The NYC BOE Perp Talk

I'm announcing the start of a new series:

Criminals at the New York City Board of Education

I'll put the series on the right of this blog, and use the headline "The NYC BOE Perp Talk" which is obviously a take-off on the police term "Perp Walk". Wikipedia defines perp walk as: an American slang term which refers to the police practice of intentionally parading an arrested suspect (or "perp", short for "perpetrator") through a public place so that the media may observe and record the event. The suspect is typically handcuffed or otherwise restrained, and is often dressed in prison garb.

The NYC Perp Talk will be more damaging, because I will post the person's name and information on this blog and my website where it will be forever preserved in cyberspace.

In this series, I will post any indictment by an 'official' agency - such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation - of an employee of the New York City Board of Education (see below). I do not accept rumors, allegations, or other such hearsay, but I'll take anything that you've got and investigate.

Once proof is given of wrong-doing beyond a shadow of doubt (my shadow of doubt, because I can), the person's name will be posted as well as all of his/her acts that were illegal, unreasonable, or simply wrong. This way, all readers will know where to find the miscreants.

So, start the drums!


My first inductee into this Hall of Shame is, of course, Joel Klein. While he has not been found guilty of fraud, bribery, extortion, and the like....yet, we do believe that the day may come when he makes a perp walk out of the doors of Tweed with his coat hiding his face and his hands in handcuffs. So, all we will add to his entry into this illustrous crowd is the article I have named "Kleingate".

Another inductee is MILTON SMITH, recently indicted for extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion, conspiracy to commit bribery, and bribery. Now you know why the bus routes were changed on January 29, 2007, the coldest day of the year.

Department of Justice Press Release
LINK

For Immediate Release
February 11, 2010 United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Contact: (212) 637-2600

Former NYC Department of Education Inspector Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to 15 Months in Prison for Extortion and Bribery

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that former New York City Department of Education ("DOE") inspector MILTON SMITH was sentenced today to 15 months in prison. SMITH was found guilty following a one-week jury trial before United States District Judge BARBARA S. JONES on February 27, 2009, of conspiracy to commit extortion, conspiracy to commit bribery, and bribery.

According to the Indictment and the evidence at trial:

SMITH worked as an inspector in the DOE Office of Pupil Transportation ("OPT"). OPT sets the specifications for bus routes; oversees the process by which private bus companies bid for and obtain certain bus routes; processes requests from bus companies to have certain routes classified as "extended" (and hence subject to larger contract payments) because they begin earlier or run later than standard DOE bus times, including midday and field trip routes; and conducts safety and mechanical inspections of school buses. SMITH was specifically assigned to the OPT division responsible for providing bus and other transportation services to special education students.

From approximately 2000 to 2004, SMITH solicited and accepted tens of thousands of dollars in cash payments from various private bus company owners who held transportation contracts with DOE. In exchange, SMITH funneled field trip bus routes -- worth hundreds of thousands of dollars -- to certain bus companies. At times, SMITH fabricated certain bus routes that were neither needed by DOE nor performed by the bus companies, and assigned those trips to the bus companies who paid him. SMITH also took payments in exchange for overlooking certain safety and mechanical violations in connection with routine DOE bus inspections.

SMITH, 56, of Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, was found guilty of all charges against him: one count of conspiring to use his official position at DOE to extort bus company owners; one count of using his official position at DOE to extort bus company owners; one count of conspiring to receive bribes to influence his actions as an employee of an agency, the DOE, that received federal program funding; and one count of receiving bribes to influence his actions as an employee of the DOE that receives federal program funding.

In addition to the prison term, Judge JONES sentenced SMITH to three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $21,500.

SMITH is the seventh and final defendant who is a current or former DOE supervisor or inspector to plead or be found guilty in this case. On February 17, 2009, GEORGE ORTIZ, 64, of Bronx, New York, pleaded guilty to extortion and bribery charges and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. On February 6, 2009, NEIL CREMIN, 61, of Queens, New York, and IRA SOKOL, 70, of Brooklyn, New York, pleaded guilty to bribery charges. CREMIN was sentenced to four months in prison and SOKOL was sentenced to three years probation. On April 8, 2008, JEFFREY DUNAT, 53, of Staten Island, New York, pleaded guilty to extortion and bribery charges. On April 23, 2008, DORON WINKLER, 58, of Pomona, New York, pleaded guilty to extortion and bribery charges. On April 25, 2008, GEOFFREY BERGER, 58, of the Bronx, New York, pleaded guilty to extortion and bribery charges. DUNAT, WINKLER, and BERGER have not yet been sentenced.

Mr. BHARARA praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General and Office of Labor-Management Standards, the New York City Police Department, and the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office's Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys ELIE HONIG and KENNETH POLITE are in charge of the prosecution.

On second thought, I'll induct Mr. Smith's accomplices, George Ortiz, Neil Cremin, Ira Sokol, and the Maddalone Brothers:

GEORGE ORTIZ and fellow supervisors NEIL CREMIN and IRA SOKOL

Former Board Members-Trustees of NYC Transit Union Plead Guilty
Submitted by Carl Horowitz on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 18:00

When they weren't serving in their capacity as union officials, Nicholas and Paul Maddalone shook down bus company owners. Now they're set to join several partners in prison. The Maddalone brothers, formerly board members and assistant trustees of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181 in Queens, N.Y., on September 10 pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on various extortion and bribery charges. They allegedly had obtained tens of thousands of dollars in coerced payoffs related to a federally-subsidized program for special education students in the New York City public school system.

NYC School Bus Inspectors Sentenced, Union Officials Indicted in Bribery Scam
Submitted by Carl Horowitz on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 16:30

Even with the Genovese crime family less overtly in the driver's seat, Local 1181 of the Amalgamated Transit Union hasn't been entirely clean. But the union's legacy of corruption recently received a major blow in Manhattan federal court with a round of criminal actions. On May 26, Neil Cremin, a former New York City Department of Education (DOE) school bus inspector, was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to four months of incarceration to be followed by four months of home confinement and ordered to make $30,000 in restitution to the DOE. Some two weeks later on June 8, George Ortiz, a former DOE school bus inspector, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison to be followed by two years of supervised release and ordered to make restitution of $5,000. Each had been accused of extorting and/or accepting bribes. Between these actions, brothers Nicholas and Paul Maddalone, former board members and assistant trustees of the Queens, N.Y.-based Local 1181, which represents about 15,000 New York City school bus drivers, mechanics and escorts, were indicted on June 1 for extortion, unlawful payments and conspiracy to commit bribery.

New York City School Bus Inspectors Plead Guilty
Submitted by Carl Horowitz on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 23:47

Local 1181 of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) in Queens, N.Y. for years had been in the pockets of the Genovese crime family until the union's leaders were brought down by federal racketeering charges a few years ago. And even after the parent union placed the local under trusteeship, there was some additional cleaning up to do. Last spring, four New York City school bus inspectors and supervisors were indicted for various acts of extortion, bribery and bribe-taking going back to the mid Nineties. Neil Cremin, Ira Sokol, George Ortiz and Milton Smith at the time pleaded not guilty. But the evidence against them was too strong. On February 6, Cremin and Sokol pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to receiving bribes; Ortiz and Smith pleaded guilty in the same court to extortion and receiving bribes.

NYC School Bus Inspectors Charged with Extortion, Bribe-Taking
Submitted by Carl Horowitz on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 23:00

Local 1181 of the Amalgamated Transit Union in Queens, N.Y. long had operated as a subsidiary of the Genovese crime family before its leaders were taken down on racketeering charges by federal prosecutors a couple of years ago. Local President Salvatore Battaglia, Secretary-Treasurer Julius Bernstein, and benefits manager Ann Chiarovano either had been convicted by a jury or entered a guilty plea. One-time acting Genovese boss Matty “the Horse” Ianniello also went down. Late in 2006 ATU International President Warren George (pictured at right) placed the local under temporary trusteeship.

Yet there was some unfinished business. On May 13, four New York City school bus inspectors and supervisors – Neil Cremin, George Ortiz (retired), Milton Smith, and Ira Sokol – were arraigned in Manhattan federal court following the unsealing of indictments against them for acts of extortion, bribery and bribe-taking going back to the mid Nineties and totaling at least $1 million.

Also inducted, thanks to the crack team at South Bronx School blog:

Mychael Willon

Thanks, SB!

Two ComData Consulting, Inc. Employees Are Charged With Violations of the H1-B Visa Program

Teachers with H1-B visas should be careful.

Feds Struggle with H-1B Case
LINK

A court finds federal investigators acted recklessly in the aftermath of last year's bust of an alleged nationwide H-1B scam ring, arresting 11 people in seven states and bringing a 10-count indictment against a New Jersey IT services firm, Vision Systems Group.....

Two Employees Arrested For Extortion And Attempting To Intimidate A Whistleblower
by BCheung on April 6, 2010

Sateesh Yalamanchili and Trinath Chigurupati, two employees from ComData Consulting Inc. were arrested and charged with extortion and scheming to obstruct federal investigation within the New York area.

ComData Consulting Inc. typically hires and sponsors foreign workers through their H1-B Visa Program, to work within their IT field. Under the H1-B Visa Program, the employer is required to pay certain wages and other benefits to their foreign workers by United States Department of Labor.

On January 15, 2010, the United States Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (DOL-WHD) commenced an investigation on ComData‘s alleged violation of failure to pay required wages to its foreign workers, which both defendants were responsible for. ComData allegedly owe approximately $142,000 in back wages to 4 of its foreign employees.

Between January and February 2010, Yalamanchili and Chigurupati, purportedly exerted threats and $5,000 of bribery to one of the employees ComData owes wages to, to recant statements made to DOL-WHD.

A consensually recorded video by this employee, during one of the meetings with Yalamanchili and Chigurupati, indicated acts of extortion. Chigurupati reached an agreement with the employee that if the employee lied to DOL-WHD stating that he has no issues with his wages with ComData, he will receive $5,000 in exchange, and that his H-1B Visa would not be revoked.

If convicted, Chigurupati and Yalamanchili each face a maximum penalty of 25 years of imprisonment and a fine of $250,000 for one count of extortion and one count of attempting to obstruct federal investigation.Two N.J. men charged with extortion, obstruction in case of Illinois firm that allegedly intimidated whistle-blower

Two N.J. men charged with extortion, obstruction in case of Illinois firm that allegedly intimidated whistle-blower
By Star-Ledger Staff, April 05, 2010, 7:52PM
LINK

MIDDLESEX COUNTY — Shortly after a foreign computer consultant complained he had been lured to the United States on a promise of a job and cheated out of $53,000, he received a late-night visit from two hostile men, according to authorities.
He was pulled from his Middlesex County house on Jan. 22, forced into a car and taken for a long ride on a cold night while the two men threaten to "take care" him. They wanted the consultant to withdraw complaints he made to federal labor investigators about their employer, an Illinois company that recruited the consultant to come to the United States, according to a federal indictment unsealed today.
Now, two employees of the firm are facing extortion and obstruction of justice charges, which carry up to 20 years in prison.
Trinath Chigurupati, a 36-year-old Indian citizen living in Monmouth Junction, was arrested at his home Wednesday and released on $150,000 bail. Sateesh Yalamanchili, 38, who recently moved from New Jersey to Wood Dale, Ill., surrendered today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Shipp in Newark, who set his bail at $150,000.

The intimidated consultant, said federal prosecutors, is a witness in a year-old probe by the U.S. Department of Labor into the suspects’ employer, ComData Consulting Inc. of Rolling Meadows, Ill., which recruits foreign workers with an expertise in web development, information technology and software development. The firm generally outsources the employees to other companies after sponsoring them for entry into the United States on special temporary visas, known as H-1Bs, reserved for foreign workers with specialized skills.

On Jan. 15, labor officials filed a civil complaint accusing ComData of failing to pay and underpaying four immigrant workers, including the consultant, about $142,000 after recruiting them under the H-1B program. Harassment of the computer consultant by Chigurupati and Yalamanchili began five days later, federal prosecutors said.
ComData was not named in the indictment, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Moscato declined in court today to discuss whether his office is probing the firm or other witnesses have been harassed. ComData failed to return multiple telephone calls.
Chigurupati and Yalamanchili initially pressured the consultant on Jan. 20, after inviting him to a restaurant for what was supposed to be a job interview, authorities said. The threatening car ride followed two days later, and on a third night, the two men entered the consultant’s home, rousing him from sleep with slaps to the chest and shoulders, according to the charges.

On Feb. 4, the two men met him again at a restaurant and offered to pay $5,000 for him to recant his story, authorities said, adding the consultant had gone to federal authorities by then and was outfitted with a hidden recorder that captured every threat.

Yalamanchili and his lawyer, William Lundsten, declined comment on the charges today. Chigurupati’s lawyer, James A. Plaisted, said he was still reviewing the charges and called Chigurupati a "respectable hard-working individual."

Winning Your 3020-a Arbitration: Fire Your NYSUT Attorney, Don't Settle

I think that it is time to get to the basic problem with the 3020-a process, as I, an observer for 7 years ( a member of the general public at an open and public hearing) and then a paralegal assisting UFT members and/or Attorneys with 3020-a,  see it: NYSUT lawyers and the arbitrators on the NYC panel do not protect your due process rights, and the hearings are not "fair". Due to the fact that most charges are being preferred by a principal, the arbitrator does not have the jurisdiction or authority to rule on the charges thus given to a tenured pedagogue due to Education Law 2590-j   which gives the right to remove and discipline a teacher to a community superintendent...not a principal. But there still must be a vote. 3020-a goes into how the school board must vote on specifications (see Ed. Law 3020-a(2)(a)) preferred against a teacher before the teacher is given the charges. Everyone charged with 3020-a in New York City must see that the Notice of Determination of Probable Cause has no date for the Executive Session, and is signed by the principal or Superintendent, neither of whom has any authority to sign that piece of paper.

I wrote this article originally in October 2010, I am re-posting here:

Therefore an argument can be made that the arbitrator does not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine Just Cause and the hearing must be delayed, thus effectively dismissing the charges. I have a Motion To Dismiss written by NYSUT New York Counsel Claude Hersh and Attorney Neil Dudich which says just that. Why wont NYSUT Attorneys bring this up at 3020-a hearings?

By the way, what happens to this clause when the person appointed to the title of Chancellor doesn't have a contract, as Joel Klein does not, and yet Education Law 2590-h says that he MUST? Read this:

"* § 2590-h. Powers and duties of chancellor. The office of chancellor of the city district is hereby continued. Such chancellor shall serve at the pleasure of and be employed by the mayor of the city of New York by contract. The length of such contract shall not exceed by more than two years the term of office of the mayor authorizing such contract....."

Please review my articles:
Look at Article 61 in A Personal View From Betsy Combier On NYSUT And What The Attorneys Do Wrong In The 3020-a Process;

I filed a freedom of information request for Mr. Klein's contract in 2005 and again in 2007:
The "Who Are You Kidding??" Award Goes To: Joel Klein, New York City Board of Education Pretender

 NYC Teacher Hipolito Colon Makes History and Sues the NYC BOE, The Panel For Educational Policy, and NYSUT For Violating His Rights

Mayor Michael Bloomberg as Co-Partner in Chief of the New York City Department of Education: Performance Review

Editorial: The New York City Department of Education is a Sham and Mike Bloomberg is the Flim-Flam Man (7/7/2007)

Betsy Combier Speaks Out on the Constitutional Mess Created by Mayoral Control of the New York City Board of Education (7/22/2007)

Another issue that the NYSUT attorneys ignore is the right a teacher has to an open and public hearing. While this decision is a right given to the Respondent not only in 3020-a but also in the UFT contract, if the teacher going through the 3020-a does not ask for an open and public hearing at or before the pre-hearing conference, then he/she does not get it. The hearing will be closed. No NYSUT attorney discusses this unless the teacher brings it up. More often than not if a teacher brings up the issue, the NYSUT Attorney will say, "You better not have an open hearing because then the NYC DOE will bring in the press, and your story will be in the news."

Baloney. Press almost never comes to the 3020-a hearings of any teacher, unless asked by the teacher - aside from Steve Brill who was told by Joel Klein to attend the 3020-a hearing of teacher Lucienne Mohammed because she had filed a federal lawsuit against the NYC DOE and needed to be put into her place [of shame]. So, what is so scary about the press arriving at your hearing if you are innocent of all charges?? If you are innocent, and the news is that you are guilty, then you can take action and get damages. David Pakter just sued the New York Post and won release of the name of the person who told the newspaper that he was charged with "sexual misconduct". He is about to pursue an action against the person who was the source for the false claim.

Or, the NYSUT Attorney will say, "you shouldn't have an open hearing because I dont feel comfortable. (So? What are you trying to hide?) Or, "The arbitrator wont like you and will terminate you or give you a worse penalty than you would have had if you did not have an open and public hearing." (WHAT?? This is crazy).

Most people - including me - believe that an open and public hearing is the best way to honor your due process rights. If you have observers in the room with you, you have an extra set of eyes on what is going on, and this is always good. Of course, all people who attend the 3020-a should be silent at all times while the hearing is on the record, and should never make any movement that might seem in any way suggestive of comment. There is no passing of notes. But any lawyer who tries to keep a hearing closed is, we believe, saying, I want to hide something. In fact, on friday morning I was at 51 Chambers Street for a hearing and a NYC DOE attorney told me, "Betsy, are you coming to my hearing? All my hearings should be public, because I have nothing to hide." Exactly.

It is interesting to note that about two weeks ago I was asked to attend a hearing with a new arbitrator, Leona Barsky. I walked in the room with the Respondent and the private Attorney, and Ms. Barsky came up to my face and screamed, "Who are you? What is your name? Who sent you here? Who do you work for?" My replies were that I was a member of the general public, my name is Betsy Combier, and no one sent me, I am just an observer. She was not convinced. As it turned out, she immediately made the hearing a "pre-hearing" (which is closed) and I went to the hearing of another teacher who had asked for me to attend, starting at the same time. I wonder what Ms. Barsky is worried about. I'll be probably following her cases on this blog, as she seems clearly worried about the public watching her.

Even more important to the issue examined here is my suggestion (not legal advice, because I'm not an attorney) that if you are not guilty of any of the charges preferred against you, DONT SETTLE. Go through your 3020-a. This way you preserve your right to sue the New York City Department/Board of Education for actionable misconduct relevant to your specific circumstances (you should discuss this with a private attorney). Many teachers are discussing a class action and I have began searching for a large law firm.

By not settling you are establishing your rights to complain about the process that brought you to the 3020-a hearing in the first place, because this is where the NYC DOE fails. They created a mess by ignoring laws, rules and regulations that prevent angry principals from throwing false claims at people who work in their schools and have them stick. The New York City DOE knows this. For example, a teacher who was charged started his 3020-a and then was scheduled for "mediation." Simultaneously he decided to fire his NYSUT Attorney (Mitch Rubenstein) and hire a private attorney, who was going to accompany this teacher to the "mediation". The mediation was cancelled.

Now there could be many reasons for Theresa Europe (pictured above), head of the Gotcha Squad, to cancel the mediation at the last minute, but my guess is that she did not want the private attorney in the "mediation" session. The "mediation" that she is talking about seems, from the reports of many of the people who have gone through this, to be not what the average person would think of as mediation. Basically what happens is, a teacher is given a date to come to 51 Chambers Street and he/she meets with a "mediator" - an arbitrator on the UFT/DOE NYC panel who has been designated a 'mediator' for the case, but is NOT the arbitrator appointed to hear the teacher's 3020-a - and he/she is told "you better take the deal/pay the fine in the settlement agreement/retire/resign or else you will be terminated at your 3020-a".

Too few teachers are saying "Sorry, no" and walking out.

A private attorney probably would see immediately how wrong this is. Also, if a document is signed under duress, after extreme harassment or other actions that compel, then the document can be rescinded.

If you are a teacher who is extremely afraid of your 3020-a and all the threats that you have heard start making sense to you, take a deep breath and go into your alpha level and try to get back the sensibility to go through with your hearing to the end. A settlement may be good for a short while, but it may not be. Think about this:
- Does your settlement/deal include a clause that says that you will be immediately removed from the ineligible/inquiry list? Get this into your final settlement!

- Does your settlement/deal say that all charges will be removed from your file and will never be used at another hearing in the future?

I will give you an example:

In 2002 or thereabout, teacher X taught swimming at a school. He was tenured, and taught for many years. He typically started races by shooting a starter pistol. On one particular day a student who disliked him complained that he had shot a pistol in the school. He was brought up on disciplinary charges, and his attorney told him to just pay the fine and the charges would be dropped, and only a letter would be placed in his file. He agreed. (why, I dont know). In 2010 he was accused of saying something to a girl, thrown into a rubber room, and brought to 3020-a. His charge was saying something improper to a student, which he fervently denied, but then the NYC DOE handed in the prior charge of shooting a pistol in a school in 2002, and the arbitrator terminated his employment saying that these TWO wrongs showed a history of bad character. Yet the pistol event was never adjudicated at a 3020-a, this teacher only got a letter to file, and it was to end there.

Settlement is admitting guilt. If you are not guilty, why are you paying a fine and admitting that you did something wrong? What are you paying for?

The question of where the fines go remains unanswered, at least publicly. No one is answering this question - which I, for one, ask all the time. And, please tell me, all you NYC DOE readers, what District 65 is?

I'll find out eventually. Here is a funny story: a teacher went through her 3020-a and was fined by arbitrator Howard Edelman $8500. Only, he found her not guilty of any misconduct, he only wanted to stop her from turning around quickly in the classroom ever again. She appealed, and Judge Paul Fineman overturned Edelman's decision as "shocking to the court's conscience". However, before the decision came down, the NYC DOE demanded the money. Cheryl Smith, the NYC DOE Attorney on the case, told this teacher, "You can pay us in cash or by money order, but you cannot give us a check."

What did this teacher do? Paid her fine by check, and gave me a cancelled copy so that I could see what the Bank account of the NYC BOE was. I'm still seeking information on District 65, so please email me at betsy.combier@gmail.com if you have any information. I dont need your name.

To sum up, NYSUT attorneys are now trying to rush all their clients through the system, first by "mediation" that in my opinion resembles extortion, then through unfair procedures enacted as part of an expedited 3020-a hearing.

Wikipedia defines extortion as follows:
"Extortion, outwresting, and/or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.^"

Everyone should dig his/her heels in the ground and put a stop to this rush to judgment and perfect storm of injustice by hiring an excellent private attorney who will use the law to stop the NYC DOE from taking away your career and stigmatizing your professional life. I have met and can suggest terrific people. Unfortunately, they are not 'free' (you've paid for legal representation with your mandatory dues to the UFT), but I guess I can say that the following applies here: "You get what you pay for".

Betsy Combier

PS: Fidgety, a fellow blogger, posted the following:

May 17, 2010

Why I fired my DOE (oops!) NYSUT Lawyer...
LINK

At our first meeting, I clearly requested an "Open and Public" hearing so that my lawyer could give notice to the arbitrator and DOE lawyer. I followed up on this request with an email asking for confirmation.

By our fourth meeting, I noted that my lawyer had still not solidified my request with the hearing officer and asked her why.

I said, "I sense that you don't want me to have and open and public hearing." "Well, she said, "You sensed right". She then proceeded to paint an ugly picture of an out of control hearing room filled with unruly reporters and friends of the Principal. "If you have an open hearing, the Principal can bring in anyone he wants to. Anyone. That may not be in your best interest. You never know who he might bring in". And, "Do you really want the press distorting your story the way they have done with other cases?"

Armed with the confidence that somehow, "The truth will set me free", I still insisted on an open and public hearing despite the obvious dismay of my lawyer.

I could only reach my NYSUT lawyer through the NYSUT office, that is... when it was open, which meant that I had to call when the office was open, even just to leave a message. The recording said that if you know the '3 digit code' of the person you are trying to reach, please enter it now. As a client, I asked my lawyer for her 3 digit code. Her response was, "Uh, what do you need it for? Has there been a gap in our communication?" "Yes,as a matter of fact. I called you five days ago and this is the first time you have returned my call." "Well...Is there a problem with that? I am very busy."(doesn't want to be bothered)"Yes, there are times when I would like to be able to leave you a message." Her response was, "I think that we've been emailing just fine, don't you?" "No". (Obviously I wouldn't be asking for your code if I was able to reach you, idiot).

After several months of sending emails with scant response from my lawyer,I was beginning to get nervous. When she called me on a Sunday night at 10pm on the last day of spring break, I asked her again for an alternative number. Again, she refused to give me one. Her excuse was that she'd had trouble in the past with clients(teachers) calling her at all hours of the night and had reservations about ever giving out her cell phone number to a teacher again...(I wondered if that reservation included calling her clients on a Sunday night at 10pm.)

When I asked what concerns she had, she responded that she'd rather not divulge that information, and... "Is this the reason you called me?- to pick a fight?"

My paranoid NYSUT lawyer wouldn't allow anyone to sit in on my meetings with her. I found it unusual that I couldn't be accompanied by someone, anyone of my own choosing. Her reason was that she had not established 'confidentiality' with that person. (They were my support system stupid, not yours.)

Before our third meeting, I asked my lawyer why she wouldn't allow me to bring someone in with me for support. Her response was that she didn't feel 'comfortable'. I said that, "It's not about 'you' feeling comfortable. I am the client. This is my case. I am choosing to bring this person in. I trust this person". As a client, I should be able to bring in anyone that I want. (Shouldn't I?) Her response was, "Well, what do you know about lawyers? How much experience have you had with lawyers anyway?"

Does this sound professional to you?

It started to become very clear to me that my DOE-(oops!)NYSUT lawyer was not working in my best interest when she divulged private information to my Chapter Leader without my permission. It seemed that she- my lawyer, needed assurance that the events I had described to her actually occurred the way that I described them. Who was breaching client-lawyer confidentiality now?

My NYSUT lawyer was completely overwhelmed with too many cases and it was adversely affecting the preparation of my hearing. As the amount of documents that I submitted to her grew, so did her disorganization. Each time that I met with her, it was like starting from square one. As we were going through the documents I had submitted to her at previous meetings, I came across one that didn't seem familiar. As I began to read it aloud, her response was, "Oh that's not yours", grabbing it out of my hand. "I was wondering where that document was! I don't know how that paper got in there". That document, that 'confidential document', was from another teacher's case that she was working on. I began to wonder how many of my documents had been mixed up or 'fallen' somewhere that they shouldn't be... And she was the one concerned about "confidentiality?".
It was obvious that my lawyer had her own set of rules which she felt didn't apply to her. I had no confidence that she was working for me and not the DOE or some other ultimate plan. Three weeks before my hearing, I fired my DOE-oops! 'NYSUT' lawyer and hired a private one. I believe that it was the best decision that I have ever made. There was no doubt that the new lawyer had the experience and knowledge that the NYSUT lawyer was clearly lacking. He was one step ahead of the DOE and UFT's tricks which I believe included assigning me a ridiculous and severely inept NYSUT lawyer.

Eric Goldstein, Former NYC Department of Education Employee in Charge of School Food, Found Guilty of Taking Bribes and Serving Kids Tainted Food

Eric Goldstein, the former head of the Department of Education’s Office of School Support Services, was convicted of taking bribes to ignore health violations from the supplier of chicken tenders to the city’s schools.AP

From Betsy Combier, Editor:  

When you work for the NYC Department of Education and know that other administrators are stealing from the $37 Billion budget pot without consequences, you may want a little for yourself. If they can, so can I, right?

No, Mr. Goldstein, this scam does not include you. You were caught this time, and when you were running the school bus scam in 2018.

Fraudulent money schemes are too easy to set up at the NYC DOE. We, the public, need a Special Counsel like James Gill (Gill Commission) and Edward Stancik (SCI when it started and was a real investigative agency) to unravel all of this.

See these posts as well:

Former New York City Department of Education CEO of School Support Services and Three Executives of SOMMA Food Group Convicted of Extortion Conspiracy and Bribery

Ex-DOE exec convicted of taking bribes, turning blind eye to tainted chicken tenders served to NYC public school kids

School Official Convicted After Students Ate Chicken With Bits of Metal

Scoundrel Spotlight - Eric Goldstein

ABC News on Goldstein Story

and this from 2018, when Goldstein was fired for the "Bus Scandal"

Eric Goldstein  [photo: Kristy Leibowitz]

...he was re-hired. Why?

See also:

Winning 3020-a, and The New York City Department of Education "Investigators" - or Not

Betsy Combier

betsy@advocatz.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog

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 

Disgraced NYC public schools exec who turned blind eye to tainted food begs judge for mercy

Finally, he’s caring about children.

The disgraced New York public schools executive convicted of taking bribes and serving tainted food to city kids says his own family is “barely hanging on” — as federal prosecutors seek to lock him up for six years.

“I am pleading for mercy,” Eric Goldstein, a former official at the DOE, wrote in an Aug. 23 letter, in which he tried to get sympathy by describing how hard his two sons and ex-wife had been suffering because of his crimes.

“Not especially for me, but for [his family] because without my financial, emotional and physical support I fear that they will be cast adrift and drown.”

Goldstein’s appeal for the heartstrings comes after he and three defendants — Michael Turley, Brian Twomey, and Blaine Iler — were found guilty by a Brooklyn federal jury in 2023 of extortion and bribery charges for the kickback scheme involving Texas-based meat supplier Somma Foods.

Goldstein, 56, pushed Somma Foods’ chicken products into city schools despite recurring health issues, in return for kickbacks that included thousands in cash and a share in the company.

He even got money to pay his divorce attorney, prosecutors have said.

Jurors were shown disturbing photos of some of Somma’s offerings, including chicken drumsticks oozing a thick-red liquid, and other chicken products that contained plastic, bones or metal in them.

Goldstein turned a blind eye to tainted chicken served to schoolchildren in exchange for bribes from three co-defendants.DOJ

Goldstein received bribes from Somma employees to keep their food inside city schools.DOJ

In the letter, Goldstein bemoaned about how his family — two sons and a former spouse — face “actual life or death” from the fallout of his actions, and that it any jail sentence would be a “crushing punishment” to his family.

“I truly cannot imagine a more searing pain than knowing that your actions and decisions might cause the eviction, dissolution, and devastation of your own family,” Goldstein, who acknowledge he wears a “unfading scarlet letter of felon and failure,” said.

Goldstein fast-tracked getting Somma foods into nearly 2,000 schools starting in 2015. But the company had issues keeping up with the demand after millions of dollars worth of food orders.

Then from Sept. 2016 through March 2017, schools reported bleeding from half-inch pieces of “wire-like metal” and blue plastic found in poultry — and a food service manager needed to receive the Heimlich maneuver after choking on a bone in a chicken tender.

It took until April 2017 for the DOE to remove all Somma products from schools after repeated complaints by students and staffers, prosecutors said at trial.

His attorneys are asking the judge to keep Goldstein out of jail because of his “fundamentally good character,” citing his 15-year stint at the Department of Education and more than two dozen letters sent by family and friends.

Then from Sept. 2016 through March 2017, schools reported bleeding from half-inch pieces of “wire-like metal” and blue plastic found in poultry — and a food service manager needed to receive the Heimlich maneuver after choking on a bone in a chicken tender.

It took until April 2017 for the DOE to remove all Somma products from schools after repeated complaints by students and staffers, prosecutors said at trial.

His attorneys are asking the judge to keep Goldstein out of jail because of his “fundamentally good character,” citing his 15-year stint at the Department of Education and more than two dozen letters sent by family and friends.

Eric Goldstein (right) and co-defendants including Blaine Iler (left) will be sentenced on September 9.DOJ

“Eric has been crushed by the realization that all he will be remembered for is his involvement in this case. That this experience might culminate in his incarceration and the certain devastation of his family that would follow is often too much for Eric to bear,” his attorneys said in their sentencing submission letter.

But prosecutors, who are seeking to lock up Goldstein for 63 to 78 months, laughed at his attorneys trying to downplay his role in the chicken scandal.

“The notion that Goldstein, who was the Chief Executive Officer of School Support Services, responsible for SchoolFood, athletics and busing, was not a high-level decisionmaker is, candidly, disingenuous, and the Court should summarily reject,” prosecutors said in their own filing.

Prosecutors added that Goldstein’s greed also harms potential vendors doing business with the DOE because they will “wonder whether they too will need to make payments to DOE officials” to get their products approved.

Each of the other co-defendants face up to a little more than five years in prison, according to the feds.

They will all be sentenced September 9 in Brooklyn Federal Court.

Extortion At 3020-a Arbitration

Extortion At 3020-a Arbitration in New York City
Parentadvocates.org
LINK

Michael Mulgrew

Black’s dictionary, 6th edition, defines “extortion” as: “The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence or fear, or under color of official right.”

Lately it seems that every tenured employee of the NYC Board of Education brought to 3020-a arbitration is being terminated. The arbitrators currently serving on the UFT-BOE New York City panel seem to be unwilling or unable to find a lesser penalty for any level of misconduct or incompetence.

No one is really listening to the facts of any case (and I don’t mean ‘hearing’ the facts, I mean listening), and, in my opinion as well as in my experience with the UFT Representatives, the UFT Reps. and NYSUT Attorneys really believe that anyone receiving charges is actually guilty of those charges. Oh, the UFT Rep. will help you file for your arbitration hearing – either 3020-a or “U”rating appeal - but then you will not hear from the rep. again, no matter what you do. They don’t want to get involved and put themselves into a chance encounter with SCI (Special Commission of Investigation) or an agent (notice I don’t call them “investigators”) from the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) or Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). People from these sub-agencies of the NYC BOE have the right of way.

The teachers who have had the sentence “you are terminated” handed to them since January 2011 don’t understand what happened. Of all the cases told to me by the teachers themselves, and after reviewing many pages of transcripts from many different cases, my opinion is that very few of the fired teachers deserved this fate. The rest were brought up on absurd charges that should have been written into a counseling memo (if at all) or given to the employee with, at most, a couple of weeks’ suspension. All were targets of a vindictive principal and/or “legal” (the NYC Office of General Counsel) who, under orders of “legal” and Mayor Bloomberg, go for employee termination in every case. There have been many success stories, too, but I’m here to tell you about a person who could have been successful in her case if her NYSUT attorney and the arbitrator had not used extortion and harassment to get her to resign.

While observing the hearings as a volunteer journalist, I was asked by Randi Weingarten to work as staff at the United Federation of Teachers and help members, including the members in temporary reassignment centers or “rubber rooms”. When I started at the UFT in August 2007 there were seven locations where tenured (and some non-tenured) employees sat every day, from about 8:30AM to 3-3:30 PM, depending on their school hours. In the 2007-2008 school year I went to all of the TRCs, then in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 I visited each of my locations (25 Chapel Street, 355 Park Place in Brooklyn, and 501 Courtlandt Ave, Bronx) every week and stayed all day because the people in these locations wanted to talk to me, or anybody (and I was the only person who visited every week). As I wrote above, I attended the 3020-a hearings as a volunteer until 2011, when I started working with private attorneys hired for 3020-a.

The 'NYC Rubber Rooms' refers to the eight locations open until July 1 2010 scattered throughout New York City where targeted tenured employees of the NYC public schools were told to sit until charged, often for 2 - 7 years. I also use the term to mean the process of putting people out of their jobs under false pretenses. While these people sat and awaited their “fate,” which was unknown and some were never charged at all, The Gotcha Squad created charges against them without their knowledge or consent. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) the New York State United Teachers legal group (NYSUT) and the New York City Board of Education (NYC BOE) all conspired together to deny thousands of people their constitutional due process rights. Many did not go away willingly or quietly after receiving unfair decisions through mediation/arbitration, so the 3020-a process was and currently is used to force employees out of the system. The NYC BOE Gotcha Squad could be held accountable if the charges are proven completely false and/or the employee brought to 3020-a is exonerated, so arbitrators on the UFT/BOE must prove something in order to get the NYC BOE paid back for the time and money spent on trying to get charges to stick (doesn’t matter if the charges are true or not).

The Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, started the campaign to close the Temporary Re-Assignment Centers (“TRCs”) in 2007, after the New York City newspapers began a series of articles on the “Rubber Rooms”, popularizing the nickname as well as the fact that hundreds of teachers, school counselors and other tenured personnel were being warehoused at their full salaries while they sat for months, and years.

My sources say Bloomberg realized that the setting up of warehouses for teachers and NYC BOE personnel was one of the biggest errors of his administration. The stories ripped into the minds of New Yorkers, who pay the highest taxes in the country. There was an uproar of disgust at the stories of so many highly paid public servants who would sit around and do nothing on the public dime. Actually the truth of the matter is that no one was in charge, so no data existed about why all these employees were placed in the warehouses, and no one wanted to admit that many were placed there unfairly.

I decided in 2003 that someone ought to investigate what was going on, and it might as well be me. By the way, Mike Bloomberg’s second biggest mistake was hiring Joel Klein, whose style of verbal abuse of anyone who refused to do what he wanted was the opposite of what Bloomberg wanted.

In 2008 Bloomberg, ordered Joel Klein and the UFT to expedite all the 'teacher trials' (3020-a arbitration hearings). As this arbitration is compulsory, teachers who are charged and who request a hearing have only this venue to defend their position pursuant to Education Law 3020-a. The first agreement, in June 2008 actually was never implemented. Everyone ignored the clause in there that principals should be held accountable for making false claims against any of their employees. Also, the signing of a document giving everyone a “speedy” hearing outraged almost everyone sitting in the temporary re-assignment centers or TRCs. None of the rubber roomers accused of wrong-doing or incompetency wanted an ‘expedited’ hearing that denied him or her a full and fair hearing, but no one at the helm of the UFT or BOE was listening. I and several of the temporary re-assignment centers’ liaisons were protesting all the time on our blogs and in-person to the leaders of this fraud, to no avail.

The lawyers who are assigned to handle the 3020-a arbitration seem to be unwilling or unable to be bothered to spend large amounts of time on any single case. Speed to termination or penalty was the goal, not a serious review of all the facts. Many members complained to me and anyone else who would listen about how they, after sitting in a rubber room for two-7 (or more) years, were given 1 hour to talk about the case when their NYSUT lawyer finally met with them. 

From 2007 to 2010 there were simply too many UFT members charged with incompetency and/or misconduct to spend any amount speaking to and/or defending any one client. Some NYSUT attorneys made this very clear to their client, especially if the person spoke slowly, didn’t have all the papers necessary, whose language was not English, or who simply didn’t get The Plan, which was to quickly run through the evidence and get you fined, resigned, or terminated, by force if nothing else worked. I often asked the lawyers – as did their clients – to subpoena witnesses, so that the proper testimony could be recorded, but NYSUT will not subpoena witnesses. This is a lethal error, in my opinion.

For some reason, the NYSUT Attorneys think that their clients come to the offices at 52 Broadway without a small digital tape recorder in their pockets. The lack of understanding about the 21st Century technology is astonishing, particularly when many clients have taped the investigators, the principals, assistant principals, and all other personnel for years at their respective schools. Why the NYSUT attorneys wouldn’t think that their clients are taping them as well is beyond me. Anyway, in New York State the law protects anyone taping anybody else with whom he/she is in a conversation without telling the other person. NYSUT attorneys, and you know who you are, remember that whatever insults and comments you say will be repeated, and may haunt you in the future.

Back to a short recent update on the Rubber Rooms. On April 15, 2010 the UFT President Michael Mulgrew, NYC BOE CEO Joel Klein, and Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that there was a new agreement to end the rubber rooms forever. This agreement was negotiated, signed, sealed, and delivered in total secrecy. Not I nor anyone else knew about it outside of a select few at the UFT headquarters and district offices. On the 15th I received a call at home from Luis Crespo, the Brooklyn TRC ‘Principal’ at 25 Chapel Street and he told me to get over there ASAP, as there was a major announcement in a few hours. It was 8AM.

The April 15, 2010 agreement mandated the closure of the eight locations that, altogether, held approximately 500 people awaiting their "trial", freedom and exoneration, or termination. The rubber room process – false charges substantiated at 3020-a followed by excessive penalties - didn't end, only the large warehouses specifically designated as "re-assignment locations".  

Teachers continue today to be thrown out of their classrooms often for little or no reason and without evidence of the allegations, but now, after April 15, 2010, the effort to get the people removed and tainted by charges has taken on a new urgency, fueled by Mike Bloomberg who dictates the rules. Most of the agreement dictated new rules for 3020-a that took away the few rights tenured members had. In my opinion, this agreement was a disaster in terms of honoring procedural and substantive due process rights for any person subjected to charges pursuant to 3020-a. The UFT has continued the "hands-off" strategy, and rules in the UFT contract are being ignored without any accountability. Employees charged with anything are removed from their classrooms and told to sit in the office of the school, the suspension room, at 65 Court Street, or 131 Livingston, both in Brooklyn, and Long Island City, just to name a few locations.

By 2010 the order from Mike Mulgrew, Klein and Bloomberg was to get all 'rubber roomers' off the arbitration calendar and, hopefully off of the NYC BOE payroll. To show how this played out, I will now tell the story of "Jane" - not her real name. I have redacted all mention of her real name in the papers that she gave me that details what happened to her at the hands of NYSUT attorney Keith Gross and Arbitrator Bonnie Siber Weinstock on May 13, 2010 to show how teachers are made into victims in this New York City arbitration known as 3020-a. Something must be done to stop what happened to Jane and countless others.

Jane was in the oldest rubber room, located at 25 Chapel Street in Brooklyn, NY, not far from the Brooklyn Bridge. She took a seat at the far end of the long room where she made beautiful and colorful small paper planes. I still have mine. She was very very upset at the charges as she loved 'her' children and her job, and would never do anything that represented harm to a child. She believed that the NYC BOE targeted her wrongly and framed her with false charges. After reading her charges and listening carefully to her story, my opinion was that she should never have been removed from her classroom. She was one of the “innocent” members of the rubber room. (My assessment/opinion).

On May 13, 2010 I happened to be in the room when a little before 12 noon Jane received a call from her NYSUT lawyer whose name is Keith Gross. He had an urgent message, that Jane must come to the administrative trial office immediately, at 51 Chambers Street, because her arbitrator, Bonnie Siber Weinstock, was waiting. Jane had been up most of the night before, and she was very tired we all heard her say, and couldn't she come on monday instead? Mr. Gross told her absolutely not.

As Jane told us later, she had no money that day for the subway to Chambers Street, so she ran across the Brooklyn Bridge to get to 51 Chambers Street ASAP, as Gross had ordered her to do. Jane went immediately into her hearing room with Gross, and Bonnie Siber Weinstock sat at the head of the table. The NYC BOE Attorney, Chrystal Barrows was there, Mr. Gross was there, and a transcriptionist from Ubiqus, the company hired by the NYC BOE to transcribe the record.

Jane told us Arbitrator Weinstock told her to sit down, and constantly mispronounced Jane’s last name. Jane has a simple last name and thought that the mis-pronounciation by Weinstock was to upset her from the very start of the meeting. It did. She was. Weinstock mentioned that if Jane went to a full hearing she could be terminated, and she told Jane that this is what would probably happen if she did not agree to sign the settlement agreement that was on the table. Jane really did not want to resign. She wanted to make some sort of agreement, but she didn’t want to be terminated, and she felt harassed by Weinstock. Nonetheless, Jane was not ready to sign her resignation, so Keith Gross said to her, let me take you outside for a moment.

When Gross got outside, Jane said, he and she went into another room, where Gross said something to the effect of “What do you think this is, a circus? You better resign, or you will be terminated”.

Jane was very scared at this point, so she said ok, but felt that this wasn’t ok at all. Gross and Jane went back into the arbitration room, and Weinstock put on the record that Jane had agreed to the terms of the settlement, and the hearing was over. In Exhibit "A" you will read the name 'Martin Weinstein'. He was the former Superintendent and coincidentally I happen to know Marty. I called him up and asked him if he ever saw or heard of the specifications and/or settlement of "Jane" - I of course gave Jane's real name - and Marty told me that he had never seen or heard that name, and never saw or read any paper with Jane's real name on it.

Jane did not return that day to Chapel Street, so a few days later I returned to Chapel Street and heard that she was still extremely upset, crying on and off. I sat down with her and she told me about what happened. I suggested that she call Mr. Gross up, which she did, and ask him to send her a copy of the transcript, which she received a few days later and gave to me.

I also asked her if she would write down her feelings of that day, which she did, and here is her statement:

"On May 13, 2010, my NYSUT Attorney, Keith Gross told me that I needed to immediately report to Chambers Street or the “deal” would be taken off the table – the deal – I could remain in the TRC until June 28 and not be sent to the ATR the minute I resigned – because there would be no need to be in the TRC once there was a “deal”.

Also, I’d get to receive my summer paychecks and receive my benefits through August – Benefits Id already earned. My Attorney said this was the best he could do for me and that if I didn’t take the deal that day it would be off the table and there would be a hearing beginning the following week . If I lost the case I would lose my pay from May through June.

We both felt there was no point in going through the hearing since I had other plans and new prospects for September.

I requested that I be allowed to meet with him to go over the paperwork on the following Monday – the 17th – because I was struggling to stay awake because I already started my course (?) transition and I was working nights and surviving on an average of 2 hours or less of sleep per night during the week.

I was told to stop making excuses, that even after I still wanted out that I did not have subway fare – no never until payday. I was told that I’d have to come up with the money if I was going to attend hearings because I literally had less than 20 dollars in my checking account that day.

I received a text message from Keith Gross to report to Chambers Street ASAP. I texted him the details of my situation and that if I felt better by the PM I’d walk over the bridge to get there.

I did do this. My Attorney went over the paperwork with me and the stipulations of the “deal”. I was assured I would never have a problem getting a teaching job outside of the city because the only information sent out would be the recommendation letter included in this packet.

When the arbitrator asked me if I had been coerced into making the agreement, I tried to explain that this really was coercion since there were few choices available to me and none that were very appealing.

She snapped at me and said that if I felt I was being coerced she would listen to the evidence at a three-day hearing and render her decision in three days. That’s what I heard. What is written in the transcript is quite different.

My Attorney made me go to the room next door and told me “This isn’t a game. And you said that you were ready to sign and you agree with the terms.”

I knew then that the UFT and DOE and NYSUT lawyers really are mostly all the same.

I was crying when I signed the paperwork. The arbitrator had the nerve to congratulate me and wish me luck. She never even asked how I pronounced my name – it was like she was deliberately pronouncing it incorrectly. If half my dues go to her for pay I want my half back.

I felt like all anyone cared about that day was how many people they could get off the payroll.

I did not “take a deal”. I quit because I don’t need or want anything from the DOE. But honestly, I want the DOE erased completely from my work record."

Jane now works at cleaning doctor's offices at night. She says that she is happy because she is out of the Department of Education.

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, Advocatz.com
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, NYCourts - New York Court Corruption
Editor, NYC Public Voice

A Public Policy of Extortion: Teachers Forced into Settlements

I had an OMG moment this morning, sunday september 28, 2014, when I saw the headline in the print version of the NY POST article  "Bad Teachers 'Pay To Stay'" by Susan Edelman.

First, who are bad teachers? I have written before and will keep writing that I certainly do not know who a bad teacher is, in most cases where this term is used. I know that whoever did not care about or teach anything to any of my four daughters was, in my opinion, not a "good" teacher, but I cannot speak for any other person, parent or student. See one of the latest posts on Diane Ravitch's blog about Adam Urbanski and the complicated process of evaluating teachers.

I certainly did not know that I would be quoted under that headline.

The online edition of the sunday NY POST had a better headline - see the article posted in full, below..

What I told Ms. Edelman was that when an educator is charged with misconduct or incompetency, and sign up for a NYSUT attorney, in many cases the NYSUT Attorney tries very hard (sometimes, in my opinion, abusively) to get the educator to resign, retire, leave town, or settle. Anything but go to a hearing. I believe the NYSUT Attorneys know how much of a due process disaster the hearings are, from the viewpoint of defending an educator's rights. After watching the attorneys work at 3020-a for almost 8 years, 2003-2011, I thought there was a better way to defend, and started as a paralegal advocate in defense of Respondents brought to 3020-a in 2011. No one who is innocent of charges should be forced into a settlement of any kind. You can win a 3020-a.

The shocking clauses in all settlements are the give-backs, ie agreement to pay thousands of dollars and/or take many hours of Professional Development (PD) on classroom management, lesson planning, Common Core, etc. Where does this money go? No one seems to know. I wrote a FOIL request to the New York State Education Department. No information there. I wrote a FOIL to the New York City Department of Education. No answer.

If the educator really has done something terrible, then a settlement is a good idea. But if an educator is threatened, yelled at, and disrespected for no reason, and the charges are not valid (made up by a hostile administrator) and then is told he/she will be terminated if he/she doesn't settle, then there is something very wrong. This is, in my opinion, extortion. Educators who know they are innocent just should terminate any representation by anyone who is abusive or disrespectful, and hire someone else. Also in all settlements are clauses which say the signer of the agreement cannot ever sue the Department for anything that has happened to bring about these charges.

Really? My suggestion is this: the minute you receive your charging packet with your specifications, write and file a Notice of Claim. Notarize your signature and send to the NYC Comptroller's Office as well as the Corporation Counsel via certified mail, return receipt requested. You then have a year and 90 days to sue any public agency personnel who have harmed you.

And, my quote in the article below does not refer to the so-called "bad" teachers, but refers to all the "good", innocent teachers and employees who are threatened, accused of things they did not do or did not intend to do, and are considering leaving their jobs. This is not good for the children in the classes of those excellent, often veteran tenured teachers, because learning needs continuity. The Department of Education doesn't care about the kids. This is obvious. I wonder if NYSUT Attorneys or Reps care, either, but that's another post.

Betsy Combier

Teachers accused of misconduct keep jobs in secret settlements

By Susan Edelman

The city Department of Education secretly settles with most teachers accused of misconduct or incompetence, letting them pay a fine and return to classrooms — but leaving students and parents in the dark. Teachers yanked from schools for abuse of students, poor performance and many other offenses get charges dropped if they admit to some lapse, pay thousands of dollars in payroll deductions and take a class or workshop, documents obtained by The Post show. “All they want is your money,” said paralegal Betsy Combier, who helps defend teachers. “It doesn’t matter what happened to the kid — it’s kind of frightening.” In the past two school years, the DOE has brought charges against 826 teachers, it said Friday. Though 340 cases remain open, the majority of the rest — 381 — ended in a secret settlement. Settlements obtained by The Post include:  A Queens teacher who denied squeezing a kid’s neck and throwing an object that struck another kid was offered a $10,000 settlement, but bargained it down to $2,500 and returned to the same middle school. A Brooklyn teacher rated “unsatisfactory” three years in a row saved her job by paying the DOE $6,500 and taking workshops on lesson planning, instruction and classroom management. She was put in a pool of unassigned teachers who substitute — and kept her $100,049-a-year salary. A Brooklyn social worker making $82,147 a year, who billed the DOE for service to kids she didn’t provide, kept her job by paying $3,000. Bernadette Camacho, a former teacher at the Gateway School of Environmental Research and Technology in The Bronx, agreed in May 2010 to pay $6,500 and see a shrink for a year to keep her job after emotional outbursts with students. Her case became public later when kids accused her of cursing and insulting them at Hillcrest HS in Queens. Finally, an ­arbitrator approved her firing. Former DOE officials involved in efforts to fire weak or abusive teachers say settlements have ballooned because they skirt the long and costly hearings that state law requires to dismiss tenured educators. The city not only has to prove a teacher’s wrongdoing or incompetence, but make the case that he or she can’t or won’t improve. “The real problem is that the legal standard does not prioritize the best interests of kids,” said Dan Weisberg, the DOE’s former chief of labor policy. In a recent case, shocked parents at PS 101 in Forest Hills, “The School in the Gardens,” learned that science teacher Richard Parlini returned this fall after repeated student complaints against him. The DOE said it had substantiated six instances of verbal abuse and corporal punishment since 2010. Mom Laurie Townsend said her son, Nakia, 11, was brave enough to face Parlini and testify. The boy said Parlini pushed him in second grade after telling the class to sit down. In sixth grade, he said, Parlini “grabbed his shoulders and shook him to the point where it made him cry.” But when Townsend and Nakia arrived downtown for Parlini’s hearing last June, it was called off. “They told me he settled,” she said. The DOE let Parlini pay $2,500 and take six hours of training to keep his $75,092-a-year job. “It’s outrageous that he can just pay a fine, get a slap on the wrist and go back to his paying job, while the kids have to see him ­every day,” Townsend fumed. Adam Urbanski: Teacher Ratings Are Nonsensical by dianeravitch link

Adam Urbanski, president of the Rochester, Néw York, teachers' union, is struggling to make sense of the state's teacher and principal evaluation system, which varies wildly from district to district. Scarsdale, perhaps the most affluent and high-scoring district in the state, had no "highly effective" teachers. But Rochester, one of the districts with high poverty and low scores, had many. The reality is that none of the formulas for reducing teaching to a number make any sense. Teaching is an art, a craft, and a bit of science. A great teacher may be great one year, not the next, or great with this class but not another. (APPR in Néw York is the Annual Professional Performance Review.)

The ratings in Néw York are referred to as HEDI: Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective. A commenter on the blog recently said that "Developing" is considered a low grade but she hoped that she was "developing" every day as a teacher.

This is what Adam wrote to his members:

"The Rochester Miracle?"

"Each year, we re-negotiate our APPR agreement with the District to do all we can to make it less damaging to our student and more fair to teachers.

"We are making progress in reducing the number of Rochester teachers (be)rated as Developing or Ineffective (40% in 2012-2013 but 11% in 2013-2014) and increasing the number rated as Effective or Highly Effective (60% in 2012-2013 but 89% in 2013-2014). Just one year ago, only 2% of Rochester teachers were rated as Highly Effective. This year, that number increased to 46%.

"Why such a huge fluctuation? Maybe it's because we re-negotiated the agreement; or because teachers set more realistic SLO targets; or because the NYS Education Department adjusted the cut scores in ELA and Math; or because huge fluctuations are typical of invalid and unreliable evaluation schemes. Who knows? In any event, we continue to press for the total abolishments of APPR.

"Meanwhile, we are negotiating a successor agreement that would further diminish excessive testing of students and wrongful rating of teachers."