Chicago Teachers Union and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Reach a Tentative Contract Settlement

Karen Lewis, CTU President

Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago Teachers Union Reach A Tentative Contract Settlement That Averts a Strike
re-posted by Betsy Combier, Editor of Parentadvocates.org and NYC Rubber Room Reporter

---

Emanuel said the tentative agreement "invested in strengthening the classroom and helped our teachers financially, but actually did it in a way that CPS is on a better sustainable path than every contract preceding." The union got many of the things it wanted, including the continuation of the district paying the bulk of pension contributions for current teachers. CTU Vice President Jesse Sharkey praised the pay raises and job guarantees teachers would see under the tentative agreement.

---

Summary and Complete Tentative Agreement

Costs of deal with Chicago Teachers Union not yet clear
LINK

Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Teachers Union both declared victory after reaching a tentative contract settlement that averted a strike.

What wasn't immediately clear, however, was the financial cost of the deal that was reached Monday moments before a midnight strike deadline.

To finance the deal for this year alone, Emanuel tapped nearly $90 million in tax increment financing district surplus, even though he had for months dismissed the idea of using TIF money to shore up the school district's shaky finances.

On Tuesday, though, he called using those funds "the right thing to do."

Emanuel said the tentative agreement "invested in strengthening the classroom and helped our teachers financially, but actually did it in a way that CPS is on a better sustainable path than every contract preceding."

The union got many of the things it wanted, including the continuation of the district paying the bulk of pension contributions for current teachers. CTU Vice President Jesse Sharkey praised the pay raises and job guarantees teachers would see under the tentative agreement.

"I think that we achieved really most of our bargaining objectives," Sharkey said Tuesday. "And the things which we didn't achieve largely have to do with not getting some of the things that we aspired to."

Chicago Public Schools officials say the district would save $300 million over the life of the four-year contract. But a spokeswoman could not provide an accounting for that figure.

An eight-page summary of the tentative agreement, which covers July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2019, indicates some uncertain financial consequences of the pending contract.

Veteran union members can qualify for a hefty cash bonus if they resign or retire by next summer. That would allow the district to replace higher-salary employees with younger and less expensive workers. But that provision won't kick in for teachers unless at least 1,500 of them retire.

The retirement bonus option could raise some immediate expenses for the district. Teachers would receive a one-time bonus that pays $1,500 for each year of service. That means a teacher with 25 years experience would see a $37,500 payout that wouldn't affect their pension earnings.

Paraprofessionals with at least a decade of service would be eligible for a similar deal, if at least 600 of them resign by June.

CTU represents nearly 30,000 teachers and educational support personnel.

CTU's current membership will continue to have 7 percentage points of their required pension contributions paid for by the district, but a future generation of teachers — those hired Jan. 1 and after — won't receive the lucrative perk. In return, those new hires will get pay boosts that even out the loss of the pension pickup.

Teachers won't get cost of living raises for the first two years of the contract, with pay hikes of 2 percent and 2.5 percent in the final two years. Raises based on experience and education would be part of the contract's final three years. Members will start paying higher health insurance costs in 2019.

Absent from Monday's agreement is language from a January proposal from the city that barred the district from laying off teachers to save money. A deal on teacher layoffs was one of the last aspects of the contract agreed to on Monday, Sharkey said.

Most tenured teachers who are laid off at the end of a school year would be eligible to fill temporarily vacant positions in 10 month stints. If no such vacancies exist, the teacher would be able to substitute teach for 10 months while earning full pay and benefits.

The district's $5.4 billion operating budget assumed savings of $31 million through renegotiated contracts with unions including the CTU. That budget also assumed it would take in $32.5 million from TIF districts, but that figure would now increase to $87.5 million.

"It does not appear that they are going to get that savings, although the (TIF) surplus that they have declared will help pay for some of it," said Laurence Msall, head of the nonpartisan Civic Federation budget watchdog group.

The mayor agreed to increase the amount taken from those funds, which are used at city discretion to boost economic development — to $175 million from the originally proposed $60 million. About half of the money declared as "surplus" is going to CPS.

That amount is larger than any the mayor has agreed to since taking office in 2011, and it presents a contrast to what Emanuel has been saying in recent weeks when asked if declaring larger TIF surpluses — something the CTU has long sought — could lead to a teachers' contract agreement.

The mayor repeatedly described a larger TIF surplus as a one-time revenue source and not a long-term solution, even though the amount of money going into those funds not dedicated to specific projects grew significantly this year and is expected to remain at higher levels for years to come, barring a severe economic downturn.

On Tuesday, with negotiations complete and his last minute gambit to avoid a strike successful, Emanuel made a different case to the Tribune editorial board. "Every year, I've surplussed," the mayor said, noting his policy of declaring 25 percent of TIF revenue not dedicated to projects as surplus. "So it's not new. It's part of a pattern."

"I don't have a problem with what we've done," Emanuel said. "I know it's the right thing to do."

The union would see one of its biggest victories in negotiations start to take shape in the second semester of the 2016-17 school year. That's when kindergarten through second grade teachers with 32 or more students in their classrooms become eligible to receive an assistant to help with instruction, according to the tentative deal. Sharkey estimated that agreement would cost about $10 million a year.

In the end, CPS might not have to depend on TIF surplus funds as heavily in coming years, said Carole Brown, the city's chief financial officer.

Costs are higher in 2017 under the new contract because of planned buyouts of longtime teachers. Salaries paid to their replacements will be lower, and they will pick up the full cost of their required pension contributions, she said.

Msall said he wanted more details on how the early retirement system would work.

"In this case, definitely, the new teachers who are replacing them are going to be paying more to the pensions," he said. "They are going to see a lesser pension benefit than existing employees, but we have to see the value of the lump sum that is being added before we can make a determination of how much savings or costs are associated."

The union's House of Delegates are set to weigh in on the deal next week, Sharkey said. The contract has to be approved by the delegates and then voted on by full membership before a final deal is signed.

jjperez@chicagotribune.com

hdardick@chicagotribune.com  

Probationary Teachers and Termination Decisions: Matter of Frasier v NYC DOE (1988)

Probationary teachers are employed at the will of the Chancellor, and can be terminated at any time - except for unlawful reasons (i.e., discrimination, age, gender, religion - check with a lawyer).

The time to appeal a termination is immediately following the Chancellor's original decision, not after a review of the decision.

Don't forfeit your rights to pursue justice because you do not meet a legal deadline! (Called the "Statute of Limitations")

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

MATTER FRASIER v. BD. EDUC.

LINK
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

---

71 N.Y.2d 763 (1988)

In the Matter of Richard Frasier, Respondent, v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued April 25, 1988.

Decided June 7, 1988.

Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Fay S. Ng and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for appellants.

Richard A. Shane and James R. Sandner for respondent.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE and BELLACOSA concur.

---

[71 N.Y.2d 765]

HANCOCK, JR., J.

Petitioner, a probationary teacher in the New York City school system, was notified by a letter from the Chancellor dated June 28, 1984 that his probationary appointment was terminated as of September 4, 1984. Subsequently — after a review, as afforded by the collective bargaining agreement, under the procedures established in the Board bylaws — the Chancellor reversed his earlier determination and reinstated petitioner to probationary status.

The issue in this appeal by respondent Board of Education is whether the Chancellor's original action terminated petitioner's rights as a probationary appointee under Education Law § 2573 (1) (a) as of September 4, 1984, or whether, as petitioner claims in his CPLR article 78 proceeding, that action was nonfinal and ineffective until completion of the review procedure. The Appellate Division, affirming Supreme Court's judgment in favor of petitioner, held that the Chancellor's original determination was not final and that, therefore, from September 4, 1984 until March 25, 1985, when the review was complete, petitioner was illegally deprived of his position. Accordingly, it directed that petitioner's reinstatement be retroactive with back pay and full benefits from September 4, 1984. We granted leave to appeal and, for reasons which follow, now reverse.

I

Unquestionably, a Board of Education, under Education Law § 2573 (1) (a), has the right to terminate the employment of a probationary teacher at any time and for any reason, unless the teacher establishes that the termination was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, violative of a statute, or done in bad faith (see, Matter of Venes v Community School Bd., 43 N.Y.2d 520, 525; James v Board of Educ., 37 N.Y.2d 891, 892). In the City of New York, the Chancellor, as the Board's designee, may properly make the determination to discontinue a probationer (see, Matter of Brown v Board of Educ., 42 A.D.2d 702 lv denied 34 N.Y.2d 519). A teacher who has been discontinued, however, may ask the Chancellor to review his decision and, in effect, reverse himself pursuant to section 5.3.4 of

[71 N.Y.2d 766]

the Board of Education bylaws.^* Under this procedure, a hearing is held before a committee appointed by the Chancellor and selected in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. After the hearing, the committee submits its advisory findings and recommendations to the Chancellor who makes the ultimate decision (see, Matter of Kaufman v Anker, 42 N.Y.2d 835, 837).

It is a basic policy underlying Education Law § 2573 (1) (a) that the responsibility for selecting probationary teachers and evaluating them for appointment on tenure should lie with the Board of Education upon appropriate recommendation of its professional administrators (see, Honeoye Falls-Lima Cent. School Dist. v Honeoye Falls-Lima Educ. Assn., 49 N.Y.2d 732, 734; Matter of Cohoes City School Dist. v Cohoes Teachers Assn., 40 N.Y.2d 774, 777, 778), and that the Board should have broad discretion in making such decisions (see, Matter of Venes v Community School Bd., supra; Bergstein v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 318, 323). From the language of Education Law § 2573 (1) (a), it is evident that a decision not to grant tenure to a probationary teacher, once made, is intended to be final. The statute contains no provision for reconsideration or review or for reinstatement of a discontinued probationary appointee. Except for the requirement that a person who is not being recommended for tenure be notified in writing no later than 60 days before the expiration of the probationary term, the authority of the Board to discontinue the services of a probationer is without temporal limitation. Indeed, the Board is specifically authorized to exercise its power to discontinue "at any time during such probationary period" (Education Law § 2573 [1] [a] [emphasis supplied]).

The question remains, however, whether anything in the review procedure established in the bylaws (see, Education Law § 2590-d [1]; Matter of Lehman v Board of Educ., 82 A.D.2d 832, 833; Matter of Jacobs v Board of Educ., 73 A.D.2d 623, 624) makes the Chancellor's original decision on discontinuance nonfinal. We think not. Section 5.3.4 of the bylaws in no way pertains to the finality of the Chancellor's decision. The section is procedural only, contains no provision concerning reinstatement or back pay, and does not purport to affect the teacher's substantive rights under the statute.

Probationary teachers have no constitutional or statutory right to a review of the Chancellor's decisions to discontinue their services and to deny tenure (see, Matter of Aherns v Board of Educ., 57 A.D.2d 925; Matter of Clausen v Board of Educ., 39 A.D.2d 708). Their right to a review stems solely from the collective bargaining agreement. Section 5.3.4 does no more than establish an optional procedure under which a teacher may ask the Chancellor to reconsider and reverse his initial decision, a decision which is final and which, when made, in all respects terminates the employment of a probationer under Education Law § 2573 (1) (a). To adopt petitioner's position that a section 5.3.4 review postpones the effective date of the Chancellor's action until completion of the review procedure would have anomalous consequences. A probationary teacher could, although validly removed from the teaching rolls by action of the Chancellor under Education Law § 2573 (1) (a) and performing no services for the school system, become entitled to full salary during the review process, regardless of its eventual outcome. To obtain such entitlement, a discontinued teacher would have only to institute review under section 5.3.4. We need not consider the constitutional implications of such a construction, for it was clearly never intended.

II

In this case, petitioner had a probationary appointment as a teacher of English as a second language at the Adlai Stevenson High School. The Chancellor, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of the Bronx High Schools, advised petitioner by letter on June 28, 1984 that his service as a teacher was "terminated as of the close of business on September 4, 1984" and that pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement petitioner was "entitled to the review procedures under Section 5.3.4 of the Bylaws". In a letter to petitioner dated March 25, 1985, the Chancellor stated: "After careful consideration

[71 N.Y.2d 768]

of your case, I have determined to reverse the recommendation to discontinue your probationary service as a Teacher of English as a Second Language which was effective at the close of business September 4, 1984" (emphasis added).

Petitioner does not contend that the Chancellor's initial action in discontinuing his services was unlawful in the sense that the Chancellor lacked authority or that it was in violation of petitioner's constitutional or statutory rights. Matter of Golomb v Board of Educ. (92 A.D.2d 256), relied on by petitioner and the Appellate Division, is, therefore, not on point. In that case, the probationary status of a teacher in the New York City system was improperly terminated by her high school principal rather than, as required, by the Chancellor. Thus, unlike the case at bar, the ouster in Golomb was patently unlawful (id., at 258). Nor does petitioner contend that his discontinuance was procedurally defective (cf., Matter of Pascal v Board of Educ., 100 A.D.2d 622 [probationary teacher not given 60 days' prior notice of discontinuance required by Education Law § 2573 (1) (a)]). There is no question that the Chancellor's June 28, 1984 letter was within the probationary period, that it gave petitioner more than the required 60 days' notice of the effective date of the termination, and that the action was taken on recommendation of the Superintendent (Education Law § 2573 (1) (a); see, Matter of Brown v Board of Educ., 42 AD2d, supra, at 703). Petitioner argues only that the Chancellor's original action, as recited in the June 28, 1984 letter, was incomplete and, for that reason, ineffective. We disagree.

There is nothing tentative or conditional about the letter. The message is simple and direct: that petitioner's "probationary service as a teacher of ESL is terminated as of the close of business on September 4, 1984" (emphasis supplied). The Chancellor's June 28, 1984 letter met all the statutory requirements.

Accordingly, the order should be reversed, with costs, and the proceeding dismissed.

Order reversed, etc.

FootNotes

* Section 5.3.4C pertaining to review of decisions on continuance of services is as follows:Review Committee in Recommendation for Discontinuance of Service 
Any person in the employ of the board of education who is summoned to appear before the chancellor, or a committee designated by the chancellor, in respect of the discontinuance of service during the probationary term, or at the expiration thereof, shall have a review of the matter before a committee which shall be designated in accordance with contractual agreements covering employees or by regulations of the chancellor, as appropriate.After the review, the committee shall forward its advisory recommendation to the community school board or to the chancellor in accordance with contractual agreements.

Record on Appeal to the Court of Appeals

New York Court of Appeals Records and Briefs
New York Court of Appeals Records and Briefs2
New York Court of Appeals Records and Briefs3

The Principals'/Supervisors'/APs' Union, CSA, Protects Its' Own - If You Play The Game Right

The Council for Supervisors and Administrators is a very tight ship when it comes to fighting for their own Executive Board Members. It is very hard to go after a principal on the Executive Board who is scamming the public, committing fraud, perjury, or any other wrong. And, if a principal is charged, the CSA picks the arbitrator best suited to getting this administrator off the hook. Commendable! Not.

If only this defense was the right thing to do. With approval from the UFT and NYSUT, CSA is given the authority to do grievances, U-Rating appeals and 3020-a hearings exactly the way they want:

1. witnesses come in and lie - they say that they "saw" something when they didn't, all part of a script prepared ahead of time to get rid of an employee who is creating a problem;

2. principals may testify by telephone at appeals, however the American Arbitration Association rules require the agreement of both sides for a witness to testify by phone. In NYC Appeals the employee is not given a choice;

3. Principals have the right to pursue budgetary requirements of keeping spending within certain limits (i.e. do not pay too much for a senior teacher), and keeping parents from filing lawsuits by protecting the bully student and charging the teacher with the crime, and, other behaviors such as:

• Name calling, put-downs, and assorted verbal abuse. 
• Malicious Re-Assignment to different grade levels or course loads
• Withholding of needed job information and then holding the teacher accountable for it Isolating the teacher from colleagues by room assignments or by direct requests to colleagues so that colleagues disappear from interaction with the target teacher
• Giving unachievable amounts of work, over loads of problem cases, or larger class sizes than others with no supports
• Being shut out of desirable special projects or projects with stipends or status. 
• Constantly being made to move to a new classroom, work from a cart, or do additional non-teaching duties
• Being called into ambush meetings where the teacher is caught with no witnesses and berated or threatened.
• Labelling the teacher as negative for asking any questions in meetings or in emails
• Overt berating in meetings or in front of colleagues and students. 
• Undermining with parents by not backing in parent-school interactions
• Low evaluation scores without actual prescribed observations or reading standards data supplied.
• Short deadlines for surprise data collection or project assignments.
• Criticism of evidence based practices in favor of newer or different unproven methods
• Agressive physical behavior approaching and occasionally including physical attack.

Of course we cannot forget the money incentives to do well. Principals get monetary rewards for getting their schools to "do better" - either honestly, or by scrubbing, cheating, or lying.... Any way they can, getting  Performance Differentials:

Input your File#  and  your Last Name 

  Multi Year Performance Differential to be Paid 6/30/15

   Principals receive an additional $2,500 for winning two consecutive years and an additional $7,500 for winning three consecutive years or three out of five years.  Assistant Principals receive half of those amounts for meeting the same criteria.  If a Principal who has received a multi-year performance increase of $7,500, whether as a result of three consecutive performance increases or three out of five years, and continues to receive a performance increase the following year(s) the Principal continues to receive a $7,500 multi-year performance increase for each consecutive year won.  Similarly, an Assistant Principal meeting the same criteria will continue to receive $3,750.  The Multi Year Performance Differential will be paid on the 6/30/2015 paycheck for active members and on the 7/9/2015 Supplemental Payroll for members that have retired or separated from service.

  Please follow the link below to determine if you are on the list of Multi Year Performance Differential recipients provided to us by DOE.  If you believe you are eligible for the Multi Year Performance Differential and are not on this list please contact Monica McDonald at monica@csa-nyc.org  and provide the following information:

Name, File # and the years that you received the CSA Performance Differential along with the DBN of the school for each year. 

Most importantly, all of the people who you see below are protected from any harm or litigation simply because they are CSA insiders, Executive Board Members.

Rushell White, Principal of MS 226

See Rushell White, for instance, who is pictured above at her school MS 226, and below on the CSA Executive Board. 

I have posted many stories about her already:

MS 226 Principal Rushell White Key Words: Making the School Look Good Through Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment

Why is JHS 226 Principal Rushell White Still in Her Position Despite Documented Wrong-Doing? (March 19, 2016)

MS 226 Principal Rushell White Calls Assistant Principal David Possner a "Bad Jew" (Nov. 8, 2015)

MS 226 Principal Rushell White Key Words: Making the School Look Good Through Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment (July 17, 2016)

David Possner, Assistant Principal at MS 226 in Queens, Wins the "A For Accountability Award" From The E-Accountability Foundation (July 17, 2016)

Yet, like a teflon pan, she keeps her job.

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

CSA Executive Board

Staten Island (below)

State Senator Jeffrey Dinowitz and His Chief of Staff Allegedly Blocked Minority Out-of-Zone Students From Enrolling in Riverdale's PS 24

Jeffrey Dinowitz

AP Verdi says that Dinowitz wanted to keep black and hispanic kids out.

PS 24 AP Manny Verdi Sued Melodie Mashel, Superintendent of District 10; Mashel Quits

State Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz Is Accused of Blocking Minority Students From Enrolling at PS 24 in Riverdale

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

Racial Bias Claim Looms Over Bronx School as Administrators Exit

PS 24

By KATE TAYLOROCT. 5, 2016

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More

LINK

So far, the turmoil at a public school in the Bronx has cost two principals and a district superintendent their jobs, has sparked a lawsuit and has a local assemblyman defending himself against claims that he is trying to keep minority children out of the school. And it’s not over yet.

At the heart of the dispute at Public School 24, the Spuyten Duyvil School, are assertions by Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz and others that administrators — specifically a former principal, Donna Connelly, and the current assistant principal, Manuele Verdi — have allowed hundreds of students who live outside the school’s zone to enroll, causing overcrowding.

Last spring, Mr. Dinowitz sent his chief of staff to participate in the kindergarten registration process at the school and to scrutinize parents’ proofs of residence, in an effort to block out-of-zone students from enrolling. After an investigation, the city’s Education Department found fault with the superintendent, Melodie Mashel, and the then interim principal, Andrea Feldman, for letting the assemblyman’s chief of staff take part in the process and review parents’ and students’ personal information. In recent weeks, Ms. Mashel resigned, and Ms. Feldman was demoted and removed from the school. Their departures were previously reported by The Daily News.

In the meantime, Mr. Verdi, the assistant principal, has filed a complaint in federal court against the Education Department, claiming that Mr. Dinowitz’s real purpose was to prevent minorities and low-income children from enrolling in the school. P.S. 24 serves the Riverdale and Spuyten Duyvil neighborhoods, which are whiter and wealthier than the immediately adjoining Kingsbridge and Marble Hill neighborhoods.

The complaint does not present evidence that anyone who lives in the school zone has been prevented from enrolling, but it portrays Mr. Dinowitz’s focus on enrollment as tinged with bias.

It cites a meeting in November 2009 between Mr. Dinowitz, Mr. Verdi and Dr. Connelly, the former principal, who had recently arrived at the school. According to the complaint, Mr. Dinowitz said that people were misrepresenting their addresses to get into P.S. 24 and that he could tell which children were not from Riverdale “by the way they walk, talk and wear their pants.”

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Dinowitz said he “never said anything like that,” and he characterized Mr. Verdi’s complaint as “lie after lie.”

“This is about overcrowding, period,” he said. “That’s it. That’s what this is all about.”

Dr. Connelly, however, said that she recalled Mr. Dinowitz using those words.

“He was referring to kids who were not from the community and kids that were black or Hispanic,” she said.

P.S. 24 enrolls children from kindergarten through fifth grade. The school’s population is 42 percent white, 41 percent Hispanic, 8 percent Asian and 7 percent black. Twenty-seven percent of students receive free or reduced-price lunch. On the most recent round of state tests, 57 percent of third through fifth graders were proficient in reading, while 62 percent were proficient in math, compared with 38 percent and 36 percent citywide.

The elementary schools in nearby Kingsbridge are all largely Hispanic, and the vast percentage of their students receive free or reduced-price lunch. One, P.S. 207, which serves prekindergarten through second grade, is on the state’s list of persistently dangerous schools. While one of the schools, the Milton Fein School, also does well on annual state tests, the other school with children of test-taking age lags.

P.S. 24’s enrollment has increased dramatically in the past decade, rising to 1,030 students this year from 715 students in 2006-7. The department said the building was now at 122 percent capacity.

Dr. Connelly said that the increase, which began before she arrived, was caused by population growth, not a rise in the number of non-zoned students being enrolled.

According to the Education Department, the percentage of non-zoned children enrolled in kindergarten at P.S. 24 fell to about 10 percent in 2015-16 from 13 percent in 2010-11 (not counting the gifted and talented program), while the number of zoned students in kindergarten has grown by 36 percent.

Dr. Connelly said that some non-zoned students were assigned to P.S. 24 by the department. In other cases a parent might come into the school around November, hoping to transfer a child from a low-performing school. If there were seats available in the student’s grade, Dr. Connelly said, she would sometimes let the student in.

She said that accounted for only a small number of children.

“But it was still looked upon as some kind of a threat that I was letting children into the school that don’t belong at P.S. 24,” she said.

Mr. Dinowitz disagreed that population growth could account for the increase in enrollment.

“There has not been a population boom in the neighborhood,” he said.

Mr. Dinowitz’s own two children attended P.S. 24 in the 1990s, even though he lived outside the school zone.

Asked about that, he said it was irrelevant to the present situation, because the school was underused at the time.

“If the school had empty seats, fine, but the school doesn’t have empty seats,” he said.

In the 2015-16 school year, the debate over P.S. 24’s enrollment increase reached a crisis when the school lost its lease on an annex that housed fifth graders. Amid finger-pointing and a dispute about whether Dr. Connelly threw out teachers’ desks, she abruptly announced that she was retiring in October last year.

After her departure, Mr. Dinowitz and others, including the district superintendent, Ms. Mashel, and Ms. Feldman, the interim principal, met at the school in January this year, according to Mr. Verdi’s complaint and a report from the Education Department’s Office of Special Investigations. Mr. Dinowitz again complained about out-of-zone students.

It was then suggested that someone from Mr. Dinowitz’s office could go to the school during the registration process in late March and early April.

Randi Martos, Mr. Dinowitz’s chief of staff, ended up taking part and reviewed families’ documents. Department policy requires parents to provide two documents showing proof of residence, but parents were told they needed three, according to Mr. Verdi’s lawsuit and the Education Department’s investigative report. There is no evidence any zoned families were turned away.

The department’s investigation determined that Ms. Mashel had shown poor judgment and that Ms. Feldman had failed to supervise the registration process and allowed Ms. Martos to review parents’ and students’ personal information. Neither woman responded to a phone call requesting comment.

Despite his concerns about overcrowding, Mr. Dinowitz has opposed calls to build an addition to the school. In the interview, he said the overcrowding problem could be solved simply by enforcing enrollment policies.

The battles have left parents frustrated. Bob Heisler, a former president of the parent association, said he did not believe Mr. Verdi’s charges of racial bias, but he criticized Mr. Dinowitz and other local politicians for showing “no leadership over the years” in dealing with the increased demand for school seats.

“I personally feel that some of the local politicians want to keep Riverdale as they have seen it — the way they remember it from their own childhood — and they’re not open to the changes in the demographics that are going on in that community,” he said.

The Teacher Pension Perk For Those Who Can Get It: Tax Deferred Annuity

What the NYPOST does not say, is that teachers approaching retirement and who have high salaries are being charged with incompetency and/or misconduct for no valid reason.

Was the non-defense of the UFT at grievances and in 3020-a a secret side-deal between the Department of Education and the UFT?

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

Teachers are juicing their pensions, and it cost you $1B

By Carl Campanile

UFT President Mike Mulgrew, NYC Mayor Bill deBlasio, Chancellor Carmen Farina

LINK

A little known pension perk available only to New York City teachers cost taxpayers an astonishing 

$1.2 billion last year, a watchdog group reported Wednesday.

The sweet deal guarantees that teachers who sock away money for retirement in a special Tax Deferred Annuity (TDA) receive a 7 percent annual return. In stark contrast, banks currently pay depositors just 1 percent or less on most savings accounts.

And city taxpayers are the de facto guarantors for the high rate of return — on the hook to make up the difference if the annuity falls short of the guarantee.

Knowing a good thing when they see it, increasing numbers of teachers are stashing their cash in the no-lose annuity, the Citizens Budget Commission found.

It said that there are now 137,000 participants in the plan, including 51,000 retirees. But only 3,000 are drawing on their funds.

The rest, according to the commission, are watching their nest eggs grow at a fixed rate available to no other city employee.

And that’s over and above the teachers’ regular pensions.

“You don’t get a guaranteed rate of return with your 401(k). But teachers do” in that special annuity, said CBC research director Charles Brecher.

“It’s a good, positive math lesson for teachers. It’s a bad, negative math lesson for taxpayers. The teachers get this huge taxpayer subsidy. The city should treat the teachers like everyone else.”

Former city labor director James Hanley said the guaranteed 7 percent — which he negotiated down from 8.25 percent in 2009 — is indefensible.

“Nobody else has such a system. This is a little ridiculous. It’s tough to sustain in the long term,” Hanley warned.

The annuity is a voluntary program to supplement traditional government pensions.

Other city employees have them — without the guaranteed 7 percent return.

The sweet deal kicked in when the state Legislature in 1988 allowed teachers to designate all or part of their pension contributions to the fixed-return fund, which at that time was paying 8.25 percent, then close to the return of federal-government bonds.

After the 2008 stock-market crash, the fixed-rate option grew in popularity. In 2007, the annuity fund stood at $7.4 billion. Last year, it held $18.7 billion.

Taxpayer subsidies have also grown, from $238 million in 2007 to $1.2 billion last year.

The CBC urged the city to end the 7 percent guarantee, particularly for new hires.

The CBC pointed out that while government pensions are protected by the state Constitution, the annuity isn’t.

Any changes would require taking on the powerful teachers union.

Mike Mugrew , president of the United Federation of Teachers, argued that taxpayers have actually come out ahead.

“The CBC report neglects to mention that over the last 25 years, the city has actually made a profit from this fund, since its investment returns over that period have exceeded the guaranteed rate of return promised by the TDA,” he said.

Mayor de Blasio’s office had no immediate comment.