Francesco Portelos

Whistleblower Response from SCI

by Fportelos on February 1, 2013 in Uncategorized

When I saw this sign, on the NYC Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI) site www.nycsci.org, a year ago, I didn’t realize there was a catch.

I looked at the NYC Dept of Investigation (DOI) site and I didn’t pay attention to this hook on the worm. I took the bait.

I have good news and I have bad news. What do you want to read first?

Ok Bad News first. After about 230 days, SCI attorney Daniel Schlatchet rendered a decision on my whistleblower complaint. Ready? It was denied. Yes, the city missed their chance of resolving this and sending me back to my classroom.

I know what you are thinking. “But it’s so obvious Mr. Portelos. You alleged misconduct and they retaliated against you, destroying your stellar record. You had no disciplinary action taken against you. What excuse did they give?“

Well, that brings us to the good news. The report has misinformation, fed from Principal Hill and District 31 Superintendent Ermina Claudio, stating there was a tiff prior to my SCI complaint. ”How is this Good News Mr. Portelos?“

Well, if the SCI response is any indication of what the DOE attorneys, for my Federal Court case (CV12-3141), may be leaning towards, then I am in even better shape then I thought.

Unfortunately, I don’t want to show all my cards, but you’ll see what I’m talking about as this crazy story continues, the book is written and the movie is made. Therefore, I probably will not be appealing this.

HERE IS THE SCI DECISION (SENT AFTER 230 DAYS)

“Tech Coordinator“? Now there is a term that has not crossed my mind in over a year.

Dear Francesco:

Unfortunately, Francesco, SCI does not exist independently of the NYC DOE but in partnership. They are the political arm of the "investigative" unit which 'proves' what the NYC Department of Education wants them to 'prove'. Yes, of course they say they are 'independent' - this works for them.

Example:

I was the paralegal working with an attorney at a 3020-a for a terrific teacher of physical education (and he also coached the boy's basketball team). The SCI "investigator" came in to testify about how she substantiated his saying something improper to the coach of another school after a game. She testified that she went to the other school, was given the 4 statements of the team members who said that my client had said something improper, and asked each student whether or not the statement was "true". That was her investigation. She did not go to any other students who were on the basketball team and ask them why they did not write a statement, nor whether they saw or heard anything. Oh yes, add into this picture that the 4 statements said different things. How is that for "facts"?

The decision of the arbitrator: Complete exoneration. He went back to his school and job.

I have soooo many examples of improper "investigations" and when I work on a case as a paralegal, every single word is analyzed when a person is charged with any kind of misconduct. Investigators - do your job "right"!!!!!

Luv,

Betsy Combier