near Amsterdam Avenue, is like a family, dependent on an intricate network of human relationships to function smoothly.
Most of the facts about this episode are not in dispute. On Jan. 25, in a first-grade special education classroom, a boy knocked a classmate named Clarence to the ground, rendering him unconscious. The class was being led by an inexperienced teacher who had been having problems maintaining order. Before the fight, Clarence's mother had complained to the principal that her child was being bullied.
The principal, Linda Chen, was away at a conference, but someone in the main office called 911, and the school nurse rushed to the class. Meanwhile, a secretary went downstairs to find Howard Matza, the longtime assistant principal, one of whose many jobs it was to oversee hundreds of children in the cafeteria and on the playground because of complaints that the school aides were not able to keep order.

Mr. Matza told the secretary to send Fabayo McIntosh, a math coach, to the classroom, because he thought that she could get there faster and that he should stay with the 120 kindergartners he was supervising. The math coach hurried to the classroom; the mother arrived soon after and accompanied her son to the hospital.
A month later, on Feb. 28, when parents and teachers returned from a weeklong winter break, they were mystified to find Mr. Matza gone. Teachers began wearing buttons with the letters WH -- for "Where's Howard?" -- until the principal ordered that they be removed.

It turned out that Mr. Matza had been removed for "dereliction of duty," as Ms. Chen put it in the disciplinary letter. He was sitting idly in a regional office while the Education Department was deciding what to do with him. (He was still there last week, and he said he was still confident he had done the right thing.) On March 11, parents sent a letter to their instructional superintendent, Roser Salavert, demanding that Mr. Matza be reinstated. When that request went nowhere, they sought help from Eva Moskowitz, chairwoman of the City Council's Education Committee.
Ten days ago, Ms. Moskowitz called a meeting at P.S. 165 to hear parents' concerns. About 30 teachers sat together wearing black, as if in mourning. Some 60 or 70 parents filled the front of the auditorium, many with children in tow. The Department of Education sent two high-ranking officials, Dr. Salavert and Dan McCray, a lawyer.
Ms. Chen, the principal, was there too, sitting in a front row with her union representative. But despite heckling from the audience, she never spoke. Her silence, some parents said, was telling.
Last year, Mr. Matza was the unofficial first choice of a search committee of parents and educators to become principal of the school, but he withdrew his candidacy. Ms. Chen, a teacher and literacy coach, was appointed over the committee's objections. But many parents said they found her cold and autocratic. They complained that she never greeted them at the door. Teachers said that she scolded them for small infractions like missing deadlines. P.S. 165 is a dual-language school (English and Spanish), but Ms. Chen does not speak Spanish. (Her second language is Chinese.)
One mother, Diane Lanier, took the microphone to suggest that if Mr. Matza had left the lunchroom and something bad had happened there, he would have been blamed. Had Mr. Matza broken any rules? Ms. Moskowitz asked. Mr. McCray, the lawyer, said he didn't know, but added that the bottom line was that "Mr. Matza did not personally take charge of a situation in which a child was unconscious." As for Clarence, happily he was back in school the next day.
COPING E-mail: amh@nytimes.com.

 

Recy Benjamin Dunn, Chief Operating Officer
Member of the YES Prep Team Since 2014

 As Chief Operating Officer, Recy (pictured above, bottom row left) leads system-wide operations, district partnerships and growth strategy. Recy formerly served as the Senior Executive Director for Cities at New Leaders, a national nonprofit that develops transformational school leaders. He managed and supported all city executive directors across eight program sites nationally. Recy filled numerous roles at school districts, including the New York City Department of Education where he was the Executive Director of the Charter Schools Office, leading a team responsible for coordinating a portfolio of 136 charter schools. Recy also served as Executive Director of Early Childhood at the NYCDOE, managing early childhood initiatives citywide with a focus on Universal Prekindergarten. Previously, he worked at Prince George's County Public Schools in Maryland and before that completed The Broad Residency in Urban Education while at the District of Columbia Public Schools. Prior to his education experience, Recy worked in the public and private sector in several organizations. Recy has an MBA and an MA in Education from Stanford, and undergraduate degrees from the University of Texas at Austin. Additionally, he completed his School District Leadership certification program at Bank Street College of Education.)

How To Win a 3020-a Hearing

UFT General Counsel Adam Ross, UFT President Mike Mulgrew, former
Chancellor Carmen Farina, and former NYC DOE General Counsel
Courtenaye Jackson-Chase

As I have said many times on this blog for the past 11 years, 3020-a arbitration can be won, if you have a strong defense. My definition of a "win" is an Award of complete exoneration, a small fine, a short suspension, or a reprimand. A loss is anything else, which includes a long suspension, a fine $10,000 or above, and termination. This is a general guideline, because if a Respondent has been fined let's say $2,000 and wants to appeal because the charges were false on their face and the arbitrator was biased or did not make a good faith effort to be impartial, then we will fight the fine.

My suggestion is that every employee must take action to preserve his/her record and job starting right now, even if there is no sign that anyone is - or will - target you. All NYC Department of Education employees should consider what he/she would do when or if charged with either incompetency or misconduct WAY BEFORE any charges are served.

Here are some of my guidelines for establishing a strong defense against any charges brought against you. Again, I am not an attorney, but I have participated in 70 cases of 3020-a arbitration, and won most of the cases:

Remember these warnings:

*If you retire after being charged but before you go through the hearing, your license is terminated and the charges stay on your record.

*If you settle you cannot sue the NYC DOE for any action taken up to the date of signing, and you cannot appeal.

*If you do not testify at the hearing you will be terminated.

*As the 3020-a hearing process is not based upon the rules, laws, and regulations which you are told to rely on, you must do a lot of work on discovering the secret deals made by the UFT and the NYC DOE which have changed the way cases are done in New York City as opposed to elsewhere in New York State. For example, the charging papers for 3020-a have a page included in the packet served on a Respondent (tenured teacher) saying that probable cause for 3020-a charges have been determined at an Executive Session of the Panel For Educational Policy, the NYC school board. But there will be no date for an Executive Session listed in the papers served. (See the law, below). Outside of NYC the omission of a vote in Executive Session of the school board is grounds to dismiss the 3020-a. I know, I've done that.

There is no date because in NYC there was no Executive Session or vote on the probable cause. The UFT/NYSUT and NYC DOE want the hearings to be under their total control, and want the hearings to proceed quickly, so the right to a vote in Executive Session pursuant to Education Law 3020-a(2)(a) was waived, secretly, without the knowledge or consent of the employee who is served charges. For this reason a plethora of substitutions/excuses for the missing dates will be given, but the bottom line is that NYSUT will not argue in favor of an Executive Session and vote on probable cause. In my opinion, this action harms all charged employees and I always submit a Motion To Dismiss with supporting exhibits in every hearing.

See my post on this blog about a secret meeting held at NYC DOE headquarters on February 24, 2015. At this meeting for all NYSUT Attorneys and all arbitrators, former Chancellor Carmen Farina spoke about the need for speed and called all the assembled people her "army".

I filed a Freedom of Information request for all the paperwork on this meeting after an arbitrator on the incompetency panel told me about it.

In fact, NYSUT may pursue a probable cause hearing so that the Respondent/you can be taken off salary for two or more months. We have put a stop to these hearings, at least for now - we heard that the NYC DOE and NYSUT are looking for an arbitrator to hearing these cases brought to probable cause. I have sent the right questions to the right people about why these hearings are illegal.

*document everything. Write down in a journal everything that happens every day, and I am not kidding. When you get home from school, write down everything that you remember, everyone who entered your class, anything unusual and whatever lesson you were doing.

*If you are an ATR you are rated S/U. In NYC, the growing number of Absent Teacher Reserve (ATRs), speech teachers, and teachers of pre-k are all rated on the S/U APPR, not Danielson. So, the following procedure for formal observations stands. See Teaching For The 21st Century, Component B:

UFT wins observation conferences grievance

LINK

BY DOROTHY CALLACI | OCTOBER 6, 2016 NEW YORK TEACHER ISSUE

A recent arbitration ruling with significance for more than 5,000 teachers reinforces the UFT position that principals must conduct separate pre-observation and post-observation conferences when formally observing UFT members who are still rated under the Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory system.

Arbitrator Marlene Gold found that a principal’s acknowledged, so-called practice of making the post-conference for one formal observation the pre-observation conference for the next violated the UFT-DOE contract. Her ruling stressed the “clear and unambiguous” language of the contract regarding the need for separate and distinct conferences before and after a formal observation.

The arbitrator relied upon the testimony of UFT representatives when ruling that a preobservation conference must focus on the specific content of the lesson to be observed and the areas to be evaluated.

Gold ordered the formal observation report in question removed from the file of the teacher who filed the grievance. She also said that it could not be considered in determining the teacher’s overall rating for that school year.

UFT Grievance Director Ellen Gallin- Procida said the arbitrator’s ruling was important “because it confirms the different, but equally important roles of the pre- and post-observation conferences in supporting a teacher’s professional growth.”

The principal also acknowledged at the arbitration hearing that she did not announce formal observations in advance — another violation, according to Gold.

With respect to the principal’s lack of notice, Gallin-Procida said the arbitrator’s ruling “confirms that a formal observation is one where the teacher knows in advance when an administrator is coming.”

UFT members most affected by the arbitration decision include speech and pre-K teachers and teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve and others not covered by the Advance teacher evaluation system.

Mindy Karten Bornemann, the speech improvement chapter leader, said she was delighted with the unambiguous language of the ruling. “The pre-observation conference gives our members the opportunity to discuss their lesson prior to their formal observation so they can do their very best,” she said.

UFT-DOE Agreement on rubber rooms April 15, 2010

*If you are not an ATR but a full-time tenured employee, then you must fight the Danielson rating rubrics. There is a way to overcome the 60% given to observation ratings in the HEDI score.

*rebut all observations, letters to file, counseling memos, letters, emails.

*grieve all end-of-year ratings that are "ineffective"; rebut any "developing ratings.

*secretly tape all meetings/conversations with the administration, including observation feedback meetings. (I am not a lawyer, but would never advise anyone to violate a law! In New York State, a one-party state, it is legal to secretly tape anyone with whom you are in a conversation).

*decide who you want to represent you at a 3020-a, if you are charged. You have a choice as to whether or not you have a NYSUT Attorney or a private Attorney speak for you in these hearings. You can also go pro se and do it yourself, but if you are thinking about doing that, you need to have an advocate with you who can help with procedures. Some arbitrators are vicious and don't want to arbitrate a hearing with the Respondent representing him/herself. Call around, speak with people and go with someone who puts you first and wants to involve you in the process.

*ask for an open and public hearing to make sure that you have people who can watch the proceedings. Anyone who is a potential witness cannot be an observer, too.

*choose witnesses to testify for you, have your attorney subpoena them if they are currently working for the NYC DOE.

*when proceeding with the hearing, be a partner with the Attorney and/or legal team. Give all information about anything and everything that you think shows the false allegations and the true allegations. Admitting to something that you did is good, within a comprehensive examination of all the evidence and facts. Credibility is very important, and not appealable.

*ask your legal team/representative to send you all transcripts when they are emailed so you can spot any errors, as well as assist in making closing arguments.

*give your legal team points that you want to have in the hearing itself, or argued at closing, including any misconduct of the principal or other administrators.

Think about it. Your career is about to be changed without your consent. Don't let that happen.

Betsy Combier
 betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Education Law
Title IV  Teachers and Pupils
Article 61  Teachers and Supervisory and Administrative Staff

NY CLS Educ § 3020-a  (2015)

§ 3020-a.  Disciplinary procedures and penalties
1. Filing of charges. All charges against a person enjoying the benefits of tenure as provided in subdivision three of section eleven hundred two, and sections twenty-five hundred nine, twenty-five hundred seventy-three, twenty-five hundred ninety-j, three thousand twelve and three thousand fourteen of this chapter shall be in writing and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board during the period between the actual opening and closing of the school year for which the employed is normally required to serve. Except as provided in subdivision eight of section twenty-five hundred seventy-three and subdivision seven of section twenty-five hundred ninety-j of this chapter, no charges under this section shall be brought more than three years after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct, except when the charge is of misconduct constituting a crime when committed.

2. Disposition of charges.

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

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

     c. Where charges of misconduct constituting physical or sexual abuse of a student are brought on or after July first, two thousand fifteen, the board of education may suspend the employee without pay pending an expedited hearing pursuant to subparagraph (i-a) of paragraph c of subdivision three of this section. Notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, the commissioner shall establish a process in regulations for a probable cause hearing before an impartial hearing officer within ten days to determine whether the decision to suspend an employee without pay pursuant to this paragraph should be continued or reversed. The process for selection of an impartial hearing officer shall be as similar as possible to the regulatory framework for the appointment of an impartial hearing officer for due process complaints pursuant to section forty-four hundred four of this chapter. The hearing officer shall determine whether probable cause supports the charges and shall reverse the decision of the board of education to suspend the employee without pay and reinstate such pay upon a finding that probable cause does not support the charges. The hearing officer may also reinstate pay upon a written determination that a suspension without pay is grossly disproportionate in light of all surrounding circumstances. Provided, further, that such an employee shall be eligible to receive reimbursement for withheld pay and accrued interest at a rate of six percent compounded annually if the hearing officer finds in his or her favor, either at the probable cause hearing or in a final determination pursuant to the expedited hearing held pursuant to subparagraph (i-a) of paragraph c of subdivision three of this section. Any suspension without pay shall last no longer than one hundred and twenty days from the decision of the board of education to suspend the employee without pay and such suspension shall only relate to employee compensation, exclusive of other benefits and guarantees. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation to the contrary, any provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the city of New York as of April first, two thousand fifteen, that provides for suspension without pay for offenses as specified in this paragraph shall supersede the provisions hereof and shall continue in effect without modification and may be extended.

     d. The employee shall be terminated without a hearing, as provided for in this section, upon conviction of a sex offense, as defined in subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision seven-a of section three hundred five of this chapter. To the extent this section applies to an employee acting as a school administrator or supervisor, as defined in subparagraph three of paragraph b of subdivision seven-b of section three hundred five of this chapter, such employee shall be terminated without a hearing, as provided for in this section, upon conviction of a felony offense defined in subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision seven-b of section three hundred five of this chapter.
   <1>

     e.  (i) For hearings commenced by the filing of charges prior to July first, two thousand fifteen, within ten days of receipt of the statement of charges, the employee shall notify the clerk or secretary of the employing board in writing whether he or she desires a hearing on the charges and when the charges concern pedagogical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgment, his or her choice of either a single hearing officer or a three member panel, provided that a three member panel shall not be available where the charges concern pedagogical incompetence based solely upon a teacher's or principal's pattern of ineffective teaching or performance as defined in section three thousand twelve-c of this article. All other charges shall be heard by a single hearing officer.

         (ii) All hearings commenced by the filing of charges on or after July first, two thousand fifteen shall be heard by a single hearing officer.

     <1>f. The unexcused failure of the employee to notify the clerk or secretary of his or her desire for a hearing within ten days of the receipt of charges shall be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing. Where an employee requests a hearing in the manner provided for by this section, the clerk or secretary of the board shall, within three working days of receipt of the employee's notice or request for a hearing, notify the commissioner of the need for a hearing. If the employee waives his or her right to a hearing the employing board shall proceed, within fifteen days, by a vote of a majority of all members of such board, to determine the case and fix the penalty, if any, to be imposed in accordance with subdivision four of this section.

3. Hearings.

     a. Notice of hearing. Upon receipt of a request for a hearing in accordance with subdivision two of this section, the commissioner shall forthwith notify the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter "association") of the need for a hearing and shall request the association to provide to the commissioner forthwith a list of names of persons chosen by the association from the association's panel of labor arbitrators to potentially serve as hearing officers together with relevant biographical information on each arbitrator. Upon receipt of said list and biographical information, the commissioner shall forthwith send a copy of both simultaneously to the employing board and the employee. The commissioner shall also simultaneously notify both the employing board and the employee of each potential hearing officer's record in the last five cases of commencing and completing hearings within the time periods prescribed in this section.

     b.  (i) Hearing officers. All hearings pursuant to this section shall be conducted before and by a single hearing officer selected as provided for in this section. A hearing officer shall not be eligible to serve in such position if he or she is a resident of the school district, other than the city of New York, under the jurisdiction of the employing board, an employee, agent or representative of the employing board or of any labor organization representing employees of such employing board, has served as such agent or representative within two years of the date of the scheduled hearing, or if he or she is then serving as a mediator or fact finder in the same school district.

             (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for hearings commenced by the filing of charges prior to April first, two thousand twelve, the hearing officer shall be compensated by the department with the customary fee paid for service as an arbitrator under the auspices of the association for each day of actual service plus necessary travel and other reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of his or her duties. All other expenses of the disciplinary proceedings commenced by the filing of charges prior to April first, two thousand twelve shall be paid in accordance with rules promulgated by the commissioner. Claims for such compensation for days of actual service and reimbursement for necessary travel and other expenses for hearings commenced by the filing of charges prior to April first, two thousand twelve shall be paid from an appropriation for such purpose in the order in which they have been approved by the commissioner for payment, provided payment shall first be made for any other hearing costs payable by the commissioner, including the costs of transcribing the record, and provided further that no such claim shall be set aside for insufficiency of funds to make a complete payment, but shall be eligible for a partial payment in one year and shall retain its priority date status for appropriations designated for such purpose in future years.

             (B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary, for hearings commenced by the filing of charges on or after April first, two thousand twelve, the hearing officer shall be compensated by the department for each day of actual service plus necessary travel and other reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of his or her duties, provided that the commissioner shall establish a schedule for maximum rates of compensation of hearing officers based on customary and reasonable fees for service as an arbitrator and provide for limitations on the number of study hours that may be claimed.

         (ii) The commissioner shall mail to the employing board and the employee the list of potential hearing officers and biographies provided to the commissioner by the association, the employing board and the employee, individually or through their agents or representatives, shall by mutual agreement select a hearing officer from said list to conduct the hearing and shall notify the commissioner of their selection.

         (iii) Within fifteen days after receiving the list of potential hearing officers as described in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, the employing board and the employee shall each notify the commissioner of their agreed upon hearing officer selection. If the employing board and the employee fail to agree on an arbitrator to serve as a hearing officer from the list of potential hearing officers, or fail to notify the commissioner of a selection within such fifteen day time period, the commissioner shall appoint a hearing officer from the list. The provisions of this subparagraph shall not apply in cities with a population of one million or more with alternative procedures specified in section three thousand twenty of this article.

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

     c. Hearing procedures.

         (i)  (A) The commissioner shall have the power to establish necessary rules and procedures for the conduct of hearings under this section.

             (B) The department shall be authorized to monitor and investigate a hearing officer's compliance with statutory timelines pursuant to this section. The commissioner shall annually inform all hearing officers who have heard cases pursuant to this section during the preceding year that the time periods prescribed in this section for conducting such hearings are to be strictly followed. A record of continued failure to commence and complete hearings within the time periods prescribed in this section shall be considered grounds for the commissioner to exclude such individual from the list of potential hearing officers sent to the employing board and the employee for such hearings.

             (C) Such rules shall not require compliance with technical rules of evidence. Hearings shall be conducted by the hearing officer selected pursuant to paragraph b of this subdivision with full and fair disclosure of the nature of the case and evidence against the employee by the employing board and shall be public or private at the discretion of the employee and provided further that the hearing officer, at the pre-hearing conference, shall set a schedule and manner for full and fair disclosure of the witnesses and evidence to be offered by the employee. The employee shall have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself or herself and an opportunity to testify in his or her own behalf. The employee shall not be required to testify. Each party shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to subpoena witnesses, and to cross-examine witnesses. All testimony taken shall be under oath which the hearing officer is hereby authorized to administer. A child witness under the age of fourteen may be permitted to testify through the use of live, two-way closed-circuit television, as such term is defined in subdivision four of section 65.00 of the criminal procedure law, when the hearing officer, after providing the employee with an opportunity to be heard, determines by clear and convincing evidence that such child witness would suffer serious mental or emotional harm which would substantially impair such child's ability to communicate if required to testify at the hearing without the use of live, two-way closed-circuit television and that the use of such live, two-way closed-circuit television will diminish the likelihood or extent of such harm. In making such determination, the hearing officer shall consider any applicable factors contained in subdivision ten of section 65.20 of the criminal procedure law. Where the hearing officer determines that such child witness will be permitted to testify through the use of live, two-way closed-circuit television, the testimony of such child witness shall be taken in a manner consistent with section 65.30 of the criminal procedure law.

             (D) An accurate record of the proceedings shall be kept at the expense of the department at each such hearing in accordance with the regulations of the commissioner. A copy of the record of the hearings shall, upon request, be furnished without charge to the employee and the board of education involved. The department shall be authorized to utilize any new technology or such other appropriate means to transcribe or record such hearings in an accurate, reliable, efficient and cost-effective manner without any charge to the employee or board of education involved.

         (i-a)  (A) <1><2><3>Where charges of misconduct constituting physical or sexual abuse of a student are brought, the hearing shall be conducted before and by a single hearing officer in an expedited hearing, which shall commence within seven days after the pre-hearing conference and shall be completed within sixty days after the pre-hearing conference. The hearing officer shall establish a hearing schedule at the pre-hearing conference to ensure that the expedited hearing is completed within the required timeframes and to ensure an equitable distribution of days between the employing board and the charged employee. Notwithstanding any other law, rule or regulation to the contrary, no adjournments may be granted that would extend the hearing beyond such sixty days, except as authorized in this subparagraph. A hearing officer, upon request, may grant a limited and time specific adjournment that would extend the hearing beyond such sixty days if the hearing officer determines that the delay is attributable to a circumstance or occurrence substantially beyond the control of the requesting party and an injustice would result if the adjournment were not granted.

             (B) The commissioner shall annually inform all hearing officers who have heard cases pursuant to this section during the preceding year that the time periods prescribed in this subparagraph for conducting expedited hearings are to be strictly followed and failure to do so shall be considered grounds for the commissioner to exclude such individual from the list of potential hearing officers sent to the employing board and the employee for such expedited hearings.

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

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

             (A) issue subpoenas;

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

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

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

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

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

         (vii) All evidence shall be submitted by all parties within one hundred twenty-five days of the filing of charges and no additional evidence shall be accepted after such time, absent extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the parties.

     d. Limitation on claims. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary, no payments shall be made by the department pursuant to this subdivision on or after April first, two thousand twelve for: (i) compensation of a hearing officer or hearing panel member, (ii) reimbursement of such hearing officers or panel members for necessary travel or other expenses incurred by them, or (iii) for other hearing expenses on a claim submitted later than one year after the final disposition of the hearing by any means, including settlement, or within ninety days after the effective date of this paragraph, whichever is later; provided that no payment shall be barred or reduced where such payment is required as a result of a court order or judgment or a final audit.

4. Post-hearing procedures.

     a. The hearing officer shall render a written decision within thirty days of the last day of the final hearing, or in the case of an expedited hearing within ten days of such expedited hearing, and shall forward a copy thereof to the commissioner who shall immediately forward copies of the decision to the employee and to the clerk or secretary of the employing board. The written decision shall include the hearing officer's findings of fact on each charge, his or her conclusions with regard to each charge based on said findings and shall state what penalty or other action, if any, shall be taken by the employing board. At the request of the employee, in determining what, if any, penalty or other action shall be imposed, the hearing officer <1>may consider the extent to which the employing board made efforts towards correcting the behavior of the employee which resulted in charges being brought under this section through means including but not limited to: remediation, peer intervention or an employee assistance plan. In those cases where a penalty is imposed, such penalty may be a written reprimand, a fine, suspension for a fixed time without pay, or dismissal. In addition to or in lieu of the aforementioned penalties, the hearing officer, where he or she deems appropriate, may impose upon the employee remedial action including but not limited to leaves of absence with or without pay, continuing education and/or study, a requirement that the employee seek counseling or medical treatment or that the employee engage in any other remedial or combination of remedial actions. Provided, however, that the hearing officer, in exercising his or her discretion, shall give serious consideration to the penalty recommended by the employing board, and if the hearing officer rejects the recommended penalty such rejection must be based on reasons based upon the record as expressed in a written determination.

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

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

5. Appeal.

     a. Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer's decision, the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to section seventy-five hundred eleven of the civil practice law and rules. The court's review shall be limited to the grounds set forth in such section. The hearing panel's determination shall be deemed to be final for the purpose of such proceeding.

     b. In no case shall the filing or the pendency of an appeal delay the implementation of the decision of the hearing officer.