July 1, 2009
As Law Expires, Bloomberg Moves to Keep Authority Over Schools
By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was set to lose control of the New York City school system at midnight Tuesday, but despite dire predictions of chaos from the mayor and others, it appeared that the nation’s largest school district would continue to operate largely as usual.
The shift of power, from Mr. Bloomberg’s hands to the clutches of a yet-to-be-appointed Board of Education, came after an impasse between Republicans and Democrats in the State Senate thwarted attempts to renew mayoral control of schools, which the Legislature authorized in 2002. The law set June 30, 2009, as the day the mayor’s control would end if it was not renewed.
At a videoconference with Gov. David A. Paterson in Albany, Mr. Bloomberg said the expiration of the law would mark a “nightmare flashback” to the days of the old Board of Education, which had a reputation for constant friction.
But while authority over schools now technically rests with the seven-member board, the mayor is expected to retain his authority by persuading at least two borough presidents to appoint people favorable to his policies. The mayor picks two board members and each borough president names one.
Mr. Bloomberg’s allies were reaching out to borough presidents on Tuesday in hopes of earning their support. The Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer, and the Staten Island borough president, James P. Molinaro, have said they expected their appointees to be philosophically in tune with the mayor and to support the ideals of mayoral control. Mr. Stringer said he would appoint his legal counsel, Jimmy Yan, to the board on an interim basis as he conducted a search for a permanent member, if one was needed.
“Maintaining the system has got to become paramount, not political expediency, not political gamesmanship,” Mr. Stringer said. “You can’t let education issues be driven by the courts.”
Ruben Diaz Jr., the Bronx borough president, said he expected his appointee, the former Hostos Community College president Dolores Fernandez, to challenge the idea of retaining the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, and he said she might seek to overturn the mayor’s policies.
“Whether it’s existing policy or future policy,” he said, “you can anticipate that will be challenged.”
Marty Markowitz, the Brooklyn borough president, said he planned to appoint his chief of staff, Carlo A. Scissura. Mr. Stringer and Mr. Markowitz called for an immediate meeting of the reconstituted Board of Education on Wednesday.
Under the old system, 32 neighborhood school boards were responsible for overseeing middle and high schools in their districts and for hiring superintendents. Since Mr. Bloomberg took control in 2002, those boards have been turned into parent councils and stripped of their power. The chancellor now appoints superintendents.
Mr. Bloomberg said there was no clear way to resurrect the old system when summer school is beginning and schools are contemplating staffing and curricular options.
“Every decision, from personnel decisions to policy decisions, will be subject to litigation and uncertainty,” he said. He added that he would try to keep Mr. Klein, the man he appointed chancellor, in office, because Mr. Klein is under contract. The mayor’s staff has also considered going to court to seek an extension of mayoral control until Albany votes on the matter.
As the prospects of Senate action dimmed on Tuesday, supporters of mayoral control — including the City University of New York, Harlem community groups and charter schools — flooded reporters’ inboxes with statements of support.
The crisis in the chamber showed few signs of resolution.
The Assembly passed a bill in June that retains the core elements of mayoral control but adds several limits on the mayor’s authority, like curbing his ability to close schools and approve contracts.
Many Senate Democrats, however, have made clear their intention to challenge the bill and push for more parental input in education decision-making. While the Assembly’s bill most likely has enough support from Republicans and Democrats to pass, it faces the obstacle of Senator John L. Sampson of Brooklyn, the Democrats’ new leader and a critic of mayoral control, who could prevent it from being debated.
In a statement, Mr. Sampson said Democrats “have real concerns which should be discussed and addressed before passage of this legislation.”
Selasa, 30 Juni 2009
History is Made: Mayoral Control of NYC Public Schools Ends
Almost all day today citizens of New York who were at all interested in the babies elected to run around the Senate heard that several bills were voted in by the Democrats because Frank Padavan entered the Senate chamber to get a drink.
Dream on, Democrats. Why you would think that citizens of New York State would want to vote for people who see a person entering the room for a minute to get a drink (was it really a V-8??) and use this person to establish that there was a quorum and vote on legislation? Does anyone give debate and review any value?
Never has anyone seen the mess that the Senate of New York State is in at this very moment.
Political Memo
Blame Panic in G.O.P. For Standoff in Albany
By DANNY HAKIM, NY TIMES
ALBANY — Why can’t New York’s feuding senators act like grown-ups?
Nearly a month into the Senate’s bitter leadership struggle, there are few signs that the Republican and Democratic voting blocs, deadlocked in a 31-to-31 tie, are close to a deal to get back to work.
To outsiders, it is hard to imagine why the Senate cannot come together in the face of rising public criticism, withering news coverage and a schedule that has Gov. David A. Paterson forcing them to spend summer weekends in the capital.
But inside the Capitol, interviews with lawmakers on both sides reveal deeper reasons for the standoff, and the stubbornness that has accompanied it. Senate Republicans know the state’s voters, demographically speaking, are moving away from them. The electorate is growing more diverse in New York City and its suburbs, a trend that is likely to favor the Democrats, while the upstate region, a Republican base, has suffered a population drain. At the same time, the Republican caucus is all white and almost entirely male, with half its members 62 or older.
Republicans privately acknowledge that they face an uphill battle in regaining control of the Senate in the election next year. They are claiming that they should lead the Senate for the next year and a half. But they are also trying to take steps now — during what may turn out to be a fleeting moment of power — to undo the worst of what life in the minority party means in Albany.
Their first act after staging a coup on June 8 was to institute rules changes to guarantee that administrative budgets be divided equitably. They have also said they want to guarantee that member items, the earmarks that are perhaps Albany’s most precious commodity, are split equally.
Legitimizing those rules changes is seen as critical to giving Republicans a voice in a future Senate that most believe will be ruled by Democrats. Democrats could always rewrite the rules if they claimed a clear majority, but reversing changes meant to establish fairness would be a controversial step for a party that bills itself as progressive.
“For myself, this is very much about the rules changes,” said Senator Tom Libous, (pictured above) a Binghamton Republican who directed the coup last month from the Senate floor. “These rule changes will make every senator relevant and effective so he or she can pass legislation and have equitable resources for their district in the future.”
Of course, Mr. Libous acknowledged that his party was asking for an equality that it never contemplated when it controlled the Senate, which it did for more than four decades until last November’s election changed that.
“I’m not justifying the way we ran the house,” Mr. Libous said. “I’m telling you it’s wrong and we should change it. What we did to the Democrats all those years was not right.”
For Democrats, agreeing to any power-sharing accord would almost certainly mean they have to dismantle their new administration and fire scores of staffers, or more, because they will have to divide the chamber’s administrative budget. They would also have to come to terms with the fact that their political victory that came last year was ultimately hollow.
Democrats are trying to avoid any arrangement in which they give up their claim to the majority, and are pushing hard for a temporary accord under which senators would meet for a day, under presiding officers from each side, take up the most urgent bills and then leave town.
Under that proposal, the two sides would then probably spend several more months locked in a battle to determine who has the rightful claim to control of the Senate, preserving the status quo while the Democrats’ far larger staff continued to collect its paychecks.
Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, (at right) a Manhattan Democrat, said there was a simpler motivation behind his caucus’s strategy and insisted there was no attempt to preserve power.
“That’s a perspective that ignores the traumatized state of the Senate right now,” he said. “It would be a remarkable accomplishment if the two sides could just agree to a bipartisan operating agreement to pass a couple hundreds bills to keep our state and local governments moving.”
And there are other motives at work.
Democrats loathe Pedro Espada Jr., the Bronx Democrat who abandoned his caucus and joined the Republicans, who then appointed him Senate president. Many Democrats simply cannot countenance the idea of Mr. Espada in such a position, a job that would have him become governor if Mr. Paterson were incapacitated.
Mr. Espada is facing state and local investigations over whether, among other things, the Soundview HealthCare Network, a nonprofit organization he founded, misappropriated funds.
Predictably, both side have couched their positions as being in the people’s interests, rather than their own, and attacked each other for all manner of treachery.
“To this date, the Republican party is completely fixated on discussing nothing other than controlling the State Senate,” Malcolm A. Smith, the leader of the Democratic caucus before the coup, said this week, while Senator Dean G. Skelos, leader of the Republican caucus, said, “There has to be an operating agreement through 2010, so we do not go through this gridlock again.”
For the moment, there is no end in sight. Senator Dale M. Volker, a Republican and former police officer from western New York, summed up the state of play best recently, when he quipped, “I might have to start carrying my sidearm again.”
July 1, 2009
Glimpsing a G.O.P. Passer-By, Senate Democrats Grab the Gavel
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and JEREMY W. PETERS, NY TIMES
ALBANY — The latest attempt to break the State Senate’s three-week-old stalemate began with a quest for caffeine.
Shortly before noon on Tuesday, as Democrats prepared to convene what they expected to be another fruitless one-party session, they saw Frank Padavan, a Queens Republican, walk through the rear of the chamber.
Mr. Padavan would later say he had simply been taking a shortcut to the members’ lounge to grab a cup of coffee. But to the 31 Democrats in the chamber, that did not matter. Claiming that Mr. Padavan’s brief presence gave them the 32-member quorum required to gavel the Senate into session, Democrats began ramming through dozens of measures, including sales tax extensions and bond authorizations that were set to expire at midnight.
By the time the Democrats adjourned, Mr. Padavan’s coffee run had thrust the Capitol into a new round of recriminations and legal debate. Democrats insisted that the bills had been lawfully passed, Republicans denounced the session as fraudulent and inappropriate, and Gov. David A. Paterson suggested that he would not sign the bills into law.
“Was the session valid? The answer to that question is yes,” said Malcolm A. Smith, (pictured above) the Democratic leader. “The other question is also, why would anyone go to disqualify the session given the significance of what we accomplished today?”
Senate Republicans had a ready answer for Mr. Smith.
“That is probably the most fraudulent, obnoxious, arrogant display of partisanship,” said Dean G. Skelos, the Republican leader, “and, quite frankly, a total disregard of the institution of the Senate that so many of us care about.”
The disputed session marked the third time in three weeks that either Republicans or Democrats had tried to vote on legislation amid a battle over which side controlled the chamber. With one Democrat, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx, allied with the Republicans, the two sides each have 31 votes.
But with a quorum established in their eyes — and no Republicans remaining on the Senate floor to object — Democrats began passing legislation by unanimous consent. Because he was counted as present and did not seek to cast any votes, Mr. Padavan was recorded as a “yea” on each bill.
More controversial items, like a bill to reauthorize mayoral control of the New York City schools, were not taken up. But the Democrats did vote on a bill to increase the New York City sales tax. It failed, 19 to 13, but Republicans contended that the votes were irrelevant because they have technically controlled the chamber since June 8.
Speaking with reporters in a Capitol hallway, Mr. Padavan — who said that after reaching the lounge, he ended up getting a can of Coke — rejected the idea that he had officially been present.
“The session had not begun,” he said. “I was not there when it was gaveled in. I was not there during the prayer or the pledge.” He added that the session was “childish” and “totally fraudulent.”
In a sworn affidavit distributed to reporters, Mr. Padavan said that to have been counted as present, he would have had to signal affirmatively to the Senate clerk. In sworn affidavits of their own, eight Democratic aides and two senators, Diane J. Savino of Staten Island(at right) and Antoine M. Thompson of Buffalo, said they saw Mr. Padavan on the Senate floor right after they had gaveled the chamber into session and during the Pledge of Allegiance and the moment of silence, which normally precede other Senate business.
Mr. Paterson indicated that he would not sign any of the bills passed on Tuesday, citing the uncertainty about whether Mr. Padavan could be counted toward the quorum. He also implored the Republicans and Democrats to settle their differences and pass an extension of the law on mayoral control of the New York City schools before it expired at midnight.
“Once again the do-nothing Senate has exceeded our greatest fears and contempt,” Mr. Paterson said. “The Senate again is in turmoil, now about whether people were in or out of the chamber.”
Most of the legislation that the Democrats claimed to have passed on Tuesday was first approved by the Assembly. Under state law, the Assembly must now, in effect, accept those bills as legitimate before sending them to the governor for his signature.
Melissa Mansfield, a spokeswoman for the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, said no final decision had been reached.
“We are anxious to see progress in this area,” Ms. Mansfield said, “and we are having conversations with the governor to avoid technical vetoes of bills, many of which would require new home-rule messages and another passage.”
Lawyers for Mr. Paterson, the Senate Democrats and the Assembly Democrats were discussing their options on Tuesday evening.
The governor said he would continue calling the two sides in the Senate into extraordinary sessions to force them to work out a power-sharing agreement. A series of court rulings on Monday and Tuesday upheld his ability to call the Senate alone, without the Assembly, into such sessions.
Bowing to one of those rulings, which held that all 62 senators were required to convene at the same time in the same place for extraordinary sessions, the Democrats and Republicans met together on Tuesday for the first time in a week. But as before, they gaveled out without conducting any business.
Dems claim GOP senator was in chamber, start passing bills
Padavan denies he gave Senate 32 members for quorum
Capitol bureau, 1:20 p.m., Tuesday, June 30, 2009
LINK
ALBANY -- A strange day in the state Senate just got stranger when Democrats, who gaveled in for a regular session just after noon, claimed that Sen. Frank Padavan, (at right) R-Queens, was in the chamber briefly after the session began, establishing a 32-member quorum and allowing the Democrats to begin passing time-sensitive legislation.
It is, however, unlikely that the tactic will result in a definitive break in the three-week legislative logjam.
Padavan, who has been a member of the Senate for more than 35 years, denied he was in the chamber after session began, and called the Democrats' move "a sham." Republican staffers said the conference was preparing legal documents to challenge all of the bills passed by the Democrats, who held a rush meeting of the Rules Committee on the floor of the chamber to move through additional bills.
The unexpected development in the Senate stalemate occurred as Gov. David Paterson was about to begin a press conference with dozens of New Yorkers who would be affected by the failure to pass the legislation. Paterson began by announcing the Democrats' move, to applause.
Nevertheless, the governor returned to the podium minutes later to announce that he would not be signing any of the legislation passed during the noon session, and issued a proclamation for another extraordinary session -- Tuesday's second -- at 7 tonight.
"I suggest that all senators be there," Paterson said.
Earlier in the day, a court order achieved what a week of political negotiation failed to pull off: The full Senate convened at this morning's 10 a.m. special session called by Gov. David Paterson. Although the session was markedly more collegial than the June 23 dueling session in which both parties claimed command of the chamber, this morning's appearance failed to move time-sensitive legislation forward.
The appearance by the 30 Republican members and breakaway Democrat Pedro Espada Jr. followed the unexpected denial of a stay of an order issued Monday by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi.
State Supreme Court Justice Bernard J. "Bud" Malone Jr. has rejected a Republican-led effort to avoid going into session today, a day after another judge ordered the GOP and Senate Democrats to appear in the Senate today for a session.
"I'm not going to stay the order of Judge Teresi," Malone told GOP lawyers this morning.
The GOP's attorneys will go before the full five-member Appellate Division at 3 p.m. today.
Teresi ordered both sides to meet as a single body instead of conducting the 31-member sessions in sequence, a practice that had prevailed in the chamber every day since Thursday.
With Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins presiding, the Democrats conducted a quorum call and then began calling the absentees. In the middle of the absentee call, the GOP senators and Espada arrived en masse.
Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith immediately asked for the Senate to be at ease, at which point Republican Leader Dean Skelos stood up to speak, but was not recognized by the Stewart-Cousins.
Smith walked over to speak with Skelos and Republican Sen. Tom Libous.
Then Skelos stood and addressed Stewart-Cousins, saying he did not recognize her as the presiding officer -- a role that Espada claimed after the June 8 coup.
"You are not the appropriate person to be presiding at this time," he said.
Skelos then called on the Democrats' request for a public hearing to negotiate a power-sharing deal, for noon today.
He then asked for an adjournment -- an odd move, considering that he had previously said he doesn't recognize the chair.
Smith didn't take Skelos' challenge for a public meeting, and said instead that the Democrats would be in regular session at noon today.
Democratic Sen. Jeff Klein motioned to adjourn, and Stewart-Cousins adjourned sine die, or indefinitely.
Many members of the Senate GOP walked away angry.
"This is bulls----," said GOP Sen. Andrew Lanza as he walked out of the chamber.
Follow the day's developments at Capitol Confidential.
Paterson Won't Sign The Senate Dems' Bills
June 30, 2009
LINK
Even Gov. David Paterson is confused by what's going on right now in the Senate, where the Democrats are passing bills by claiming that GOP Sen. Frank Padavan's brief foray through the chamber was sufficient to provide them with a quorum.
Paterson at first announced triumphantly to reporters and staffers assembled in the Red Room that he had received word of Padavan's walk-through from the Democrats, who were engaged in approving their active list.
This sparked a round of enthusiastic applause.
(After three weeks, everyone - with the exception of certain members of the warring Senate factions, and, perhaps, Paterson himself, who is hoping for an approval rating bump out of this, just wants this to end).
But the mood changed 10 minutes later, when Paterson said he had gotten a call from Secretary of the Senate Angelo Aponte, who said Padavan is challenging the Democrats' claim that he had signed in by making eye contact with the Senate clerk.
A clearly frustrated Paterson insisted that what the Democrats are up to is different from the Republican/Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. coalition's efforts to pass bills last week:
"The Republicans did not have the gavel and were not in the presiding officer's seat when they attempted to pass their bills," Paterson said. "They did have 62 members in the chamber at that particular time."
"Here, the Senate Democrats had 31 Democrats and the question is whether or not Padavan's appearance in the chamber constitutes a 32nd vote."
"But because it is controversial, I don't want there to be any further controversy about passing these bills," the governor continued. "So I am looking to sign legislation if I feel that both parties agree or that it can be proven that the senator was in the chamber at the time when his vote could be recorded."
At first, Paterson said he didn't know whether he would sign the bills being passed at the moment into law.
He then left the room, and came back to say he had spoken to Padavan and decided to take the Queens Republican at his word that he didn't intend to give the Democrats' a quorum. (In a brief discussion with several LCA reporters, Padavan said he had merely cut through the chamber en route to the Senate lounge for a Coke cup of coffee).
Thus: No signing. (This was confirmed by Paterson spokeswoman Marissa Shorenstein).
Paterson called for another extraordinary session at 7 p.m. tonight.
The Republican/Espada coalition is going back to court at 3 p.m. to try to get a stay of state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi's ruling.
DN Capitol Bureau Chief Ken Lovett pointed out that since the Democrats are passsing bills that were approved by the Rules Committee, they might be subject to yet another GOP lawsuit.
Sen. Malcolm Smith presided over the quickie Rules Committee meeting in the back of the chamber this afternoon, but the Republicans and Espada contend none of the old committee chairs are valid since the June 8 coup.
From Bad to Worse in the Senate Chamber
June 30th, 2009
LINK
Democrats just got a rude awakening. Sure, Gov. David Paterson (pictured at left) said that he won’t sign any bills they pass during the odd session started today by Republican Sen. Frank Padavan’s brief foray into the chamber, but that wasn’t their biggest problem.
Democrats were churning through legislation, passing measures 32-0 when Sen. Ruben Diaz stood up to loudly demand a bill be laid aside. The bill pending before the chamber would have allowed New York City to raise its sales tax to balance its budget. Liz Krueger said she had tried to mark the bill as “controversial” and in need of debate. But a vote was called and the bill was voted down.
Legislators including Malcolm Smith, John Sampson, Kevin Parker and Carl Kruger voted against the bill.
Diaz said ” the people of my district are paying too much taxes.” Other senators echoed his sentiment. Read the rest of this entry »
By David King on June 30, 2009, 2:31 pm
Every Senator Counts
June 30th, 2009
The fate of a number of key pieces of legislation — including the hike in the city sales tax — apparently now hinges on whether or not GOP Sen. Frank Padavan of Queens was or was not on the Senate floor today.
Padavan’s alleged — and clearly brief — presence on the floor, along with that of all 31 Democrats, gave the body a quorum. (Senators do not have to remain in the chamber for the entire meeting to be counted as being there.) That has enabled the Democrats to begin passing legislation.
It’s not over yet, though, Gov. David Paterson told a 12:30 p.m. briefing that the Republican conference maintains that Padavan never signed in and so cannot be counted as legally present. Referring to his eight years as a Senate floor leader, Paterson said,” Senators don’t sign in. They just walk in, and they’re recognized.” He did express reluctance, however, to sign legislation that may have been passed without a quorum.
Read the rest of this entry »
By Gail Robinson on June 30, 2009, 12:14 pm
Signs of Progress?
June 30th, 2009
There are indications that at least some members of the State Senate may be taking the today’s deadline for action seriously, David King reports from Albany. Under court order, Democrats and Republican gathered in the chambers this morning and quickly adjourned. But as the gavel (one for each party) fell, Republican Thomas Libous approached John Sampson, who has emerged as the Democratic leader. The two then went into the Democratic chamber to speak further.
Could a deal be in the works? There is, King says, a lot of chatter that it might finally be happening.
By Gail Robinson on June 30, 2009, 10:28 am
Judge Rules, Inaction Continues
June 29th, 2009
LINK
Supreme Court Judge Joseph Teresi has ruled that Democratic and Republican senators must report together for session tomorrow at 10 a.m. Teresi rejected the daily separate sessions both sides have been holding. “To come into session as separate groups is a fiction,” said Teresi.
So everyone is going to get right back to work then and that is that–not quite.
Republicans plan to file an appeal of the ruling at 9 a.m. tomorrow, thereby freezing Teresi’s order. Democrats have yet to announce whether they will seek an appeal–they may be setting up to vilify the Republicans for their appeal instead.
So it seems senators may not report to do their jobs yet again. Who would have guessed?
Meanwhile, power-sharing negotiations have gotten nowhere. Both sides tried their best to throw each other in front of the bus that is the looming June 30 deadline for renewing important pieces of legislation. Legislation scheduled to sunset tomorrow includes mayoral control of schools and measures to provide funding to municipalities across the state.
Democrats proposed holding a session at noon tomorrow if Republicans agree to their rules for a temporary power-sharing arrangement. Democrats put forward a slate of non-controversial legislation they feel must be acted on.
Supreme Court Judge Joseph Teresi has ruled that Democratic and Republican senators must report together for session tomorrow at 10 a.m. Teresi rejected the daily separate sessions both sides have been holding. “To come into session as separate groups is a fiction,” said Teresi.
So everyone is going to get right back to work then and that is that–not quite.
Republicans plan to file an appeal of the ruling at 9 a.m. tomorrow, thereby freezing Teresi’s order. Democrats have yet to announce whether they will seek an appeal–they may be setting up to vilify the Republicans for their appeal instead.
So it seems senators may not report to do their jobs yet again. Who would have guessed?
Meanwhile, power-sharing negotiations have gotten nowhere. Both sides tried their best to throw each other in front of the bus that is the looming June 30 deadline for renewing important pieces of legislation. Legislation scheduled to sunset tomorrow includes mayoral control of schools and measures to provide funding to municipalities across the state.
Democrats proposed holding a session at noon tomorrow if Republicans agree to their rules for a temporary power-sharing arrangement. Democrats put forward a slate of non-controversial legislation they feel must be acted on.
Absent from the slate is—who would have guessed it?–mayoral control of schools, as well as the sales tax increase the city needs to balance its budget. Democratic leader Sen. John Sampson finds the Assembly’s version of mayoral control quite controversial, as Sampson would like to strip down the mayor’s authority. It’s not yet clear why the sales tax measure was not included.
What is and is not included on the list is very likely irrelevant as Republicans say they are not itnerested in a short-term agreement.
Republicans say negotiations for a long-term solution have been disrupted by a rotating cast of Democratic representatives. Sens. Malcolm Smith and Sampson were negotiating for the Democrat up until last week. Now Democrats are representated by a number of Sens., including Jeff Klein, Neil Breslin, Tom Duane, Martin Dilan and Diane Savino.
Let the blame game continue.
By David King on June 29, 2009, 5:13 pm
Dream on, Democrats. Why you would think that citizens of New York State would want to vote for people who see a person entering the room for a minute to get a drink (was it really a V-8??) and use this person to establish that there was a quorum and vote on legislation? Does anyone give debate and review any value?
Never has anyone seen the mess that the Senate of New York State is in at this very moment.
Political Memo
Blame Panic in G.O.P. For Standoff in Albany
By DANNY HAKIM, NY TIMES
ALBANY — Why can’t New York’s feuding senators act like grown-ups?
Nearly a month into the Senate’s bitter leadership struggle, there are few signs that the Republican and Democratic voting blocs, deadlocked in a 31-to-31 tie, are close to a deal to get back to work.
To outsiders, it is hard to imagine why the Senate cannot come together in the face of rising public criticism, withering news coverage and a schedule that has Gov. David A. Paterson forcing them to spend summer weekends in the capital.
But inside the Capitol, interviews with lawmakers on both sides reveal deeper reasons for the standoff, and the stubbornness that has accompanied it. Senate Republicans know the state’s voters, demographically speaking, are moving away from them. The electorate is growing more diverse in New York City and its suburbs, a trend that is likely to favor the Democrats, while the upstate region, a Republican base, has suffered a population drain. At the same time, the Republican caucus is all white and almost entirely male, with half its members 62 or older.
Republicans privately acknowledge that they face an uphill battle in regaining control of the Senate in the election next year. They are claiming that they should lead the Senate for the next year and a half. But they are also trying to take steps now — during what may turn out to be a fleeting moment of power — to undo the worst of what life in the minority party means in Albany.
Their first act after staging a coup on June 8 was to institute rules changes to guarantee that administrative budgets be divided equitably. They have also said they want to guarantee that member items, the earmarks that are perhaps Albany’s most precious commodity, are split equally.
Legitimizing those rules changes is seen as critical to giving Republicans a voice in a future Senate that most believe will be ruled by Democrats. Democrats could always rewrite the rules if they claimed a clear majority, but reversing changes meant to establish fairness would be a controversial step for a party that bills itself as progressive.
“For myself, this is very much about the rules changes,” said Senator Tom Libous, (pictured above) a Binghamton Republican who directed the coup last month from the Senate floor. “These rule changes will make every senator relevant and effective so he or she can pass legislation and have equitable resources for their district in the future.”
Of course, Mr. Libous acknowledged that his party was asking for an equality that it never contemplated when it controlled the Senate, which it did for more than four decades until last November’s election changed that.
“I’m not justifying the way we ran the house,” Mr. Libous said. “I’m telling you it’s wrong and we should change it. What we did to the Democrats all those years was not right.”
For Democrats, agreeing to any power-sharing accord would almost certainly mean they have to dismantle their new administration and fire scores of staffers, or more, because they will have to divide the chamber’s administrative budget. They would also have to come to terms with the fact that their political victory that came last year was ultimately hollow.
Democrats are trying to avoid any arrangement in which they give up their claim to the majority, and are pushing hard for a temporary accord under which senators would meet for a day, under presiding officers from each side, take up the most urgent bills and then leave town.
Under that proposal, the two sides would then probably spend several more months locked in a battle to determine who has the rightful claim to control of the Senate, preserving the status quo while the Democrats’ far larger staff continued to collect its paychecks.
Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, (at right) a Manhattan Democrat, said there was a simpler motivation behind his caucus’s strategy and insisted there was no attempt to preserve power.
“That’s a perspective that ignores the traumatized state of the Senate right now,” he said. “It would be a remarkable accomplishment if the two sides could just agree to a bipartisan operating agreement to pass a couple hundreds bills to keep our state and local governments moving.”
And there are other motives at work.
Democrats loathe Pedro Espada Jr., the Bronx Democrat who abandoned his caucus and joined the Republicans, who then appointed him Senate president. Many Democrats simply cannot countenance the idea of Mr. Espada in such a position, a job that would have him become governor if Mr. Paterson were incapacitated.
Mr. Espada is facing state and local investigations over whether, among other things, the Soundview HealthCare Network, a nonprofit organization he founded, misappropriated funds.
Predictably, both side have couched their positions as being in the people’s interests, rather than their own, and attacked each other for all manner of treachery.
“To this date, the Republican party is completely fixated on discussing nothing other than controlling the State Senate,” Malcolm A. Smith, the leader of the Democratic caucus before the coup, said this week, while Senator Dean G. Skelos, leader of the Republican caucus, said, “There has to be an operating agreement through 2010, so we do not go through this gridlock again.”
For the moment, there is no end in sight. Senator Dale M. Volker, a Republican and former police officer from western New York, summed up the state of play best recently, when he quipped, “I might have to start carrying my sidearm again.”
July 1, 2009
Glimpsing a G.O.P. Passer-By, Senate Democrats Grab the Gavel
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and JEREMY W. PETERS, NY TIMES
ALBANY — The latest attempt to break the State Senate’s three-week-old stalemate began with a quest for caffeine.
Shortly before noon on Tuesday, as Democrats prepared to convene what they expected to be another fruitless one-party session, they saw Frank Padavan, a Queens Republican, walk through the rear of the chamber.
Mr. Padavan would later say he had simply been taking a shortcut to the members’ lounge to grab a cup of coffee. But to the 31 Democrats in the chamber, that did not matter. Claiming that Mr. Padavan’s brief presence gave them the 32-member quorum required to gavel the Senate into session, Democrats began ramming through dozens of measures, including sales tax extensions and bond authorizations that were set to expire at midnight.
By the time the Democrats adjourned, Mr. Padavan’s coffee run had thrust the Capitol into a new round of recriminations and legal debate. Democrats insisted that the bills had been lawfully passed, Republicans denounced the session as fraudulent and inappropriate, and Gov. David A. Paterson suggested that he would not sign the bills into law.
“Was the session valid? The answer to that question is yes,” said Malcolm A. Smith, (pictured above) the Democratic leader. “The other question is also, why would anyone go to disqualify the session given the significance of what we accomplished today?”
Senate Republicans had a ready answer for Mr. Smith.
“That is probably the most fraudulent, obnoxious, arrogant display of partisanship,” said Dean G. Skelos, the Republican leader, “and, quite frankly, a total disregard of the institution of the Senate that so many of us care about.”
The disputed session marked the third time in three weeks that either Republicans or Democrats had tried to vote on legislation amid a battle over which side controlled the chamber. With one Democrat, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx, allied with the Republicans, the two sides each have 31 votes.
But with a quorum established in their eyes — and no Republicans remaining on the Senate floor to object — Democrats began passing legislation by unanimous consent. Because he was counted as present and did not seek to cast any votes, Mr. Padavan was recorded as a “yea” on each bill.
More controversial items, like a bill to reauthorize mayoral control of the New York City schools, were not taken up. But the Democrats did vote on a bill to increase the New York City sales tax. It failed, 19 to 13, but Republicans contended that the votes were irrelevant because they have technically controlled the chamber since June 8.
Speaking with reporters in a Capitol hallway, Mr. Padavan — who said that after reaching the lounge, he ended up getting a can of Coke — rejected the idea that he had officially been present.
“The session had not begun,” he said. “I was not there when it was gaveled in. I was not there during the prayer or the pledge.” He added that the session was “childish” and “totally fraudulent.”
In a sworn affidavit distributed to reporters, Mr. Padavan said that to have been counted as present, he would have had to signal affirmatively to the Senate clerk. In sworn affidavits of their own, eight Democratic aides and two senators, Diane J. Savino of Staten Island(at right) and Antoine M. Thompson of Buffalo, said they saw Mr. Padavan on the Senate floor right after they had gaveled the chamber into session and during the Pledge of Allegiance and the moment of silence, which normally precede other Senate business.
Mr. Paterson indicated that he would not sign any of the bills passed on Tuesday, citing the uncertainty about whether Mr. Padavan could be counted toward the quorum. He also implored the Republicans and Democrats to settle their differences and pass an extension of the law on mayoral control of the New York City schools before it expired at midnight.
“Once again the do-nothing Senate has exceeded our greatest fears and contempt,” Mr. Paterson said. “The Senate again is in turmoil, now about whether people were in or out of the chamber.”
Most of the legislation that the Democrats claimed to have passed on Tuesday was first approved by the Assembly. Under state law, the Assembly must now, in effect, accept those bills as legitimate before sending them to the governor for his signature.
Melissa Mansfield, a spokeswoman for the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, said no final decision had been reached.
“We are anxious to see progress in this area,” Ms. Mansfield said, “and we are having conversations with the governor to avoid technical vetoes of bills, many of which would require new home-rule messages and another passage.”
Lawyers for Mr. Paterson, the Senate Democrats and the Assembly Democrats were discussing their options on Tuesday evening.
The governor said he would continue calling the two sides in the Senate into extraordinary sessions to force them to work out a power-sharing agreement. A series of court rulings on Monday and Tuesday upheld his ability to call the Senate alone, without the Assembly, into such sessions.
Bowing to one of those rulings, which held that all 62 senators were required to convene at the same time in the same place for extraordinary sessions, the Democrats and Republicans met together on Tuesday for the first time in a week. But as before, they gaveled out without conducting any business.
Dems claim GOP senator was in chamber, start passing bills
Padavan denies he gave Senate 32 members for quorum
Capitol bureau, 1:20 p.m., Tuesday, June 30, 2009
LINK
ALBANY -- A strange day in the state Senate just got stranger when Democrats, who gaveled in for a regular session just after noon, claimed that Sen. Frank Padavan, (at right) R-Queens, was in the chamber briefly after the session began, establishing a 32-member quorum and allowing the Democrats to begin passing time-sensitive legislation.
It is, however, unlikely that the tactic will result in a definitive break in the three-week legislative logjam.
Padavan, who has been a member of the Senate for more than 35 years, denied he was in the chamber after session began, and called the Democrats' move "a sham." Republican staffers said the conference was preparing legal documents to challenge all of the bills passed by the Democrats, who held a rush meeting of the Rules Committee on the floor of the chamber to move through additional bills.
The unexpected development in the Senate stalemate occurred as Gov. David Paterson was about to begin a press conference with dozens of New Yorkers who would be affected by the failure to pass the legislation. Paterson began by announcing the Democrats' move, to applause.
Nevertheless, the governor returned to the podium minutes later to announce that he would not be signing any of the legislation passed during the noon session, and issued a proclamation for another extraordinary session -- Tuesday's second -- at 7 tonight.
"I suggest that all senators be there," Paterson said.
Earlier in the day, a court order achieved what a week of political negotiation failed to pull off: The full Senate convened at this morning's 10 a.m. special session called by Gov. David Paterson. Although the session was markedly more collegial than the June 23 dueling session in which both parties claimed command of the chamber, this morning's appearance failed to move time-sensitive legislation forward.
The appearance by the 30 Republican members and breakaway Democrat Pedro Espada Jr. followed the unexpected denial of a stay of an order issued Monday by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi.
State Supreme Court Justice Bernard J. "Bud" Malone Jr. has rejected a Republican-led effort to avoid going into session today, a day after another judge ordered the GOP and Senate Democrats to appear in the Senate today for a session.
"I'm not going to stay the order of Judge Teresi," Malone told GOP lawyers this morning.
The GOP's attorneys will go before the full five-member Appellate Division at 3 p.m. today.
Teresi ordered both sides to meet as a single body instead of conducting the 31-member sessions in sequence, a practice that had prevailed in the chamber every day since Thursday.
With Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins presiding, the Democrats conducted a quorum call and then began calling the absentees. In the middle of the absentee call, the GOP senators and Espada arrived en masse.
Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith immediately asked for the Senate to be at ease, at which point Republican Leader Dean Skelos stood up to speak, but was not recognized by the Stewart-Cousins.
Smith walked over to speak with Skelos and Republican Sen. Tom Libous.
Then Skelos stood and addressed Stewart-Cousins, saying he did not recognize her as the presiding officer -- a role that Espada claimed after the June 8 coup.
"You are not the appropriate person to be presiding at this time," he said.
Skelos then called on the Democrats' request for a public hearing to negotiate a power-sharing deal, for noon today.
He then asked for an adjournment -- an odd move, considering that he had previously said he doesn't recognize the chair.
Smith didn't take Skelos' challenge for a public meeting, and said instead that the Democrats would be in regular session at noon today.
Democratic Sen. Jeff Klein motioned to adjourn, and Stewart-Cousins adjourned sine die, or indefinitely.
Many members of the Senate GOP walked away angry.
"This is bulls----," said GOP Sen. Andrew Lanza as he walked out of the chamber.
Follow the day's developments at Capitol Confidential.
Paterson Won't Sign The Senate Dems' Bills
June 30, 2009
LINK
Even Gov. David Paterson is confused by what's going on right now in the Senate, where the Democrats are passing bills by claiming that GOP Sen. Frank Padavan's brief foray through the chamber was sufficient to provide them with a quorum.
Paterson at first announced triumphantly to reporters and staffers assembled in the Red Room that he had received word of Padavan's walk-through from the Democrats, who were engaged in approving their active list.
This sparked a round of enthusiastic applause.
(After three weeks, everyone - with the exception of certain members of the warring Senate factions, and, perhaps, Paterson himself, who is hoping for an approval rating bump out of this, just wants this to end).
But the mood changed 10 minutes later, when Paterson said he had gotten a call from Secretary of the Senate Angelo Aponte, who said Padavan is challenging the Democrats' claim that he had signed in by making eye contact with the Senate clerk.
A clearly frustrated Paterson insisted that what the Democrats are up to is different from the Republican/Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. coalition's efforts to pass bills last week:
"The Republicans did not have the gavel and were not in the presiding officer's seat when they attempted to pass their bills," Paterson said. "They did have 62 members in the chamber at that particular time."
"Here, the Senate Democrats had 31 Democrats and the question is whether or not Padavan's appearance in the chamber constitutes a 32nd vote."
"But because it is controversial, I don't want there to be any further controversy about passing these bills," the governor continued. "So I am looking to sign legislation if I feel that both parties agree or that it can be proven that the senator was in the chamber at the time when his vote could be recorded."
At first, Paterson said he didn't know whether he would sign the bills being passed at the moment into law.
He then left the room, and came back to say he had spoken to Padavan and decided to take the Queens Republican at his word that he didn't intend to give the Democrats' a quorum. (In a brief discussion with several LCA reporters, Padavan said he had merely cut through the chamber en route to the Senate lounge for a Coke cup of coffee).
Thus: No signing. (This was confirmed by Paterson spokeswoman Marissa Shorenstein).
Paterson called for another extraordinary session at 7 p.m. tonight.
The Republican/Espada coalition is going back to court at 3 p.m. to try to get a stay of state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi's ruling.
DN Capitol Bureau Chief Ken Lovett pointed out that since the Democrats are passsing bills that were approved by the Rules Committee, they might be subject to yet another GOP lawsuit.
Sen. Malcolm Smith presided over the quickie Rules Committee meeting in the back of the chamber this afternoon, but the Republicans and Espada contend none of the old committee chairs are valid since the June 8 coup.
From Bad to Worse in the Senate Chamber
June 30th, 2009
LINK
Democrats just got a rude awakening. Sure, Gov. David Paterson (pictured at left) said that he won’t sign any bills they pass during the odd session started today by Republican Sen. Frank Padavan’s brief foray into the chamber, but that wasn’t their biggest problem.
Democrats were churning through legislation, passing measures 32-0 when Sen. Ruben Diaz stood up to loudly demand a bill be laid aside. The bill pending before the chamber would have allowed New York City to raise its sales tax to balance its budget. Liz Krueger said she had tried to mark the bill as “controversial” and in need of debate. But a vote was called and the bill was voted down.
Legislators including Malcolm Smith, John Sampson, Kevin Parker and Carl Kruger voted against the bill.
Diaz said ” the people of my district are paying too much taxes.” Other senators echoed his sentiment. Read the rest of this entry »
By David King on June 30, 2009, 2:31 pm
Every Senator Counts
June 30th, 2009
The fate of a number of key pieces of legislation — including the hike in the city sales tax — apparently now hinges on whether or not GOP Sen. Frank Padavan of Queens was or was not on the Senate floor today.
Padavan’s alleged — and clearly brief — presence on the floor, along with that of all 31 Democrats, gave the body a quorum. (Senators do not have to remain in the chamber for the entire meeting to be counted as being there.) That has enabled the Democrats to begin passing legislation.
It’s not over yet, though, Gov. David Paterson told a 12:30 p.m. briefing that the Republican conference maintains that Padavan never signed in and so cannot be counted as legally present. Referring to his eight years as a Senate floor leader, Paterson said,” Senators don’t sign in. They just walk in, and they’re recognized.” He did express reluctance, however, to sign legislation that may have been passed without a quorum.
Read the rest of this entry »
By Gail Robinson on June 30, 2009, 12:14 pm
Signs of Progress?
June 30th, 2009
There are indications that at least some members of the State Senate may be taking the today’s deadline for action seriously, David King reports from Albany. Under court order, Democrats and Republican gathered in the chambers this morning and quickly adjourned. But as the gavel (one for each party) fell, Republican Thomas Libous approached John Sampson, who has emerged as the Democratic leader. The two then went into the Democratic chamber to speak further.
Could a deal be in the works? There is, King says, a lot of chatter that it might finally be happening.
By Gail Robinson on June 30, 2009, 10:28 am
Judge Rules, Inaction Continues
June 29th, 2009
LINK
Supreme Court Judge Joseph Teresi has ruled that Democratic and Republican senators must report together for session tomorrow at 10 a.m. Teresi rejected the daily separate sessions both sides have been holding. “To come into session as separate groups is a fiction,” said Teresi.
So everyone is going to get right back to work then and that is that–not quite.
Republicans plan to file an appeal of the ruling at 9 a.m. tomorrow, thereby freezing Teresi’s order. Democrats have yet to announce whether they will seek an appeal–they may be setting up to vilify the Republicans for their appeal instead.
So it seems senators may not report to do their jobs yet again. Who would have guessed?
Meanwhile, power-sharing negotiations have gotten nowhere. Both sides tried their best to throw each other in front of the bus that is the looming June 30 deadline for renewing important pieces of legislation. Legislation scheduled to sunset tomorrow includes mayoral control of schools and measures to provide funding to municipalities across the state.
Democrats proposed holding a session at noon tomorrow if Republicans agree to their rules for a temporary power-sharing arrangement. Democrats put forward a slate of non-controversial legislation they feel must be acted on.
Supreme Court Judge Joseph Teresi has ruled that Democratic and Republican senators must report together for session tomorrow at 10 a.m. Teresi rejected the daily separate sessions both sides have been holding. “To come into session as separate groups is a fiction,” said Teresi.
So everyone is going to get right back to work then and that is that–not quite.
Republicans plan to file an appeal of the ruling at 9 a.m. tomorrow, thereby freezing Teresi’s order. Democrats have yet to announce whether they will seek an appeal–they may be setting up to vilify the Republicans for their appeal instead.
So it seems senators may not report to do their jobs yet again. Who would have guessed?
Meanwhile, power-sharing negotiations have gotten nowhere. Both sides tried their best to throw each other in front of the bus that is the looming June 30 deadline for renewing important pieces of legislation. Legislation scheduled to sunset tomorrow includes mayoral control of schools and measures to provide funding to municipalities across the state.
Democrats proposed holding a session at noon tomorrow if Republicans agree to their rules for a temporary power-sharing arrangement. Democrats put forward a slate of non-controversial legislation they feel must be acted on.
Absent from the slate is—who would have guessed it?–mayoral control of schools, as well as the sales tax increase the city needs to balance its budget. Democratic leader Sen. John Sampson finds the Assembly’s version of mayoral control quite controversial, as Sampson would like to strip down the mayor’s authority. It’s not yet clear why the sales tax measure was not included.
What is and is not included on the list is very likely irrelevant as Republicans say they are not itnerested in a short-term agreement.
Republicans say negotiations for a long-term solution have been disrupted by a rotating cast of Democratic representatives. Sens. Malcolm Smith and Sampson were negotiating for the Democrat up until last week. Now Democrats are representated by a number of Sens., including Jeff Klein, Neil Breslin, Tom Duane, Martin Dilan and Diane Savino.
Let the blame game continue.
By David King on June 29, 2009, 5:13 pm
Sabtu, 27 Juni 2009
PS 20 Principal Sean Keaton is Arraigned For Assaulting UFT Rep. Robert Segarra
Keaton Arraigned on Assault Charge
By Andy Newman,
LINK
P.S. 20 Principal Sean Keaton was formally arraigned today on misdemeanor assault charges at criminal court in Brooklyn. Mr. Keaton’s lawyer, Richard F. X. Guay, (pictured at right) entered a not guilty plea on Mr. Keaton’s behalf as he stood beside him in the arraignment courtroom at 120 Schermerhorn Street. The case now proceeds to prosecutors for further action. His next tentative court date is Aug. 3.
Mr. Keaton, 38, was arrested last month and accused of third-degree assault against the school’s teacher’s union rep, Robert Segarra. Mr. Keaton is accused of repeatedly punching and kicking Mr. Segarra during a disciplinary hearing at which Mr. Segarra was representing a special ed teacher.
School principal busted for beating teacher at corporal punishment hearing
By Jeff Wilkins and Elizabeth Lazarowitz
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Updated Thursday, May 21st 2009, 6:23 PM
LINK
It was an object lesson in irony.
A Brooklyn principal was arrested Thursday on charges of beating up a teacher - at a corporal punishment hearing. (pictured at right is teacher Robert Segarra, who shows injuries he claims were inflicted by Principal Keaton)
Principal Sean Keaton of Public School 20 allegedly punched and kicked teacher Robert Segarra during a heated exchange over accusations against another educator.
"You need to stop. I'm tired of you," Keaton said after approaching Segarra, 49, from the other side of the table.
"You need to stop. You're in my face," Segarra said he replied.
Keaton began poking him in the face, then suddenly punched him and knocked him to the ground, where he kicked him, Segarra charged.
Segarra, 49, said he refused to fight back.
"Even though he's out of his mind, he's still my supervisor," he said.
Keaton, 38, was arrested around 11 a.m., charged with misdemeanor assault and given a summons to appear in court.
He was removed from the school pending an investigation, Department of Education spokeswoman Marge Feinberg said.
The hearing was called after two students accused a special education teacher at the Clinton Hill school of corporal punishment.
Keaton and an assistant principal were hashing it out with the accused teacher and Segarra, who is also a union official, when tempers flared.
"[Principals] have no right to harass or bully teachers, much less physically assault them," United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said after the fracas.
She said the allegations, if true, are "beyond the pale."
Keaton, who started at PS 20 as a substitute teacher in 1992, has been principal since 2005 and is a divisive figure.
Although some parents praised him Thursday, saying he was "very good with children" and a "good educator," controversy has swirled around him for months.
Anonymous comments at Insideschools.org have called him "a disaster. [He's] authoritarian, defensive ... hostile and even abusive to some parents (including the president of the PTA!), sent angry e-mails to parents who dared challenge his authority, and responded defensively to any suggestions."
They complained he "actively discouraged" volunteerism and parent involvement, yells at the kids and will deny an entire grade recess for one student's infraction.
"Shouting at children and imposing blanket punishments seems to be the rule at PS 20," one comment said.
"He's a hothead," said a school employee who asked not to be named.
"I've certainly seen him get angry before," he said. "The smallest things can set him off."
elazarowitz@nydailynews.com
With Jonathan Lemire
Eyewitness News
Principal Arrested for Beating Teacher at Fort Greene School A public school principal in Fort Greene was arrested at P.S. 20 yesterday for allegedly assaulting a teacher during a meeting to discuss allegations of corporal punishment against a special ed teacher. Principal Sean Keaton has been the target of intense criticism from parents lately—many of them newer, more affluent arrivals to Fort Greene, who see him as authoritarian and resistant to parental involvement. According to The Local, "the community conversation about him often seemed to break down along class lines... with working-class parents defending him. There was often a racial component to the debate as well (Mr. Keaton is black)."
The critics had gotten under Keaton's skin in recent weeks, and last month the Local posted an open letter from Keaton explaining, "my feelings have been bruised and I have been offended and threatened by many people in my school community but I never complain." Also bruised is Robert Segarra (pictured), a teacher and union representative at P.S. 20. He attended yesterday's meeting to represent the female special ed teacher, and he says Keaton went berserk after he demanded to know what witnesses had said about the teacher:
I said, “Mr. Keaton, you’re on top of me.” He said, “That’s right, I’m on top of you.” I said, “You’re in my face.” He said, “That’s right, I’m in your face,” and with every word, he poked me in the face, in the bridge of my nose. “Now you’re touching me,” I said. Then he swung and punched me. I said, “Now you’re hitting me.”
He’s got his knee on top of one of my legs and he’s punching me. He’s holding me down in the chair and he’s whaling on me. I’m getting punched and I’m still in the chair. Now after about 5 of these shots, I’m on the floor. And he’s kicking me. He’s kicking me over and over and over again.
But as he’s kicking me I yell out, “I’m not hitting him! I’m not hitting him! I’m not hitting him!” I’m just lying on the floor trying to cover myself up. Every time I said, “I’m not hitting him,” I got another kick or another punch or another scrape or another strike. I got hit at least 20 times. I finally struggle, and now I’m standing.
911 was called, and police came to take statements and arrest Keaton, who was charged with third-degree assault, a misdemeanor, and released. (He's been reassigned to an administrative job away from the school pending the outcome of the investigation.) According to a statement from the Teachers Union, Segerra was treated for cuts and bruises at North Shore Hospital, and he tells the Local, "The police actually took a picture of the back of my head next to his shoe. They said, ‘Look, the treadmark matches.'"
Head(case) of the class: Brawling Brooklyn principal is a NY knucklehead
Saturday, May 23rd 2009, 4:00 AM
LINK
For taking the notion of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do to blatantly absurd heights, we bestow today's coveted laurels on Sean Keaton, principal of Brooklyn's Public School 20.
There Keaton was at a hearing into charges, filed by two special education students, that a teacher had engaged in corporal punishment against them, a very big no-no.
And there Keaton was getting riled in a discussion that involved an assistant principal and another teacher, Robert Segarra, who happens to be a United Federation of Teachers representative.
And there Keaton was, according to his arrest paperwork, punching Segarra, knocking him to the ground and kicking him, all of which are, of course, big no-nos - at a hearing into corporal punishment or anywhere else.
The courts will determine whether Keaton is guilty of misdemeanor assault, but it does seem certain that he did, in fact, lay at least a finger on one of his subordinates. And so he has been temporarily exiled from PS 20 to a Department of Education office, perhaps for a hearing into his own whacked-out conduct.
READER COMMENT
Meowmeister May 23, 2009 10:12:05 AM Report Offensive Post
This principal is a psycho. And the corporal punishment charges were trumped-up charges by this same principal, who manipulated the special ed students into doing it to help him get rid of the teacher. He was called out on it, and that is why he attacked the union rep. Klein's anti-union brainwashing campaign at its worst.
June 27, 2009
As Cultures Clash, Brooklyn Principal Faces Assault Charges
By ANDY NEWMAN, NY TIMES
On Monday morning, the fifth graders of Public School 20 in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, formed a sea of gold and maroon caps and gowns in the sanctuary of a nearby church. They sang a Miley Cyrus song, heard a speech from their 11-year-old valedictorian, reaped awards.
Missing from the graduation festivities, though, was the school’s principal, who during four years had won admirers for improving test scores, starting a host of cultural programs and taking troubled students under his wing. Though the graduating class had invited him to speak, education officials would not allow it.
The principal, Sean Keaton, 38, (pictured at right) was removed from the school last month, accused of repeatedly punching and kicking a teacher’s union representative during a meeting. On Thursday, while the rest of P.S. 20 savored the bittersweet joys of the last full day of school, Mr. Keaton was arraigned in court on assault charges.
Not all of the parents were sad to see Mr. Keaton go. His arrest capped years of growing rancor over the school’s direction and his often prickly leadership style, much of which precipitated in the crucible of neighborhood and school-related blogs, where Mr. Keaton himself sometimes joined the conversation. And dire as it is, the situation at P.S. 20 is a version of a conflict playing out in schools in gentrifying neighborhoods all over the city, particularly Brooklyn.
In the resurgent brownstone bastions of Fort Greene, Boerum Hill and the fringes of Park Slope, affluent parents with one set of expectations for their children’s education — progressive, hands-on, emphasizing freedom — are clashing with longtime, working-class residents who prefer stricter, more structured educational models like the one Mr. Keaton favored, leaving principals caught in the crossfire.
“It’s going to be really hard to find principals who can serve the different families that make up their population and can still keep the lights on,” said Pamela Wheaton, the director of insideschools.org, an independent site about the city’s public schools.
At P.S. 20, some of the conflict has been tinged with race: Mr. Keaton is black, as are three-quarters of the students, while many of the families who said they found him hard to work with are white. Much of it has to do with class. Some comes down to personal style: Even many of Mr. Keaton’s supporters say he can be abrasive and inclined to escalate rather than defuse tensions.
But the result has been a school community divided and a principal who seemed to feel besieged. Mr. Keaton, who has declined to be interviewed since his arrest, told a group of parents on a school tour last fall when asked what he envisioned for the school if money were no object, “Quite honestly, I’m all out of ideas for this school.”
Mr. Keaton, a tall slender man with a master’s degree from City College, was named principal in 2005 after seven years as a teacher and assistant principal at the school, a large brick box set among town houses on Adelphi Street.
Ms. Wheaton, of insideschools.org, said that when she met with Mr. Keaton early in his tenure, “He said: ‘I look out the window and I see parents walking by the school. Why is that? They should come in and take a look and give us a chance.’ ”
Some of them did. Dara Furlow, a magazine marketer, wrote an article in early 2007 for a local magazine, The Hill, about her search for a school. At P.S. 20, she wrote, she was “amazed by the small class size, large airy classrooms, orderly hallways covered with children’s art, the computer lab and the science room with its spacious greenhouse” and “particularly impressed with the young, ambitious principal.”
In 2007, enrollment at the school rose for the first time in more than a decade. Scores on standardized tests increased, too, though roughly in line with the overall improvement in District 13, which includes Fort Greene.
But tensions were growing. The approach to the children that some parents found firm and fatherly others deemed tyrannical and abusive. Many parents said that the more they tried to get involved in the daily life of the school, the more Mr. Keaton resisted and seemed to resent their efforts and presence.
The P.T.A., of which Ms. Furlow was then president, complained in 2007 that Mr. Keaton refused to give it a copy of the school budget, though the Education Department said that principals were not then required to share the documents the P.T.A. had requested. Parents of children in the younger grades said they were blocked — sometimes physically, by Mr. Keaton — from walking their children to class in the morning. Mr. Keaton also shut down a “parent room” at the school, where parents could meet during the day. One of the mainstays of the parent room, Cynthia Howell, the mother of a third grader, said Mr. Keaton barred her from entering the building.
Around this time, the Education Department’s chief parent engagement officer, Martine G. Guerrier, met with a group of P.S. 20 parents and Mr. Keaton to try to smooth out relations.
Although Mr. Keaton retained — and still retains — the support of most of the school’s families, Ms. Furlow and other disillusioned parents began transferring their children.
“My child had wonderful teachers,” Ms. Furlow wrote to a New York Times blog, the Local. “But Mr. Keaton’s unwillingness to admit deficiencies and work for positive change collaboratively with parents made it impossible for us to stay.”
For the 2008-9 school year, enrollment dropped 9 percent, to 399. A few blocks away, meanwhile, buzz was growing about P.S. 11, a growing school where the principal was perceived as welcoming parents of all educational philosophies.
Then, in March, the city announced that one of its three new citywide gifted-and-talented programs would be at P.S. 20. This ostensible good news set off more criticism on the blogs, of Mr. Keaton and of the city’s decision.
In April, Mr. Keaton posted a letter to the “Fort Greene Community” on The Local. He listed goals he had met, including raising test scores and forming partnerships with community institutions. But he also talked about the toll the turmoil was taking. He noted that a commenter on one Internet board had called him “Principal Mugabe.”
“My feelings have been bruised and I have been offended and threatened by many people in my school community but I never complain,” he wrote. “I wonder what it feels like to receive support in the areas of grant writing, parent newsletters, real fund-raising, enrichment, Web site design and team building like some of my colleagues in our school districts.”
He offered to meet with his critics, then withdrew the invitation. In an interview on April 21, he said of the new wave of parents : “I’ve never understood what parents wanted, except to be able to come in when they want, to come in and sit in the classroom. And you can’t do that in Park Slope, you can’t do it on the Upper West Side, nor on the Upper East Side. Why should you be able to do that at P.S. 20?”
On May 21, Mr. Keaton summoned a special education teacher to his office to discuss an allegation that she had used corporal punishment on a student. Robert Segarra, a union representative and kindergarten teacher at the school, came as her advocate.
Mr. Segarra (picture of bruise at left) said that at one point, Mr. Keaton began poking him and, when Mr. Segarra would not back down, hitting him. Mr. Segarra, 49, said he never lifted a finger as Mr. Keaton punched him to the ground and hit or kicked him at least 20 times.
Mr. Segarra had bruises on his neck, head and arms. The police said a stomp print on his head matched the tread of Mr. Keaton’s shoe.
Mr. Keaton’s lawyer, Richard F. X. Guay, who entered a not-guilty plea on Mr. Keaton’s behalf in criminal court on Thursday, said that his client was “presumed innocent by law” and “eager to be vindicated in our justice system.”
The Department of Education reassigned Mr. Keaton to administrative duties at another location, pending the outcome of his case.
On Monday, in front of the Emmanuel Baptist Church, where the graduation was held, Mr. Keaton’s supporters remained steadfast. “He’s straightforward and he pulls no punches,” said Kassim Sykes, 34, a delivery driver and the parent of a graduating fifth grader. “He gives it to you in the raw, and I respect that.”
Other parents agreed. “He should have been there,” said Marisia Rivera, a former member of the P.T.A. “When his name came up, all the kids turned around. They expected him to pop in any second.”
At a bus stop around the corner, though, Ms. Rivera, 41, an aircraft cleaner, offered a more balanced assessment. “When it comes to the kids, he’s No. 1,” she said. “But he can be evil. When you see too much of what goes on in the school, that’s when he doesn’t want you around. If he thinks you’re trying to bring him down, he’ll bring you down first.”
Whether or not Mr. Keaton returns to P.S. 20 in September, the new gifted program will not be there. The Education Department canceled it for the school last week. “We were getting indications that many parents would not accept their assignments to P.S. 20,” said Andrew Jacob, a department spokesman. “There wasn’t enough parent demand to open the program.”
modern dialogue
After Web criticism, Fort Greene principal requests public meeting
Posted By Elizabeth Green On April 21, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
LINK
A public school principal in Fort Greene is asking for a public, face-to-face meeting with concerned community members after Internet and newspaper reports described dissatisfaction with his leadership.
One report [1], in the Brooklyn Paper, said unhappiness with the principal, Sean Keaton, of the Clinton Hill School, P.S. 20, is behind a surge of interest in the nearby Community Roots charter school. Another report [2], at Insideschools.org [3], includes a parent describing Keaton as “authoritarian,” “hostile,” and “abusive.” The frustration comes as a flood of middle class families are moving to the Brooklyn neighborhood – and often searching for options outside P.S. 20, their zoned school. The Brooklyn Paper reported that only 27% of kindergarten-aged students zoned for P.S. 20 attend it.
Parents posting in the comments sections of the Times blog and at Insideschools said they feel Keaton shuts them out of the school. One said that he has a “closed door policy to the parents.”
Keaton has in the past issued replies to Insideschools defending himself. Today, he replied to the dismal characterization today in an open letter submitted to the comments section of the New York Times’ new local blog [4] for the Fort Greene and Clinton Hill sections of Brooklyn. The letter acknowledges that many have expressed concerns with the school, including some comments that Keaton says tied him to Robert Mugabe and Adolf Hitler. (For the record, I can’t find any such comments.)
Keaton, in his letter, says that the comments are difficult for him to deal with because he feels he’s accomplished a lot at the school, including partnerships with local museums, rising test scores, and a new citywide gifted and talented program that’s part of the Bloomberg administration’s recent expansion of gifted programs. [5] “My feelings have been bruised and I have been offended and threatened,” he writes. Then Keaton asks readers to bring their grievances to him in public, face-to-face — a desire Keaton just reiterated in a comment [6]:
I believe this spirited debate warrants a face-to-face conversation. Someone please suggest potential dates, times, and location for a meeting. I will attend!
So far, responses focus on concerns about Keaton’s writing skills and questions about the difference between “progressive” and “traditional” styles of education. No one has responded with a specific time to hold a meeting.
The controversial principal of Fort Greene’s PS 20 was arrested last Thursday morning for allegedly assaulting a teacher during a disciplinary hearing.
The principal, Sean Keaton, was charged with punching and kicking the school’s teacher union representative during a meeting about whether a special ed teacher used corporal punishment against a student in the school on Adelphi Street.
The Daily News reported that Keaton suddenly became enraged at Robert Segarra, the United Federation of Teachers rep and a kindergarten teacher himself, before launching into the violent episode that culminates Keaton’s rocky tenure at the helm of PS 20, where school enrollment has dropped in the gentrifying neighborhood.
The shamed principal was immediately reassigned to administrative duties elsewhere in the school system and will not be back at the elementary school until a police investigation is complete, said Andrew Jacob, a spokesman for the Department of Education.
Keaton started teaching at PS 20 in the 1990s and became the principal there in 2005. He quickly became a divisive figure with some parents singing his praises and others slamming him as a tyrant — some actually comparing him on Web sites to Adolf Hitler and Zimbabwe’s brutal president Robert Mugabe.
The total student population has shrunk, and only 27 percent of eligible kindergarten students from the neighborhood choose to attend PS 20. Next year, there will be only two kindergarten classes, down from three this year, because of declining enrollment.
Pushed to the brink by the intense criticism, Keaton wrote a letter last month published on a New York Times blog, defending himself (See below - Editor).
“My feelings have been bruised and I have been offended and threatened by many people in my school community but I never complain,” the letter said. “I believe the number of supporters far exceeds the number of detractors. Honestly speaking, my ultimate goal is to lead a school that I would enroll my child without hand-picking his teachers.”
Keaton did not return our call.
Keaton’s arrest dominated conversation in the schoolyard on Tuesday morning as parents dropped off their children.
There seemed to be universal disdain for his alleged attack on the kindergarten teacher, but opinion was split on his performance before the scandal broke late Thursday.
“Overall, I’m disgusted at his actions,” said Veronica Jones, who accused Keaton of hypocrisy and was not a fan of him before the violent outburst. “He’s quick to tell the children right from wrong. If this is the example we’re going to set, we’re in a world of trouble.”
Other parents did not believe the police report.
“I thought he was a great guy,” said Zora Jamil, whose son is in kindergarten. “He was stern with [the students], which I find necessary, but I was shocked at the arrest.”
Updated 05:34 pm, May, 28 2009: Story was updated to add comments from parents.
April 20, 2009, 10:13 am
An Open Letter from the P.S. 20 Principal
By Sean Keaton
LINK
Sean Keaton, the principal of P.S. 20, sent this in as a comment yesterday. It’s of sufficient interest that we are running it now as a post. We present it unedited.
Hello Fort Greene Community,
When I accepted the principalship at the Clinton Hill School\PS 20 four years ago, I set out to accomplish five goals.
1. Implement new arts and enrichment programming. Build partnerships with BMA, BAM and BBG.
2. Increase standardized test scores for students in grades 3, 4 and 5.
3. Improve the reputation of the school, because so many local families opted to send their child(ren) to schools in different school districts. For the record this trend started, before I became the principal.
4. Open the school to the community at-large to participate in organized school based activities during the day, at night and on the weekends.
5. Take the school citywide.
Unfortunately, goal number four has been a point of contention for some members of the community. On local blogs I am referred to as Mugabe and Hitler; as in John Mugabe president of Zimbabwe and Adolf Hitler. The only thing I have in common with John Mugabe is that we are both men of color. For the record I have never met or spoken to the man. And, there is no similarity between Adolf Hitler and myself.
My feelings have been bruised and I have been offended and threatened by many people in my school community but I never complain. I believe the number of supporters far exceeds the number of detractors. Honestly speaking my ultimate goal is to lead a school that I would enroll my child without hand-picking his teachers.
During my tenure I have met with many people who shared their desire to change PS 20 into a either a coop, charter, magnet or a private school without tuition fees. Yes, this has been articulated to me! I will work with anyone who wants to work with me on improving what we have in place.
With the support of a very small group of people (staff not included) I have accomplished each of the aforementioned goals, as well as others that make me proud. I wonder what it feels like to receive support in the areas of grantwriting, parent newsletters, real fundraising, enrichment, website design and team building like some of my colleagues in our school districts. These are tangible areas that our school needs support.
The staff and I have worked tirelessly to improve student achievement and rebuild the reputation of the school; it is evident in the work that we do daily. The TIER citywide gifted and talented program at PS 20 is great news for Brooklyn. The staff and I have accomplished something that has never been done in the history of the NYC Department of Education. For this we should receive applause from the community, but instead I am misquoted by Scout and blasted by bobbycue above.
I am available to meet and listen to the community (preferably large groups) about any matter related to PS 20. Dates, times and location are negotiable, but I am available.
Yours truly,
Sean Keaton
Principal
Clinton Hill School\PS 20
225 Adelphi Street
Brooklyn, NY 11205
718-834-6744
718-834-6745
PS Citywide gifted and talented status is not a gift, but the results of four years of hard work.
Rabu, 24 Juni 2009
All Members of the PEP are Violating Open Meetings Law
On tuesday June 23, 2009, I attended the monthly meeting of the New York City Board of Education "school board" commonly known as the Panel For Educational Policy. Every month I marvel at the show of 17 professional, intelligent people scrambling to please our "pretend" Chancellor Joel Klein. All members of the Panel do whatever Joel Klein wants, except Patrick Sullivan, who is the single independent thinker in the group, but who sadly goes along with breaking the law. Last week we in NYC were shocked to hear that the PEP members quickly assembled in a secret session to vote on the $22 billion budget, with approximately 54 minutes of notice to the public. Actually, there is a long list of laws that this sad group of power-wannabees are breaking: Open Meetings Law; Title VII; Civil Rights Act;Voter Rights Act; Whistleblower; Education Law 2590...to name a few. If I were any of these Panel members I would immediately resign, and thus divert possible implication in any summons and complaints that may be coming in the future.
Simply by accepting a position on the Panel, a person enters the realm of "I hope I fool the public". As our revered President Abraham Lincoln said:
“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
Let me tell you, dear Panel members, you cant fool New York City public school parents into valuing your words or thoughts. The room last night at Tweed headquarters was, as usual, more than half empty. However, there is something that you are doing that is serious, in terms of public trust and confidence.
The PEP members are all in violation of Open Meetings Law Section 105. None of the members have ever protested the Executive Session held BEFORE the public meeting begins, and they are, therefore, willingly and even more importantly knowingly violating the Section in Open Meetings Law that requires the public meeting to begin, and THEN a vote to be taken on going into an Executive Session. Joel of course told me that my reading of the law is incorrect, but I have the support on this issue of none other than Robert Freeman, Director of the Committee on Open Government, who has many advisory opinions on this issue available on his website.
Mike Best rolled his eyes when I brought this up, so please go to my blog and see how he ripped two pages out of my pad when I was invited to review the Ross Global Charter application at Tweed. Actually, Garth Harries' then boss Mashea Ashton ripped the pages out, then Mike told me he would have to redact a personal address. See the story I wrote about that incident.
The PEP members also violate the Bylaws of the PEP, which in Section 1.5 requires that there be a Secretary, and a person must take notes. (See Section 1.6 too). There are no minutes. I think that Michael Best is extremely embarrassed by this, as he supposedly is the "Secretary", I heard when I reviewed the Bylaws at Tweed in 2005. I filed a freedom of information request two years ago to get the minutes, and the Office of Legal Services central records access person, Christine Kicinski, sent me the agenda for the General Public meeting of the PEP, with an altered Agenda at that!! They re-wrote the agenda to make it look like from 2002-2007 that the Executive Sessions had occurred AFTER the public meeting began. Luckily, in 2007 I downloaded from the NYC BOE website all the meeting agendas with Executive Sessions, and they all have a listing that says the meeting started AFTER the ES.
I contacted someone at Tweed for months, and asked her to have Mr. Best stop the funny business, and simply have him put in writing that there are no minutes to the Executive Sessions or the PEP meetings. I define "minutes" in the classic way - notes on everyone who speaks, what was proposed, etc. About two weeks ago I received the acknowledgment I requested that there are no minutes - from Best.
Even more atrocious, I believe, was the agenda (sent out twice in the last two days) which clearly states that an Executive Session will take place "prior to the 6p.m public start time" for "Matters Pertaining to Employee Discipline: Inquest on Employee Termination."
On my blog, NYC Rubber Room Reporter, I have an article on the "Gotcha Squad" that shows how secret TAC memos are created and then brought to the Executive Session to vote on the termination of a teacher, without the teacher being there. of course. The PEP has been, is, and will be sued for this practice (two such cases: Norgrove v NYC Bd. of Educ. (see below); Hipolito Colon v City of NY, NYC BOE, Liza Caraballo).
It was brought up at the PEP meeting that ARIS was now available to "ALL" parents. (What about parents without computers?). I got home at about 9:30PM to find my notice of ARIS for my daughter in the mail! My question for the NYC is: what about parents without computers and no Parent Coordinator in the school, or no notice from the Parent Coordinator and no information about the new P311 (???) that Mr. Lieberman said last night was being set up?
Award of Attorney's Fees under the Open Meetings Law
LINK
An amendment to §107(1) of the Open Meetings Law recently approved is intended to improve compliance and to ensure that public business is discussed in public as required by that law. Effective August 5, 2008, the new provision states that when it is found by a court that a public body voted in private “in material violation” of the law “or that substantial deliberations occurred in private” that should have occurred in public, the court “shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees” to the person or entity that initiated the lawsuit.
The mandatory award of attorney’s fees would apply only when secrecy is the issue. In other instances, those in which the matter involves compliance with other aspects of the Open Meetings Law, such as a failure to fully comply with notice requirements, the sufficiency of a motion for entry into executive session, or the preparation of minutes in a timely manner, the award of attorney’s fees by a court would remain, as it has since 1977, discretionary.
The intent of the amendment is not to encourage litigation. On the contrary, it is intended to enhance compliance and to encourage members of public bodies and those who serve them to be more knowledgeable regarding their duty to abide by the Open Meetings Law.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Due process requires good faith effort to serve disciplinary charges on employee
Due process requires good faith effort to serve disciplinary charges on employee
Matter of Norgrove v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 2009 NY Slip Op 29034, decided on January 13, 2009, Supreme Court, New York County, Justice Joan A. Madden
Lesleigh B. Norgrove was terminated from his position as a tenured mathematics teacher after he failed to seek a disciplinary hearing.
Norgrove contended that he never received copies of the disciplinary charges nor notice of his right to file an objection and seek a hearing as provided by Section 3020-a of the Education Law because the notices were sent to an incorrect mailing address.
The Board argued that had served the disciplinary charges on Norgrove by hand and, in addition, by both regular and certified mail sent to his address of record, “428 Worthman Avenue, Apt. No.1, Brooklyn, New York, 11207 … because that was the address BOE [Board of Education] had in its HRS [Human Resource System] for the petitioner in May of 2007." The letters sent Certified Mail was returned to the Board as “unclaimed;” the letters sent regular mail were never returned to the Board.
In rebuttal, Norgrove admitted he had received some documents that were hand delivered but pointed out that he had moved in 2003 and the Board of Education did not dispute his claim that its Office of Salary Services listed his new, and correct, address as 22 Covert Street, 3R, Brooklyn, New York and thus had notice of his correct address “as early as October 2006.”
In essence Norgrove argued that since he was not provided with notice as to his right to request a hearing on the charges, the Board of Education's "unilateral determination to terminate [his] employment without the due process hearing as provided for under Education Law §3020-a deprives [him] of property rights in his tenured position without due process of law, and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, a violation of lawful procedure, and a violation of the rights guaranteed to Petitioner under the due process clause of the New York State Constitution."
Justice Madden agreed, ruling that:
1. Education Law §3020 recognizes that a tenured teacher has a constitutionally protected property interest in his or her right to continued employment which cannot be deprived without due process.”
2. Contrary to the Board of Education's assertion, the First Notice that was personally delivered by hand to Norgrove on May 11, 2007, did not satisfy the substantive requirements of Section 3020-a(2)(a) as it did not include certain essential information such as details of the charges, nor did it advised Norgrove of his right to a hearing and the maximum penalty if he did not request a hearing within 10 days, as required under section 3020-a(2)(a).
3. “Due process requires the government to provide notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections."
4. In Jones v. Flowers, 547 US 220 the United States Supreme Court held that when the government becomes aware that its attempt at notice has failed, due process requires the government to "take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so."
In this instance, the return of the certified mail marked unclaimed meant the Board “had good reason to suspect when the notice was returned that [Norgrove] was no better off than if the notice had never been sent.”
This triggered an obligation on the Board of Education's part to take additional steps to effect notice, such as redelivering a second notice to Norgrove personally at his place of work. Such an effort would have constituted an additional reasonable and practical step to effect notice, “which was clearly available to the Board of Education, since the Board of Education employed [Norgrove] at all times, had direct first-hand knowledge of his work location, and had previously effectuated service on petitioner by such means.”
As to the Board’s argument that Norgrove was obligated to update his address and that he did not do so until after he was terminated, Justice Madden noted that “the identical argument was raised and rejected in Jones on the grounds that the government cannot be relieved of its constitutional obligation to provide adequate notice" even if the individual was required to provide a current address by statute.
As the Board conceded that its Office of Salary Services lists Lesleigh’s correct address at Covert Street prior to 2007, Justice Madden concluded that the Board of Education's determination to terminate his employment must be annulled for not complying with the requirements of due process, and that Norgrove is entitled to reinstatement with back salary and benefits.
The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_29034.htm
By Public Employment Law Press on Thursday, January 29, 2009
Matter of Norgrove v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y.
2009 NY Slip Op 29034 [23 Misc 3d 684], January 13, 2009
Madden, J.
Supreme Court, New York County
LINK
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, June 3, 2009
[*1]
In the Matter of Lesleigh B. Norgrove, Petitioner,
v
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court, New York County, January 13, 2009
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
James R. Sander, New York City (Kathleen M. Kilduff of counsel), for petitioner. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City, for respondents.
{**23 Misc 3d at 685} OPINION OF THE COURT
Joan A. Madden, J.
In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner, a tenured mathematics teacher of 28 years, seeks to annul the determination of respondents Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York and Joel I. Klein (collectively the Board of Education) which terminated his employment; petitioner also seeks retroactive reinstatement with full back salary, including interest, and all benefits. For the reasons delineated below, the petition is granted.
The following facts are not disputed unless otherwise noted. By letters dated December 20 and 21, 2006, the Board of Education advised petitioner that "a serious allegation has been made against you," and "[p]ending the outcome of the investigation . . . you are reassigned" to "Region 8 Human Resources." These letters were hand-delivered to petitioner at work and neither letter has an address for petitioner.
On May 11, 2007, while petitioner was working at the Region 8 Human Resources Center (the reassignment center), he received by hand delivery from the Board of Education a document entitled "Notice of Charges" (first notice), which stated as follows:
"In view of your unprofessional conduct while a teacher at Automotive High School, an Empowerment School located in Brooklyn during 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years, the following charges are being preferred:
"1. Just Cause for disciplinary action under Education Law § 3020-a;
"2. Incompetent and inefficient service;
"3. Conduct unbecoming Respondent's position, or conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency or discipline of the service;
"4. Substantial cause rendering Respondent unfit to perform his obligations properly to the service;{**23 Misc 3d at 686}
"5. Violation of Chancellor's Regulation A-421;
[*2]
"6. Violation of Chancellor's Regulation A-420;
"7. Insubordination;
"8. Neglect of duty; and
"9. Just cause of termination.
"By this notice you are hereby informed of the nature of the complaint. I will be preferring and filing the above charges. You will be informed of the procedures involved in the Trial of Charges."
The Board of Education submits affidavits of service that the first notice was personally delivered to petitioner at work, and that it was also sent via certified and regular mail addressed to petitioner at "428 Worthman Avenue, Apt. No. 1, Brooklyn, New York, 11207." Petitioner concedes he received the hand-delivered copy, but denies receipt of the certified and regular mailed copies. He explains that he last resided at Worthman Avenue more than five years ago, and since 2003, he had resided at his current address, 22 Covert Street, Apt. 3R, Brooklyn, New York 11207. While petitioner asserts that the Board of Education's Office of Salary Services lists his correct address at 22 Covert Street, the Board of Education asserts that it used the Worthman Avenue address "because that was the address BOE [Board of Education] had in its HRS [human resource system] for the petitioner in May of 2007."
On May 16, 2007, the Board of Education issued a "Notice of Determination of Probable Cause on Charges Brought Against Tenured School District Employee, Section 3020-a Education Law" (second notice) addressed to petitioner at the Worthman Avenue address. The second notice advised that the Board of Education "has found there is probable cause on the attached charges preferred against you," and that "[w]ithin ten days of receipt of these charges, you must elect to request a hearing before an impartial hearing officer, or [you] will waive your right to such a hearing." The second notice also advised that if petitioner did "not request a hearing to contest these charges, the maximum penalty that will be imposed will be termination." The notice included a form for requesting a hearing and detailed 12 separate factual "Specifications," in which petitioner allegedly "rendered incompetent and inefficient service, engaged in verbal abuse and unprofessional conduct."[FN1] [*3]
The Board of Education asserts that it sent the second notice to the Worthman Avenue address by certified and regular mail,{**23 Misc 3d at 687} and that the regular mail copy was not returned and the certified mail copy was returned "unclaimed." Petitioner asserts{**23 Misc 3d at 688} that he never received the second notice since it was not sent to his correct address, and as a result he could not have submitted a timely request for hearing.
On or about August 31, 2007, Michael Best, Esq., general counsel to the Board of Education, sent petitioner a "Notice of Inquest" by certified and regular mail to the Worthman Avenue address. The letter advised as follows:
"On May 16, 2007, you were served with Education law Section 3020-a charges by regular and certified mail. Under the law, you have ten days to request a hearing on the charges or waive your right to a hearing. We have confirmed your failure to request a hearing with the New York State Education Department. Since you have failed to request a hearing in a timely manner, your right to a hearing is deemed waived.
"For informational purposes only, you are hereby advised that the charges preferred against you are now subject to disposition at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Panel for Education Policy to be held on September 24, 2007 at 6:00 pm at the Tweed Court House, 52 Chambers Street, New York, NY 10007."
[*4]
The Board of Education asserts that the regular mail copy of the notice of inquest was not returned, and that the certified mail copy was returned "unclaimed." Petitioner asserts that he never received the notice of inquest since it was not sent to his correct address.
On October 12, 2007, Chancellor Joel I. Klein, Chairperson of the Panel for Education Policy, wrote to petitioner at the Worthman Avenue address, detailing the events that occurred since the charges were preferred against him on May 16, 2007, specifically the notices sent to him and his failure to respond and request a hearing.[FN2] The letter advised that "[i]n a memorandum dated August 30, 2007, the Office of Legal Services notified the Panel for Educational Policy (hereinafter 'the Panel') that at a trial on these charges, the evidence against you would have consisted of" testimony by specific individuals as to certain conduct. The letter listed the individuals' names, summarized the substance of their testimony, and stated that "[b]ased on{**23 Misc 3d at 689} the representations of the Office of Legal Services, the Panel makes the following findings of fact," which basically adopted the testimony as described. The letter listed the Panel's findings[FN3] and stated that the Panel concluded that "effective immediately, your services with the New York City Department of Education are terminated."
On October 18, 2007, petitioner received by hand delivery at the reassignment center, a letter from the Board of Education which stated in its entirety as follows: "Pursuant to the 3020-a disciplinary proceeding decision you are hereby terminated from your employment with the Department of Education effective October 18, 2007." This letter was hand-delivered to petitioner at work, but was addressed to him at the Worthman Avenue address. Petitioner states that when he received the termination letter, he directly informed his union representative, John Settle, that he had been terminated and that he had never received "formal charges" or "notice of his rights under the Education Law." Petitioner states that his union representative contacted the [*5]Board of Education to request a hearing, and that such request was denied.[FN4] Petitioner subsequently filed a notice of claim on January 18, 2008, and asserts that "approximately thirty (30) days have elapsed since that time and Respondents have refused to adjust such claim."{**23 Misc 3d at 690}
On February 15, 2008, petitioner commenced the instant article 78 proceeding, challenging the termination of his employment. Petitioner contends that the Board of Education failed to comply with the notice requirements of Education Law § 3020 (1), which provides that "[n]o person enjoying the benefits of tenure shall be disciplined or removed during a term of employment except for just cause and in accordance with the procedures specified in section [3020-a]." Particularly, petitioner argues that he was not provided with the statutorily required "Notice of Charges" specifying the charges in detail, the penalty to be imposed and his rights under Education Law § 3020-a. Petitioner asserts that he was provided only with a "Notice of the Nature of the Charges, incorrectly styled as Notice of Charges," that such document bears an incorrect address from over four years prior, and that he did not receive "anything by certified or registered mail with regard to any threatened disciplinary proceedings."
Petitioner contends that since he was not provided with notice as to his right to request a hearing on the charges, the Board of Education's
"unilateral determination to terminate [his] employment without the due process hearing as provided for under Education Law § 3020-a deprives [him] of property rights in his tenured position without due process of law, and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, a violation of lawful procedure, and a violation of the rights guaranteed to Petitioner under the due process clause of the New York State Constitution."
Petitioner also contends that under Education Law § 3020-a (2) (d), the Board of Education is statutorily obligated to consider whether his failure to timely request a hearing is "excused."
Education Law § 3020 recognizes that a tenured teacher has a constitutionally protected property interest in his or her right to continued employment which cannot be deprived without due process. (See Holt v Board of Educ. of Webutuck Cent. School Dist., 52 NY2d 625 [1981]; Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Brookhaven & Smithtown, 46 NY2d 450 [1979], cert denied 444 US 845 [1979]; Matter of Novillo v Board of Educ. of Madison Cent. School Dist., 17 AD3d 907 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 714 [2005]; Matter of Elmore v Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist., Bd. of Educ., 273 AD2d 307 [2d Dept 2000].) The procedures for{**23 Misc 3d at 691} disciplining and terminating a tenured teacher are set forth in Education Law § 3020-a. (See Matter of Pollock v Kiryas Joel Union Free School Dist., 52 AD3d 722 [2d Dept 2008]; Matter of Chawki v New York City Dept. of Educ., Manhattan High Schools, Dist. 71, 39 AD3d 321 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 810 [2007].) Section 3020-a (2) (a) provides that if disciplinary charges are to be preferred,
"[*6]a written statement specifying the charges in detail, the maximum penalty which will be imposed by the board if the employee does not request a hearing or that will be sought by the board if the employee is found guilty of the charges after a hearing and outlining the employee's rights under this section, shall be immediately forwarded to the accused employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by personal delivery to the employee."
Section 3020-a (2) (c) provides that "[w]ithin ten days of receipt of the statement of charges, the employee shall notify the clerk or secretary of the employing board in writing whether he or she desires a hearing on the charges." Section 3020-a (2) (d) provides that the "unexcused failure of the employee to notify the clerk or secretary of his or her desire for a hearing within ten days of the receipt of charges shall be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing," and "[i]f the employee waives his or her right to a hearing the employing board shall proceed, within fifteen days, by a vote of a majority of all members of such board, to determine the case and fix the penalty, if any, to be imposed."
Here, as a tenured teacher, petitioner was entitled to the procedural due process protections afforded under Education Law § 3020-a, as detailed above. Specifically, after the charges were submitted in writing and filed with the Board of Education and the Board of Education determined that probable cause for the charges existed, the Board was required by statute to forward to petitioner immediately, via certified or registered mail, or personal delivery, a written statement specifying the charges in detail and outlining his rights, including his right to a hearing and the maximum penalty if he did not request a hearing within 10 days. (See Education Law § 3020-a [2] [a]; Matter of Pollock v Kiryas Joel Union Free School Dist., supra; Matter of Chawki v New York City Dept. of Educ., Manhattan High Schools, Dist. 71, supra.)
Contrary to the Board of Education's assertion, the first notice that was personally delivered by hand to petitioner on{**23 Misc 3d at 692} May 11, 2007, did not satisfy the substantive requirements of section 3020-a (2) (a). That notice included a brief list of the charges which merely informed petitioner as to the "nature of the complaint," but it neither specified the details of the charges, nor advised petitioner of his right to a hearing and the maximum penalty if he did not request a hearing within 10 days, as required under section 3020-a (2) (a).
The second notice dated May 16, 2007 satisfied the substantive requirements of section 3020-a (2) (a) by providing the details as to 12 separate incidents, and advising petitioner of his right to request a hearing and that the failure to do so in 10 days would result in his waiving that right with a maximum penalty of termination. That notice, however, was mailed to petitioner via certified and regular mail at the Worthman Avenue address, where petitioner claims he has not resided since 2003.[FN5] For that reason, petitioner asserts that he never received the second notice and was denied due process in that he did not receive notice of the charges or [*7]his right to a hearing in compliance with Education Law § 3020-a (2), since the certified mailing of the second notice was sent to an outdated and incorrect address.
The Board of Education responds that it complied with due process in that: (1) the address at Worthman Avenue was the address the Board of Education had for petitioner in its human resource system; (2) petitioner was responsible for updating his address and the Board of Education's records indicate that he did not do so until after he was terminated;[FN6] (3) the certified mailings of the second notice of May 16, 2007 and the August 31, 2007 notice of inquest were returned "unclaimed"; and (4){**23 Misc 3d at 693} those notices were also sent to petitioner via regular mail and were not returned.
Although due process does not require actual notice before the government may extinguish a person's property interest, "due process requires the government to provide 'notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.' " (Jones v Flowers, 547 US 220, 226 [2006], quoting Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 US 306, 314 [1950]; accord Matter of Harner v County of Tioga, 5 NY3d 136, 140 [2005]; Kennedy v Mossafa, 100 NY2d 1, 9 [2003]; Silverstein v Minkin, 49 NY2d 260, 263 [1980], rearg denied 50 NY2d 929 [1980].) In Jones v Flowers (supra) the United States Supreme Court recently held that when the government becomes aware prior to the taking that its attempt at notice has failed, due process requires the government to "take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so." (547 US at 225.)
Jones involved the certified mailing of a notice of tax sale to a property owner that was returned unclaimed. The record indicated that the property owner moved out of the house when he and his wife separated, and seven years later, the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands sent him a certified letter as to the tax delinquency, at the address of the property; two years after that, another certified letter was sent to him at the same address, advising that his house would be sold if he did not pay his taxes. The certified letters were returned marked "unclaimed," and the Commissioner took no further steps to notify the property owner.
The United States Supreme Court concluded that "[t]he Commissioner's effort to provide notice to [the property owner] of an impending tax sale of his house was insufficient to satisfy due process given the circumstances of this case." (Id. at 239.) The Court found that
"[a]lthough the State may have made a reasonable calculation of how to reach [the property owner], it had [*8]good reason to suspect when the notice was returned that [the property owner] was 'no better off than if the notice had never been sent.' Deciding to take no further action is not what someone 'desirous{**23 Misc 3d at 694} of actually informing' [the property owner] would do; such a person would take further reasonable steps if any were available." (Id. at 230 [citation omitted], quoting Malone v Robinson, 614 A2d 33, 37 [DC Ct App 1992].)
"What steps are reasonable in response to new information depends upon what the new information reveals." (Id. at 234.)
Analyzing the "new information," the Court in Jones reasoned that the return of the certified letters marked "unclaimed" meant either that the property owner still lived at the property but was not at home when the postal carrier called and did not retrieve the letter at the post office, or that the property owner no longer resided at that address. (Id.) Based on that information, the Court determined that several additional reasonable steps at notice were available, including resending the notice by regular mail, posting the notice on the front door or addressing otherwise undeliverable mail to "occupant." (Id. at 234-235.)
Although Jones involves an issue of due process and notice in the context of tax sale of real property, petitioner's protected property interest in his tenured teaching position and his right to due process are no less significant. Applying the holding in Jones, this court concludes that the second notice sent by certified mail was insufficient to satisfy due process, as once that notice was returned marked "unclaimed," the Board of Education became aware that its attempt at notice had failed, and due process required the Board of Education to take additional reasonable steps to notify petitioner.[FN7] Moreover, under the circumstances presented, additional reasonable and practicable steps were plainly available.
The Education Law permits service of the notice by two methods in the alternative, by certified or registered mail, or by{**23 Misc 3d at 695} personal delivery. (Education Law § 3020-a [2] [a].) The Board of Education utilized both methods in serving petitioner with the various notices involved in this proceeding. Specifically, the December 2006 letters initially advising petitioner of his reassignment, and the final letter in October 2007 as to his termination, were hand-delivered to petitioner at work, while all other notices in the interim period between those dates, regarding the charges, petitioner's right to a hearing, and his having waived that right, were sent via certified and regular mail to an outdated address. [*9]
As held in Jones, when the certified mail was returned unclaimed, the Board of Education became aware that the notice was ineffective, which triggered an obligation on the Board of Education's part to take additional steps to effect notice, by redelivering the second notice to petitioner personally at his place of work. Personal delivery at work was the one additional reasonable and practical step to effect notice, which was clearly available to the Board of Education, since the Board of Education employed petitioner at all times, had direct firsthand knowledge of his work location, and had previously effectuated service on petitioner by such means.
The Board of Education's additional regular mailing of the notice does not alter this conclusion, in view of the circumstances presented in this proceeding. Although the Court in Jones found that one additional reasonable step addressed to the possibility that the owner had moved, was to resend the notice by regular mail so that a signature was not required, in Jones the government had no knowledge of the owner's actual whereabouts. In sharp contrast, whereas here the Board of Education employed petitioner and knew exactly where he was working, once the certified mail was returned unclaimed, the one practicable and reasonable follow-up measure calculated to make actual notice likely, was personal delivery to petitioner at work.
The Board of Education argues that petitioner was obligated to update his address and that he did not do so until after he was terminated. The identical argument was raised and rejected in Jones, on the grounds that even if the property owner fails to comply with a statutory obligation to keep his address updated, the government cannot be relieved of its constitutional obligation to provide adequate notice. (547 US at 232.) In any event, the Board of Education does not dispute petitioner's assertion that its Office of Salary Services lists his correct address at Covert Street.{**23 Misc 3d at 696}
Based on the foregoing, this court concludes that the Board of Education's determination to terminate petitioner's employment must be annulled for not complying with the requirements of due process, and petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with back salary and benefits.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the petition is granted, and respondents' determination terminating petitioner's employment is annulled, and respondents shall reinstate petitioner forthwith with full salary and benefits retroactive to November 26, 2007.[FN8]
Footnotes
Footnote 1: The details of the specifications are as follows:
"Specification 1: On or about December 13, 2005, Respondent: a) told Student A in words to the effect of leave the class because he didn't like her; b) pointed at Student A through a window and laughed at her.
"Specification 2: On or about March 29, 2006, Respondent failed to call in when he was absent.
"Specification 3: On or about September 5, 2006, Respondent failed to attend his 9th period class after being told to do so by Assistant Principal Dietrich.
"Specification 4: On or about September 7, 2006, Respondent smoked a cigarette on school premises in violation of Chancellor's Regulation C-810.
"Specification 5: On or about September 7, 2006, Respondent told students words to the effect of: a) You are getting me aggravated; b) If you don't want to be here, don't come to school and aggravate me; c) See what happens when you do the wrong thing; d) There's always a method to the madness; e) If I had a better classroom, I might be able to deal with it; f) I cannot work like this either.
"Specification 6: On or about September 8, 2006, Respondent was dismissed from a disciplinary meeting because of behavior indicative of intoxication.
"Specification 7: Throughout the fall of 2006 Respondent: a) mumbled under his breath; b) was jittery and jumpy; c) appeared unfocused during class.
"Specification 8: On or about September 26, 2006, Respondent rendered an unsatisfactory lesson as observed by Assistant principal Eileen Dietrich in that Respondent failed to: a) properly plan and prepare for the lesson; b) circle the room to assess student work and answer questions; c) use a closure activity; d) maintain a level of academic rigor and content appropriate for the students; e) follow through to have all the students work in groups; f) focus on the entire class; g) immediately address a student error; h) teach the whole period; i) engage students in the lesson; j) properly pace the lesson; k) use a proper 'Do Now' activity; 1) properly call on students; m) maintain control of the class; n) pay attention to routine matters.
"Specification 9: On or about October 12, 2006, Respondent failed to appear for a medical examination and failed to contact the office to notify anyone.
"Specification 10: On or about December 12, 2006, Respondent told a student words to the effect of I don't need this disabled mind in my classroom.
"Specification 11: On or about November and/or December, 2006, Respondent ignored directives from a supervisor to: a) tutor students; b) turn in lesson plans; c) attend a meeting with the supervisor as scheduled.
"Specification 12: On or about fall of 2006, Respondent was teaching the wrong math course."
Footnote 2: The Board of Education does not provide an affidavit of service as to this letter, and does not otherwise indicate the manner in which it was sent or delivered to petitioner.
Footnote 3: The Panel found as follows:
"1. Just cause for disciplinary action under Education Law § 3020-a;
"2. Incompetent and inefficient service;
"3. Conduct unbecoming Respondent's position or conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency, or discipline of the service;
"4. Substantial cause rendering Respondent unfit to perform properly his obligations to the service;
"5. Violation of Chancellor's Regulation A-421;
"6. Violation of Chancellor's Regulation C-810;
"7. Insubordination;
"8. Neglect of duty; and
"9. Just cause for termination."
Footnote 4: The Board of Education submits an affidavit from Lisa Becker, senior counsel to the Board of Education, stating that she has "no recollection" of a conversation with petitioner's union representative, Mr. Settle, about petitioner's failure to respond to the disciplinary charges and a request for a hearing on his behalf. She also states that even if she had received such a call requesting a hearing on petitioner's behalf, she would have advised Mr. Settle "to make a written application but that it would be denied as petitioner had already been terminated based on his failure to request a hearing in a timely manner."
Footnote 5: Petitioner asserts that "in 2003 he informed principal Silberman and payroll secretary, Pat Wilder, that he was moving and provided the new address to Ms. Wilder." Petitioner further asserts that the Board of Education "had notice of his correct address as early as October 2006," as evidenced by his application for leave of absence for health reasons dated October 12, 2006, and a confidential medical report and evaluation dated November 15, 2006, both of which list his address as 22 Covert Street, 3R, Brooklyn, New York.
Footnote 6: The Board of Education produces a computer printout from its human resource system, indicating petitioner's address as "428 Worthman Avenue," as well as an internal complaint from December 2005 listing petitioner's "home address" as "428 Worthman Avenue." The Board of Education also submits several documents from 2006, addressed to petitioner at "428 Wortman Avenue," including an October 13, 2006 letter regarding his failure to appear for an October 12, 2006 medical examination.
The Board of Education notes that on October 23, 2007, "almost two weeks after his termination," petitioner contacted the Board of Education "to change his address with the BOE system" from 428 Worthman Avenue to 22 Covert Street, and that his address was "updated in the BOE system on November 7, 2007."
Footnote 7: The cases cited by the Board of Education distinguishing between "unclaimed" and "undeliverable" mail, Matter of Harner v County of Tioga (5 NY3d 136 [2005]) and Cadle Co. v Tri-Angle Assoc. (18 AD3d 100 [1st Dept 2005]), appear to be contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v Flowers (supra). The Board of Education also cites an appellate case decided after Jones, which finds Jones factually distinguishable, Temple Bnai Shalom of Great Neck v Village of Great Neck Estates (32 AD3d 391 [2d Dept 2006] [certified mail notice as to the right to redeem was sent by the private citizen who previously purchased the tax lien; multiple mailings were sent to various potential recipients at their current and correct addresses, and were returned unclaimed only after repeated attempts at delivery; and no suggestion in the record that the potential recipients were not at home or otherwise legitimately unavailable to sign for the mailing], lv denied 8 NY3d 813 [2007], cert denied 552 US —, 128 S Ct 1241 [2008]).
Footnote 8: Petitioner states that while he was terminated as of October 18, 2007, he remained on payroll until November 25, 2007.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
"Negative learning" and statistical malpractice at the Panel on Educational Policy
LINK
At last week’s meeting of the Panel on Education Policy at Tweed, Jim Liebman’s performance in attempting to defend the indefensible – the school grading system that he designed -- was breathtaking in its ignorance.
Liebman, the current DOE accountability “czar,” is a former criminal attorney, currently on leave from the Columbia law school, with no training or experience in education policy, statistics or testing, and yet the entire educational focus of the DOE is now based upon his faulty theories and expensive initiatives, including the $80 million supercomputer called ARIS, assigning letter grades to all schools primarily on the basis of one year’s worth of test scores, devoting millions of more dollars and hours of precious classroom time to interim standardized assessments, and the creation of “data inquiry teams” in all schools – all in the effort to “differentiate instruction” which in the end will be impossible without smaller classes.
At the PEP meeting, in order to justify the school grading system, he fastened on the “F” that PS 35 in Staten Island received, a school in which 98% of its students are on grade level in math, and 86% in ELA. Why did this exemplary school receive an “F”? Because last year, only 35% of its students improved their scores over the year before in reading, and only 23% in math – though research shows that a large part of annual variations in test scores are based on chance alone and are statistically unreliable. (For more on this, see my Daily News oped and a previous posting, Ten reasons to distrust the new accountability system.)
During the discussion, Liebman compared PS 35 to one of its “peer” schools – the Anderson school, a citywide Gifted and Talented school that accepts students on the basis of their high IQ and high test scores. When Patrick Sullivan pointed out the unfairness of comparing PS 35 to a selective school like Anderson, Liebman said it didn’t matter how the kids got there, they should all make the same annual gains. He failed to mention, however, that elementary schools are grouped with other schools according to only the roughest measures of demography –and that no statistician would compare the performance of a school that selects its students on the basis of test scores with a neighborhood school, like PS 35, that has to admit every child in its zone.
There was an abundance of statistical malpractice on display that night -- between Liebman’s presentation and the talk given by the DOE testing “expert”, Jennifer Bell-Elwanger, who tried to convince the panel that the city’s lack of significant progress on the NAEPs since 2003 was indeed real progress. Both of these individuals would have flunked an elementary course in statistics if they had tried to make these arguments in a college exam.
When asked wouldn’t it better to have separate grades for achievement and progress, rather than collapse all these categories into one grade, even if he were convinced that the lack of one year’s progress in test scores was significant (which it isn’t) Liebman replied that the good thing about giving a single grade is that it gets people’s attention (or something like that.) One could say the same about threatening to cut off the hands of someone accused of theft, or even capital punishment, which doesn’t mean it’s a remotely fair practice or even useful.
More recently, in response to questions about class size from parents in Manhattan and Queens, Liebman has insisted that the reason the DOE refuses to reduce class size is that classes would have to shrink to below 15 students to improve instruction and/or student achievement. In other words, lowering class size from 30 to 20 would make absolutely no difference.
Not only is such a statement absurd to anyone who has actually spent any time teaching in the public schools or observing classrooms, it is completely unsupported by research. Instead, it is simply another lame excuse that opponents of reducing class size like to throw up as a smokescreen in order to discourage such efforts.
Here is a comment sent to me from Chuck Achilles, a principal investigator of the famed STAR experiment in Tennessee and a professor of at Eastern Michigan University and at Seton Hall University. Chuck is also one of the premier class size researchers in the world:
“Hi Leonie:
I thought that the “below 15” idea (archaic) had faded. Anyone who says that is uninformed and ought to be asked (challenged) publicly to defend the assertion. It came once from one meta-analysis (Glass & Smith, 1988) that was very limited in its n of observations (77, of which some were for physical skills like hitting a tennis ball against a wall.) Just in STAR, we had more than 1300 observations in the range of 12-28 students. We typically analyzed reading outcomes, but sometimes we did math (giving us 2600 comparisons) and could have used other academic (test) outcomes… I’ve faxed some pages to show the linear effect: About a correlation of -.35 for each student added to a class. Because STAR used the class average as the unit of analysis, this means (approximately) the addition of each student to a class in the n=12-28 range reduces the class average score (about .1 of a month per year.) Later analyses show that it is cumulative.
Chuck A.”
Here is a fact sheet with numerous citations, showing there is no threshold in terms of reducing class size; and that the increase in achievement in relation to the decrease in class size is roughly linear.
Liebman reminds me of a phenomenon called “negative learning” ---in layman’s terms, a little learning is a dangerous thing. One would think that someone who got his reputation by writing about the high error rate in capital punishment would have a little humility and understand the possibility of human fallibility in making absolute judgments, but no such luck.
Posted by Leonie Haimson at 12/02/2007 08:30:00 PM ShareThis
Labels: class size, James Liebman, linear, NAEP, negative learning, nyc school grades, statistical malpractice, threshold effect
2 comments:
NYC Educator said...
It's hard to rely on people whose jobs involve defending the status quo. It's doubly hard when those are the very people who created it.
December 3, 2007 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...
Where do we grade the chancellor and mayor on the continuing horrific overcrowding of high schools in Queens. Whereas the new "smaller" schools don't have open enrollment, the larger, older schools don't have caps and keep taking in students (via safety transfers, new admits into NYC and other transfers --such as from prison and juvenile detention) even though there is no space for them in the school. What difference does it make to the chancellor that these schools are at 200 percent capacity or 300 percent capacity?
I only say this because as a NYC teacher, I just received an additional seven students in the past two weeks...a couple of the students are no shows (I tried to contact parents, but had no luck), a couple of the students are already disruptive (they transferred with their behaviors) and all the students are way behind in my class--and, of course, getting new students constantly throws off the balance and coherence in a class.
None of this is measurable by the report card system. The schools (mine, at least) is trying really hard to assist and educate all of our students, but the overcrowding and constant increase in enrollment is creating chaos. This is chaos that we are not causing but will cause us to get a failing grade.....
Where is accountability from the top?
December 4, 2007 10:49 PM
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)