Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Monday, January 7, 2013

NYC DOE Releases A List of 17 Schools Which Will Be Closed

17 New York City schools targeted for closing

Updated at 11:05 PM today
There are 17 schools that the Department of Education say have not make the grade, and there may be more that are added to the list - that includes schools in 4 of the city's five boroughs.
In Manhattan there are four schools on the list - there are also five in the Bronx, six in Brooklyn and two in Queens.
Deputy School's Chancellor Marc Sternberg released a statement saying,
"We expect success. After a rigorous review of academic performance, we're proposing to phase out a select number of low-performing schools."Officials say the proposals that are being made are the result of a thorough evaluation of each school's record. They believe that now is the time to take action.
However, when you talk to representatives of the Teacher's Union, the lesson plan is different.
FULL LIST OF CLOSING SCHOOLS

High School of Graphic Communication Arts

M.S. 45/S.T.A.R.S. Prep Academy

Choir Academy of Harlem

Bread & Roses Integrated Arts High School

M.S. 203

Herbert H. Lehman High School

P.S. 064 Pura Belpre

Jonathan Levin High School for Media and Communications

MS 142 John Philip Sousa

Freedom Academy High School

P.S. 167 The Parkway

J.H.S. 166 George Gershwin

J.H.S. 302 Rafael Cordero

Sheepshead Bay High School

General D. Chappie James Middle School of Science

P.S. 140 Edward K Ellington

Law, Government and Community Service High School

The NYC Department of Education Teacher Observation Scam


For years, Mayor Mike Bloomberg and the NYC DOE he controls, with the full knowledge and consent of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), have pushed out all teachers with tenure, all who are disabled, too tall, too black, too outspoken, too....something with "U" ratings which are meaningless. The DOE will, in fact, change all these U ratings to "S" ratings if you irrevocably resign from the DOE within a very short time.

When a NYC DOE employee is served 3020-a papers, the moment is traumatic. Often, the specifications are false claims of absences which were due to many valid reasons, claims of extreme misconduct and/or incompetency, all created by some attorney at the Gotcha Squad.

What they dont tell you, the tenured teacher, is that you are already on the "Ineligible/Inquiry List" or No Hire List, so you will never be hired by anyone anyway, whether or not you take the deal and exchange a fake U for an S on your record. There are no facts in observations, so a U or an S is only a hearsay opinion, nothing more.


Yet, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) may deny that this "Ineligible/Inquiry List"  exists, so that Special Representatives may continue to earn astonishing sums of money (members' dues) while doing nothing. All the UNITY caucus and UFT Special Reps. say in private that every re-assigned member is "guilty" of whatever is charged against them. There is no effort to help any member win his/her U-rating appeal, grievance, or 3020-a, for that matter. And, it does not matter if this is unfair, as can be seen in the Special Complaint filed by Gail Friedman. The 2005 UFT contract took away the right to grieve "unfairness".

Betsy Combier

The city has a secret weapon to rub out incompetent teachers — an eraser.
Sue Edelman, NYPOST, January 6, 2013
LINK

If a teacher who is deemed a dud agrees to quit or retire before a termination trial, the Department of Education will wipe out all of her “unsatisfactory” or U ratings and — voilà — change them to S for “satisfactory,” thus helping her land a job elsewhere.

In an e-mail obtained by The Post, a DOE lawyer offers the deal to a teacher with U ratings two years in a row, grounds for dismissal.

“The department will provide, upon request, a neutral letter documenting her employment with the DOE and will convert her U ratings to S ratings in the DOE computer system.”

It adds, “Thus if she were to seek employment outside the DOE, her computer employment records would show only ‘satisfactory.’ ”

The teacher is accused of failing to carry out lessons, sloppy record keeping and poor classroom management, among other charges.

Former Chancellor Rudy Crew once called the shuffling of lousy principals from school to school “the dance of the lemons.”

Some educators share a disgust for a likewise dirty deed — the U whitewash.

“They’re making a mockery of the entire system,” a veteran teacher said. “If someone is found incompetent, it should go on their permanent record. The DOE should not be Monty Hall on ‘Let’s Make a Deal.’ ”

Betty Rosa, a member of the state Board of Regents and a former Bronx superintendent, called the document doctoring “unethical . . . a lie.”

But a hearing officer, who recently oversaw many such deals for suspect teachers idling away in departmental “rubber rooms,” hailed the method.

“It saves time, it saves money, and it gets guaranteed results,” he told The Post. “It’s morally right, because New York kids will not have to suffer with a teacher who’s allegedly incompetent. She’s out. She’s gone.”

Future employers, he said, can probe a teacher’s past.

The debate comes as the DOE and the United Federation of Teachers wrangle over a new evaluation system to rate teachers from “highly effective” to “ineffective.”

If they don’t agree by Jan. 17, the city will forfeit $250 million in state funds, Gov. Cuomo has warned.

In the 2010-11 school year, the DOE charged 78 teachers with incompetence, it says. Hearing officers agreed to terminate 18 after long administrative trials. Other teachers kept their jobs with lesser penalties, such as paying a fine or taking a course

But 49 settled and resigned or retired, bringing the total booted to 67.

Last year, the DOE charged 88 teachers with incompetence. It won just 11 dismissal cases but tossed 39 teachers who quit in settlements.

Betsy Combier, a paralegal who helps defend teachers in discipline cases, blasted the backroom maneuvers.

“It says to teachers, ‘We didn’t mean it when we brought you up on charges. Let someone else worry about how bad or good you are. We just want you out,’” Combier said.

But educators grab the deal to avoid the risk of being found guilty, which becomes public record.

A teacher who recently quit in exchange for erasing her two U ratings was accused of weak instruction, a lack of lesson plans and a disorganized classroom.

“She’s looking for work right now — anywhere. She’s going on interviews,” Combier said.

The DOE did not answer repeated requests for comment.

susan.edelman@nypost.com

COMMENTS

Betsy Combier · Advocate/Paralegal at Advocatz · 405 subscribers
The Bloomberg process was set up so that a Supervisor could "observe" a staff member, say he/she is not competent, not "effective", not (blank), and give him or her an unsatisfactory rating without any accountability for whether it is true or not. Then the so-called 'incompetent' is brought to 3020-a, where the same observations are accepted as facts, and boom the teacher is fired. The Gotcha Squad doesn't want to spend time and money giving these people due process, so they dreamed up the settlements in order to get them out faster, while still keeping total control. The goal is to get people out, not evaluate.

Jeff Kaufman · 89 years old
You have only a part of the story. What about supposed "U" rated teachers who are hired back to the DOE under different licenses? Or teachers who agree to transfer to becoming an ATR in exchange for the removal or guarantee that a U rating will disappear. In a large system you would always expect to find anecdotal evidence of wheeling and dealing but a large part of the U rating system is institutionally corrupt. When you can be given a U rating for reasons other than being unsatisfactory you can see how deep the corruption is. I fear whatever new evaluation system is in place as the hidden schemes will be more deeply embeded.

Joel Moss · Top Commenter
You constantly write about a teacher evaluation system by Jan.17 or all that state funding will be lost. So what, N.Y. won the ridiculous Race to The Top funding a couple of years ago and no one really knows what happened to the money nor is there any evidence it improved education in any way.You constantly blame the UFT for wanting a fair evaluation system, but the mayor and his cronies want a system which relies on state test scores when many teachers in the system are not involved in state wide testing in language and math. How are they to be judged?
In a system in which your mayor, supposedly in charge of education, compares the UFT to the NRA there is no real chance for fair agreement on anything.

Carol Wolf · Mason Gross School of the Arts
It takes two years of full-time study to earn a teaching credential, at a cost of about $20K, and then there's that year of teaching for no pay under a mentor. So, during that time no one notices that the teacher isn't competent? And can you promise that this evaluation system won't be used simply to cashier a teacher (say, the ones that have made it to the top of the pay scale)? That's what the tenure system was created for: to keep administrators (who make three times the salary, by the way) from firing experienced teachers because they now cost more money to pay. Or simply because they were annoyed by them. Schools full of cowed teachers, wow, who thinks that is a good idea?

Got a teacher you don't like? Load her class with all the worst kids (it's called a "loaded class") and then charge her with not keeping order, and being incompetent because she doesn't teach them anything. This system is ripe for abuse. Guess why tenure was such a good idea when it was put in place?

So, okay, if this is such a good idea, where is the equivalent evaluation system for doctors, lawyers and other professionals? Police, for example? Or, hey, I know, how about school administrators, and Congressmen? I know there's some kind of secret law these days that you can't even look at evaluating bankers, not even when they commit egregious fraud. But hey, we sure can beat up on the teachers!

So, under this kind of system, what kind of people are going to enter this former "profession" now?

Vincent Powell · Top Commenter
It's the system set up by teachers unions. if in fact incompetency was fired at will....like so many other jobs, then no rubber rooms, no administrative trials. Money spent on this foolishness would go toward educating our youth. And as the unions have always said..."its for the children".

Doreen Meyer · Top Commenter · Servite HS Detroit, MI
I've seen this happen not in schools, but in hospitals...where subpar nurses and doctors get shuffled around and edged out with the promise of an 'adequate' rating...and this was in an 'open shop'. It really has nothing to do with unions, but with the incompetence of supervisors, administrators (and their supporting boards of directors) who have neither a clue about how to examine workers nor how to document problems so that they'll 'stick' at termination. Without that, litigation begins...union or not. What we need is more training and 'gumption' in the upper echelons, which would get them out without 'bargains'.

Michael Reed · Top Commenter · Owner/ President at Self-Employed Consultant/Writer
Doreen - Doesn't make sense. Why would "open-shop", at-will employers (incompetent or not) shuffle around subpar med-pros? If there's no penalty for firing, what is their motivation - cash bribes or something? It seems they would be doubly motivated to fire because of potential legal liability to their business/employer and being held personally responsible & liable too? Please explain.

Doreen Meyer · Top Commenter · Servite HS Detroit, MI
Despite having an 'open-shop' hospitals are risk-averse. Physicians, particularly, will litigate terminations or 'lockouts' as being damaging to their 'good name' or as a 'trade restriction.' It takes a tremendous amount of documentation; most hospitals don't want this information to potentially end up in an open court, as it may also open them up to liability for continuing an MD whose practice has been known to be subpar. Nurses will also litigate, and often know where institutional secrets are 'buried', giving them leverage. It does sound as if they should be able to terminate at will, but they don't.
Good administrators--ones who know how to handle the process with little to no 'fallout'--are few and far between. Such actions are also usually highly 'political' and require a high level of skill and commitment to pull off.

Peter Goodman · Indiana University
Between 80-90% of cases in the civil and criminal courts are resolved through a plea bargain, why should teacher discipline cases differ... accusations do not mean a finding of guilt...

Ron Archetti · Top Commenter
Peter Goodman - The difference is that I'm not paying the defendants in civil and criminal courts to educate my children nor do I trust them with my child's care. It is exactly that kind of twisted mentality which you display with that ignorant comment that is the problem.

Park Windsor · Top Commenter
Can't wait till Bloomberg is over his ill gotten 3d term.

Glenda Barker · Top Commenter
As if this is the first lie told by these people... just get rid of them. They do more harm, then good.

Denise Fryburg · Top Commenter · Hunter College
Teachers are being given U ratings for just that reason, to make them resign. It has little to do, in most cases, with performance, but how much they make. No one should buy into this.

Robert Dunn · Top Commenter · Fordham University
This is just like the Catholic Church recycling pedophiles. If a teacher is not proficient, passing them off to another district is a disservice to the families of the next school.

Michael Reed · Top Commenter · Owner/ President at Self-Employed Consultant/Writer
Catholic Church and Peds? How about the NEA/AFT Peds with Teaching Certificates who get passed on by Schools to others? I've seen it twice that I'm certain of, and probably more often when it was better covered-up. News is full of both male and female teachers who've abused their students in mulltiple districts for years.

Ron Archetti · Top Commenter
As an employer, I would now be suspect of ANY applicant that listed the DOE under previous employment on their résumé. Hiring any one of them would be like buying a pig-in-a-poke.

William Lee · Top Commenter
What a system. These "unsatisfactory" teachers can now go somewhere else to "teach". This is what's wrong with unions - always protect the bad members.

Paul Girgenti · Top Commenter
we need to start firing them for failing our children.

Baz Clark · Works at University of Pikeville
Too bad common sense isn't!

Pua Tokumoto
As a retired school principal I can honestly say that an excellent teacher is the biggest indicator of a child's success in school. We are with a child at least 6 hours a day, five days a week, in a structured environment. This is powerful and a great teacher can influence a child sometimes much more than a parent.
Unfortunately, poor teachers hurt not only children but good teachers as well. I've had experience with the union trying so hard to get rid of really poor and incompetent teachers to no avail. Teachers who were passed around from school to school. Teachers who took up a good chunk of my resources when trying to change behavior by sending them to workshops, had mentor teachers work with them, etc. The school districts know this to be so true yet strong unions are there to back them up. We need teachers unions to work for the child as well as for the teacher. The unions must realize that the public is sick and tired of incompetent teachers who are still allowed to "teach" and yet students are not learning. We are headed for disaster as a country unless the unions work with the school district in upgrading the caliber of teachers. Most teachers want to teach and play a strong role in the lives of children.
Work with the school district to keep great teachers and kick out the poor teachers. Our kids deserve no less.

Michael Reed · Top Commenter · Owner/ President at Self-Employed Consultant/Writer
Gotta' love this! NYC is chicagoing! They bribe Education Professionals (NEA/AFT members) into leaving with a promise of passing them on to some other unsuspecting sucker school district with falsified documentation. How nice, how professional and who is being held accountable for this fraud?

Peter Hirsch · Port Washington, New York
I'm sure this was a concession to the Teacher's Union, the most Evil Union On The Planet. Creates the most waste and disfunction of any organization known to Man.

Scott Manlin · Subscribe · Managing Member at Bonvivino Capital, LLC
Gotta love government

Abul Rahman · Rutgers University - College Avenue Campus
Sick

Cindy Right · Subscribe · Top Commenter
They'll just get a job at another school.....just passing the buck again. Libtards will never let anyone fix a problem.....evil butt holes.

Jan Snipes · Las Vegas, Nevada
Doesn't this just perpetuate the problem? This is why good administrators who work to change poor teachers are made out to be the bad guys.

Valerie Hofheins · University of Phoenix
...and then those teachers apply to CCSD..

Katherine Walden · Works at I'm retired
I'm one of those teachers, Val. I had a terrible eval my very first year in Prospect, and I was terrible. When I got hired I told them that it was my first year and that I would need help. I got nothing but a bad evaluation. They changed it to a satisfactory one after I agreed to not return. So when CCSD hired me, I was that teacher. But, I got better. I had help--Vandolah, Christine Jannette, Jan Snipes, even you, Val. Teachers need help being better.

Charlie Riley · Top Commenter · Electronics Supervisor at Uncle Sam
They will qualified to teach honors classes in Chicago or Detroit.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

What To Do When You Meet An Investigator

I receive calls all the time about what a person should do when he/she must meet with an investigator about an allegation of sexual harassment, verbal abuse, or something that is not specified.

Many Union reps tell this person before starting the interview with the "investigator" (as an investigative reporter myself, I cant call the SCI, OSI, or OEO agents "investigators") not to say anything at all.

DONT FOLLOW THIS SUGGESTION.

You will be admitting guilt for whatever the accusation is and the "investigators" will substantiate the allegation.

In 99% of the cases "investigated" by the agents of SCI, OSI and OEO, the truth does not matter, and the allegation is substantiated anyway, because why would these agents try to dig for facts? That's not in their job description.

But you will not "win" your case by talking to these agents. What you need to do is deny everything, get the statements of the people who say you did do something, and leave. Ignore your Rep. if he/she says you should have said less/more. Their focus may not be in your best interest.

Betsy

Wikipedia on the 5th Amendment:


Self-incrimination

The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal act punishable by fines, penalties or forfeiture.[34]
Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination was directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.[35][36]
The legal shift away from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late 16th and early 17th century in England.[37] Anyone refusing to take the oath ex officio mero (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was considered guilty.[37] Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly used to compel "cooperation." Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations. In the most famous case John Lilburne refused to take the oath in 1637. His case and his call for "freeborn rights" were rallying points for reforms against forced oaths, forced self-incrimination, and other kinds of coercion. Oliver Cromwell's revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levellers. The Levellers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with 13 demands, third of which was the right against self-incrimination in criminal cases. These protections were brought to America by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through the Bill of Rights.
Protection against self-incrimination is implicit in the Miranda rights statement, which protects the "right to remain silent." This amendment is also similar to Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other Commonwealth of Nations countries like Australia and New Zealand, the right to silence of the accused both during questioning and at trial is regarded as an important right inherited from common law, and is protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and in Australia through various federal and state acts and codes governing the criminal justice system.
The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."[38]

Legal proceeding

The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination applies when an individual is called to testify in a legal proceeding. The Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in a federal court or, under the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, in a state court,[39] and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil.[40]
The right was asserted at grand jury or congressional hearings in the 1950s, when witnesses testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities or the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee claimed the right in response to questions concerning their alleged membership in the Communist Party. Under the Red Scare hysteria at the time of McCarthyism, witnesses who refused to answer the questions were accused as "fifth amendment communists". They lost jobs or positions in unions and other political organizations, and suffered other repercussions after "taking the fifth."
Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.) asked, "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist party," while he was chairman of the Senate Government Operations Committee Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Admitting to a previous communist party membership was not sufficient. Witnesses were also required to "name names," to implicate others they knew to be communists or who had been communists in the past. Academy Award winning director Elia Kazan testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities that he had belonged to the Communist Party briefly in his youth. He also "named names," which incurred enmity of many in Hollywood. Other entertainers such as Zero Mostel found themselves on a Hollywood blacklist after taking the fifth, and were unable to find work for a while in the show business.
The amendment has also been used by defendants and witnesses in criminal cases involving the Mafia.
The right against self-incrimination does not apply when an individual testifies before a self-regulatory organization (SRO). SROs, such as the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), are generally not considered as state actors subject to the restraints of the fifth amendment. Department of Enforcement, United States v. Solomon, 509 F. 2d 863 (2d Cir. 1975); D. L. Cromwell Invs., Inc. v. NASD Regulation, Inc., 132 F. Supp. 2d 248, 251-53 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff'd, 279 F.3d 155, 162 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1028 (2002); Marchiano v. NASD, 134 F. Supp. 2d 90, 95 (D.D.C. 2001). SROs also lack subpoena powers, so they rely heavily on requiring testimony from individuals while wielding the threat of a bar from the industry (permanent, if decided by the NASD) in the case of noncompliance.

Custodial interrogation

The Fifth Amendment limits the use of evidence obtained illegally by law enforcement officers. Originally, at common law, even a confession obtained by torture was admissible. In the eighteenth century, common law in England provided that coerced confessions were inadmissible. The common law rule was incorporated into American law by the courts. However, the use of brutal torture to extract confessions was routine in certain jurisdictions until at least 1991,[41] though the Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled convictions based on such confessions, in cases like Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936).
Law enforcement responded by switching to more subtle techniques, but the courts held that such techniques, even if they do not involve physical torture, may render a confession involuntary and inadmissible. In Chambers v. Florida (1940) the Court held a confession obtained after five days of prolonged questioning, during which time the defendant was held incommunicado, to be coerced. In Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944), the suspect had been interrogated continuously for thirty-six hours under electric lights. In Haynes v. Washington (1963) the Court held that an "unfair and inherently coercive context" including a prolonged interrogation rendered a confession inadmissible.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a landmark case involving confessions. Ernesto Miranda had signed a statement confessing the crime, but the Supreme Court held that the confession was inadmissible because the defendant had not been warned of his rights.
The Court held, "the prosecution may not use statements [...] stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Custodial interrogation is initiated by law enforcement after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of movement.
As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Before any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." The warning to which Chief Justice Earl Warren referred is now called the Miranda warning, and it is customarily delivered by the police to an individual before questioning.
Miranda has been clarified by several further Supreme Court rulings. For the warning to be necessary, the questioning must be conducted under "custodial" circumstances. A person detained in jail or under arrest is, of course, deemed to be in police custody. Alternatively, a person who is under the reasonable belief that he may not freely leave from the restraint of law enforcement is also deemed to be in "custody." That determination of "reasonableness" is based on a totality of the objective circumstances. A mere presence at a police station may not be sufficient, but nor is it required. Traffic stops are not deemed custodial. The Court has ruled that age can be an objective factor. In Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004), the Court held that "a state-court decision that failed to mention a 17-year-old’s age as part of the Miranda custody analysis was not objectively unreasonable".[42] In her concurring opinion Justice O'Connor wrote that a suspect's age may indeed "be relevant to the 'custody' inquiry";[43] the Court did not find it relevant in the specific case of Alvarado. The Court affirmed that age could be a relevant and objective factor in J.D.B. v. North Carolina where they ruled that "so long as the child’s age was known to the officer at the time of police questioning, or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, its inclusion in the custody analysis is consistent with the objective nature of that test"[42]
The questioning does not have to be explicit to trigger Miranda rights. For example, two police officers engaging in a conversation designed to elicit an incriminating statement from a suspect would constitute questioning. A person may choose to waive his Miranda rights, but the prosecution has the burden of showing that such a waiver was actually made.
A confession not preceded by a Miranda warning where one was necessary cannot be admitted as evidence against the confessing party in a judicial proceeding. The Supreme Court, however, has held that if a defendant voluntarily testifies at the trial that he did not commit the crime, his confession may be introduced to challenge his credibility, to "impeach" the witness, even if it had been obtained without the warning.
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 on June 21, 2004 that the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments do not give people the right to refuse to give their name when questioned by police.
In June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Berghuis v. Thompkins that criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent. Unless and until the suspect actually states that she is relying on that right, her subsequent voluntary statements can be used in court and police can continue to interact with (or question) her. The mere act of remaining silent is, on its own, insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked her rights. Furthermore, a voluntary reply even after lengthy silence can be construed as implying a waiver.

Refusal to testify in a criminal case

The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot punish a criminal defendant for exercising his right to silence, by allowing the prosecutor to ask the jury to draw an inference of guilt from the defendant's refusal to testify in his own defense. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). In Griffin, the Court overturned as unconstitutional under the federal constitution a provision of the California state constitution that explicitly granted such power to prosecutors.

Refusal to testify in a civil case

While defendants are entitled to assert that right, there are consequences to the assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil action.
The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). “[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, ‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’” Id. at 319 (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923)). “‘Failure to contest an assertion...is considered evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975)).
In Baxter, the state was entitled to an adverse inference against Palmigiano because of the evidence against him and his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Some civil cases are considered "criminal cases" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment. In Boyd v. United States, the US Supreme Court stated that "A proceeding to forfeit a person's goods for an offence against the laws, though civil in form, and whether in rem or in personam, is a "criminal case" within the meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself."[44]

Federal income tax

In some cases, individuals may be legally required to file reports that call for information that may be used against them in criminal cases. In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a taxpayer could not invoke the Fifth Amendment's protections as the basis for refusing to file a required federal income tax return. The Court stated: "If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making[,] he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld."[45]
In Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) the defendant was convicted of crimes involving a conspiracy to "fix” sporting contests and to transmit illegal bets. During the trial the prosecutor introduced, as evidence, the taxpayer's federal income tax returns for various years. In one return the taxpayer had showed his occupation to be “professional gambler.” In various returns the taxpayer had reported income from “gambling” or “wagering.” The prosecution used this to help contradict the taxpayer's argument that his involvement was innocent. The taxpayer tried unsuccessfully to keep the prosecutor from introducing the tax returns as evidence, arguing that since the taxpayer was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns, he was being compelled to be a witness against himself. The Supreme Court agreed that he was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns, but ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination still did not apply. The Court stated that "if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the Government has not 'compelled' him to incriminate himself."[46]
Sullivan and Garner are viewed as standing, in tandem, for the proposition that on a required federal income tax return a taxpayer would probably have to report the amount of the illegal income, but might validly claim the privilege by labeling the item "Fifth Amendment" (instead of "illegal gambling income," "illegal drug sales," etc.)[47] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has stated: "Although the source of income might be privileged, the amount must be reported."[48] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has stated: ".....the amount of a taxpayer's income is not privileged even though the source of income may be, and Fifth Amendment rights can be exercised in compliance with the tax laws "by simply listing his alleged ill-gotten gains in the space provided for `miscellaneous' income on his tax form."[49] In another case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated: "While the source of some of [the defendant] Johnson's income may have been privileged, assuming that the jury believed his uncorroborated testimony that he had illegal dealings in gold in 1970 and 1971, the amount of his income was not privileged and he was required to pay taxes on it."[50] In 1979, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stated: "A careful reading of Sullivan and Garner, therefore, is that the self-incrimination privilege can be employed to protect the taxpayer from revealing the information as to an illegal source of income, but does not protect him from disclosing the amount of his income."[51]

Grants of immunity

If the government gives an individual immunity, then that individual may be compelled to testify. Immunity may be "transactional immunity" or "use immunity"; in the former, the witness is immune from prosecution for offenses related to the testimony; in the latter, the witness may be prosecuted, but his testimony may not be used against him. In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), the Supreme Court held that the government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony. The use immunity, however, must extend not only to the testimony made by the witness, but also to all evidence derived therefrom. This scenario most commonly arises in cases related to organized crime.

Record keeping

A statutorily required record-keeping system may go too far such that it implicates a record-keeper's right against self-incrimination. A three part test laid out by Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 (1965) is used to determine this: 1. the law targets a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities; 2. the activities sought to be regulated are already permeated with criminal statutes as opposed to essentially being non-criminal and largely regulatory; and 3. the disclosure compelled creates a likelihood of prosecution and is used against the record-keeper. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down an order by the Subversive Activities Control Board requiring members of the Communist Party to register with the government and upheld an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination, on the grounds that statute under which the order had been issued was "directed at a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities."
In Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969) the court struck down the Marijuana Tax Act because its record keeping statute required self-incrimination.
In Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968) the Supreme Court ruled that, because convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearms, requiring felons to register any firearms they owned constituted a form of self-incrimination and was therefore unconstitutional.

Computer passwords

Courts have struggled with whether forced disclosure of computer passwords is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. In January 2012 a federal judge in Denver ruled that a bank-fraud suspect was required to give an unencrypted copy of a laptop hard drive to prosecutors.[52][53] However, in February 2012 the Eleventh Circuit ruled otherwise - finding that requiring a defendant to produce an encrypted drive's password would violate the Constitution, becoming the first federal circuit court to rule on the issue.[54][55]

Other

Corporations may also be compelled to maintain and turn over records; the Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination extend only to "natural persons."[56] The Court has also held that a corporation's custodian of records can be forced to produce corporate documents even if the act of production would incriminate him personally.[57] The only limitation on this rule is that the jury cannot be told that the custodian personally produced those documents in any subsequent prosecution of him or her, but the jury is still allowed to draw adverse inferences from the content of the documents combined with the position of the custodian in the corporation.
As a condition of employment, workers may be required to answer their employer's narrowly defined questions regarding conduct on the job. If an employee invokes the Garrity rule (sometimes called the Garrity Warning or Garrity Rights) before answering the questions, then the answers cannot be used in criminal prosecution of the employee.[58] This principle was developed in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). The rule is most commonly applied to public employees such as police officers.
In In re Boucher (2009), the US District Court of Vermont ruled that the Fifth Amendment might protect a defendant from having to reveal an encryption password, or even the existence of one, if the production of that password could be deemed a self-incriminating "act" under the Fifth Amendment. In Boucher, production of the unencrypted drive was deemed not to be a self-incriminating act, as the government already had sufficient evidence to tie the encrypted data to the defendant.[59]
In Boyd v. United States 116 US 616 (1886) the US Supreme Court stated that "It is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers to make the nonproduction of them a confession of the allegations which it is pretended they will prove".
On June 1, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Berghuis v. Thompkins that a criminal suspect must specifically invoke the right against self-incrimination in order for constitutional protections to apply.[60] The case centered around the interrogation of murder suspect Van Chester Thompkins, who remained virtually silent for hours, before giving a few brief responses to police questions. Most significantly, Thompkins answered "yes" when asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" The statement was introduced at trial and Thompkins was convicted. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that criminal suspects who do not clearly state their intention to remain silent are presumed to have waived their 5th Amendment rights. Ironically, suspects must literally open their mouths and speak in order for their silence to be legally protected. The new rule will defer to police in cases where the suspect fails to unambiguously assert their right to remain silent.

Due process



Takings clause


Eminent domain


The Supreme Court has held that the federal government and each state has the power of eminent domain—the power to take private property for "public use". The Takings Clause, the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, limits the power of eminent domain by requiring that "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use. The just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment did not originally apply directly to the states, but since Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Chicago (1897), federal courts have held that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the effects of that provision to the states. The federal courts, however, have shown much deference to the determinations of Congress, and even more so to the determinations of the state legislatures, of what constitutes "public use". The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest. One exception that restrains the federal government is that the property must be used in exercise of a government's enumerated powers.
The owner of the property that is taken by the government must be justly compensated. When determining the amount that must be paid, the government does not need to take into account any speculative schemes that the owner claims the property was intended for use in. Normally, the fair market value of the property determines "just compensation". If the property is taken before the payment is made, interest accrues (though the courts have refrained from using the term "interest").
The federal courts have not restrained state and local governments from seizing privately owned land for private commercial development on behalf of private developers. This was upheld on June 23, 2005, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kelo v. City of New London. This 5–4 decision remains controversial. The majority opinion, by Justice Stevens, found that it was appropriate to defer to the city's decision that the development plan had a public purpose, saying that "the city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion observed that in this particular case the development plan was not "of primary benefit to . . . the developer" and that if that was the case the plan might have been impermissible. In the dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that this decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor, asserting that "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment". A number of states, in response to Kelo, have passed laws and/or state constitutional amendments which make it more difficult for state governments to seize private land. Takings that are not "for public use" are not directly covered by the doctrine,[61] however such a taking might violate due process rights under the Fourteenth amendment, or other applicable law.
The exercise of the police power of the state resulting in a taking of private property was long held to be an exception to the requirement of government paying just compensation. However the growing trend under the various state constitution's taking clauses is to compensate innocent third parties whose property was destroyed or "taken" as a result of police action.[62]

"Just compensation"

The last two words of the amendment promise "just compensation" for takings by the government. In United States v. 50 Acres of Land (1984), the Supreme Court wrote that "The Court has repeatedly held that just compensation normally is to be measured by "the market value of the property at the time of the taking contemporaneously paid in money." Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246 (1934) ... Deviation from this measure of just compensation has been required only "when market value has been too difficult to find, or when its application would result in manifest injustice to owner or public." United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U.S. 121, 123 (1950).

Thursday, January 3, 2013

UFT Wins SESIS Arbitration So That Members Will Be Paid For All Work

UFT prevails in SESIS arbitration

Members to be paid for work outside regular workday

The UFT on Jan. 3 prevailed in its grievance charging that the Department of Education’s implementation of the Special Education Student Information System (SESIS) required members to work beyond their regular workday. After the longest arbitration in UFT history, the independent arbitrator, Jay Siegel, concluded that the workday provisions in the union contract had been violated. He ordered that UFT members be paid for all the time that they were logged into SESIS outside the regular workday.
The union argued that the only way that its members could complete their SESIS work was to do it outside regular work hours, whether early in the morning, after school, in the evenings or on weekends, or on holidays. It argued that the DOE, in essence, lengthened the workday of members.
When the problems with SESIS first came to the union’s attention, the UFT asked the DOE to do more training, to set aside time in the workday for members to do SESIS work and to provide the proper equipment and necessary bandwidth to complete SESIS on school computers. When the DOE refused to fix the problems, the union filed for arbitration.
The arbitrator ruled that the DOE has records of when employees logged into and out of SESIS, providing the necessary documentation of any work performed outside the regular workday.  He ordered the DOE to turn over those records by Feb. 8.  Members will be compensated on a pro-rata basis for any time outside the regular workday that they were logged into SESIS from September 2011 through Dec. 31, 2012.
The arbitrator said that UFT members should be paid by March 15, but if the DOE appeals the decision, it can ask the judge to delay implementation. The arbitrator retained jurisdiction to ensure that the DOE complies with his ruling.
The arbitrator also ordered the DOE to negotiate with the UFT on all relevant issues related to the implementation of SESIS going forward.
UFT President Michael Mulgrew thanked the Grievance Department representatives who argued the case for the union: Grievance Department Director Ellen Gallin Procida, Special Representative Diane Mazzola and Special Representative Mark Collins. He also thanked all the members who sent documentation to the union and filled out the surveys that the union used to prove its case.

GOTHAM SCHOOLS




Teachers who worked outside of their regular school day to enter information in the Department of Education’s special education data system last year will get paid for their time, according to a labor decision announced today.
After teachers told the United Federation of Teachers that using the new system to record information about their everyday activities was burdensome, the union filed an official complaint in mid-2011. An arbitrator heard the union’s case and the Department of Education’s defense on 19 dates between December 2011 and October 2012 before concluding that the department’s implementation violated the union’s contract.
“After the longest arbitration in UFT history, the independent arbitrator, Jay Siegel, today concluded that the workday provisions in our contract had been violated,” UFT President Michael Mulgrew wrote in a letter to other union officials late today.
The city was permitted to introduce the system, called the Special Education Student Information System, without the union’s consent, Siegel decided. But he ruled that it was wrong to require educators to record their encounters with students when doing so required them to work outside of their contractual school day.
Now, the department must examine the system’s usage data and issue compensatory payments to anyone who used the system in the evenings or weekends between September 2011 and last month. The payments, which union officials say could go to more than 10,000 teachers and paraprofessionals, must be made by early March, according to the decision.
Department officials said the contract ruling comes in spite of SESIS’s usefulness for the city’s schools.
“We are disappointed with the decision,” said a spokeswoman, Connie Pankratz. She added, “However, this system has allowed the DOE to capture important information regarding special education services and, as noted by the arbitrator, there have been improvements to the system.”
And the arbitrator said he hoped the union would not need to seek repayment in the future for time teachers spend on SEIS. “Going forward, the parties would be best served by spending their time jointly analyzing and negotiating over what else needs to be done to improve the efficiency for SESIS users,” he wrote.
The arbitrator’s full decision is below:
 Doc 010313