Tampilkan postingan dengan label Gotcha Squad. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Gotcha Squad. Tampilkan semua postingan

Minggu, 06 Oktober 2013

The Daily News, PR Media Employed By The Department of Education, Goes After Rubber Room Teachers Again

The Daily News works for the Department of Education, remember this as you read the latest attempt by the DOE to sway public opinion their way and have the public believe that each and every person charged with 3020-a deserves to be fired. There are no facts that they - the Department and the Daily News - can rely on, so they make it up.

What Mike Bloomberg, Dennis Walcott, the major newspapers (which receive advertising dollars from Bloomberg) and all their supporting staff do, is ignore Education Law Section 3020-a where a vote in an Executive Session to determine probable cause (Education Law 3020-a(2)(a)) is required, and give the rubber ball, probable cause, to anyone who wants to play with it.

No NYC case had this vote before the charges were served on the Respondent tenured employees in this article. This means that anyone who actually "found" probable cause can charge, testify against, and conclude, that an alleged  act of misconduct or pattern of incompetency is "true". Then, the conclusion is, the allegation becomes a fact. And, the Daily News takes the conclusions of the arbitrator as fact as well. How easy is that?

For this leap of faith (from fiction to fact, allegation to evidence) to occur, there has to be a strategy in place. He it is, in my opinion:

1. The UFT and NYSUT have to agree with a clear path and/or bridge from the original fiction/violation of law to conclusion/fact/evidence.

2. The arbitrator has to put aside his/her ethics and agree with the DOE that whatever they are alleging is true and all circumstances which do not fit in are irrelevant.

3. The arbitrator has to find the DOE witnesses, whatever their ages, "credible", over the tenured Respondent, who must be found "not credible". NYSUT then tells their clients, do not have any witnesses.

4. The arbitrator, who knows that if there was no vote in Executive Session, can make any penalty he or she wants, because there is no legal basis to proceed as the arbitrator without a proper determination of probable cause and he/she has already exceeded his/her authority to hear the case.

As we all now know, without the UFT in agreement with the harmful, unlawful process of determinating probable cause with no Executive Session, the DOE could never have gotten away with 12 years of baseless 3020-a hearings; NYSUT does not oppose violations of the law, rules, and contract, and therefore "permits" by omission the introduction of documents which allow an allegation to become a fact; many arbitrators consider themselves bound to find 7-year olds "credible" over a 25+ year tenured teacher, because then they stay on the panel and make their $1400/day; and as the hearing itself is founded upon Education Law 2590 and not 3020-a(2)(a), any penalty is ok, and all arbitrators are immune to prosecution.

But most arbitrators are attorneys and should be complained about to the NYC Bar Association if a decision  is contrary to the facts or violates attorney ethics. Same goes for the Gotcha Squad attorneys. Anyone charged and penalized wrongly may appeal to the Supreme Court in an Article 75.

So, Ben and Rachel, if you did your homework, you would not be able to write about how the Department needs to fire everyone brought to 3020-a. What should happen instead, is that someone should look at the actual facts, assess the case before it is brought to 3020-a, and find a suitable resolution before the public has to spend millions of dollars on this rubber room process with the probable cause rubber ball.

Betsy Combier
Advocatz
betsy.combier@gmail.com


NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg

City will spend $29 million on salaries, benefits of educators it can’t fire

There are 326 teachers and school administrators who have been reassigned from the classroom yet still collecting pay, the Daily News has learned. These educators are accused of abusing kids, breaking rules or being lousy at their jobs — but a controversial firing process makes it hard to terminate bad employees, education officials say.


SUSAN WATTS/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

The teachers union, led by Michael Mulgrew (pictured), was sued by the city in September for allegedly impeding the 2010 agreement to speed up the firing process and get rid of rubber rooms.



LINK
The city will spend a whopping $29 million in 2013 on the salaries and benefits of outcast educators who are deemed too dangerous or incompetent to work in public school classrooms but cannot be immediately fired, the Daily News has learned.
As of Friday, there were 326 city educators who have been reassigned away from the classroom yet were still collecting pay, a sharp rise from 2012, when 218 ousted teachers drained $22 million from city coffers, Education Department records show.
The teachers and school administrators are accused of abusing kids, breaking rules or just being lousy educators. But they're still collecting salaries because of a controversial firing process that makes it too difficult to terminate bad employees, education officials charge.
Back in 2010, Mayor Bloomberg and the city teachers union agreed to eliminate the shameful "rubber rooms" that house these expensive educational pariahs, but critics say the only difference is that today the accused teachers are spread out in spare offices across the city instead of being herded together.
"We still have rubber rooms," said Francesco Portelos, an engineering teacher from Intermediate school 49 on Staten Island who has been reassigned away from the classroom for more than 17 months. "The only difference is we're not being corralled anymore."
Portelos has spent his time sitting on his hands while continuing to draw his salary of $75,000 as he's investigated on a variety of charges, including misuse of school property. He even ran a live video stream of himself reading the newspaper in an empty conference room at a Queens district office until the city found out and gave him menial filing jobs. He says he's innocentand his exile is retaliatory.
Education Department officials blame the union, and say that part of the problem is that the power to fire bad teachers is in the hands of jointly appointed hearing officers. Some of the hearing officers are just too lenient, officials say.

Teachers sent to this 'rubber room' read newspapers, draw pictures and chat in October 2007.

Of 72 educators whose firing hearings were completed in 2013, just 32 were canned. Instead of being fired, the rest received fines or suspensions.
Some of the educators who dodged the firing bullet in 2013 to return to jobs in city schools include:
*Stefan Hudson, a former dean at Westinghouse High School, who grabbed, pushed, shook and slammed a student into a table. A hearing officer fined him $10,000 and required him to complete an anger management seminar at his own expense.

MARK BONIFACIO/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Head of the American Federation of Teachers , AFT President Randi Weingarten speaks to the Daily News Editorial Board. (Mark Bonifacio/New York Daily News)

*Shenequa Duke, a Bronx special education teacher at Intermediate School 25 who used a broom to hit a late-arriving student. Despite an "apparent lack of contrition," a hearing officer merely ordered her suspended for 45 days.
*Edgar Ortiz, a teacher at Bronx Public School 73, who was arrested for patronizing a prostitute in 2012. He reported back to school the following day without notifying his superiors of the arrest as required by city rules. The hearing officer found him "remorseful" and stuck him with $7,500 fine.
Education Department officials blame the union and lenient hearing officers for leaving too many bad apples on the city payroll.
"We've worked extraordinarily hard to remove either poor-performing or grossly inappropriate educators, but special interests to protect adults over children - aim to impede the process," said agency spokesman Devon Puglia.
In September, the city filed a suit against the teachers union, claiming it is impeding the 2010 agreement to speed the firing process and eliminate the rubber rooms. But a union spokesman said the hearing officers who have the power to fire teachers serve at the pleasure of the Education Department.
"The Department of Education can and does stop using any arbitrator with whose decisions it disagrees," said union spokesman Dick Riley. "The Department of Education also has the ability to appeal arbitrators' decisions to the courts."




Kamis, 11 April 2013

Babies At The Bar Part 1: Violations of Law by NYSUT and NYC DOE Attorneys

Michael Bloomberg and Michael Cardozo

 From Betsy Combier:

First, I am not an attorney, just a writer/journalist. I, like most people, have opinions. Below are a few of them.

The New York City Department of Education as set up by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his sidekick New York City Law Department Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo, (see below for a 2009 rebuke from the NY Appellate Court Judges) are breaking the law. Specifically, New York State Education Law Section 3020-a. Lawyers who work for The Gotcha Squad and prosecute tenured teachers brought up on bogus charges of misconduct and/or incompetency know this, so do NYSUT Attorneys, and attack anyone who notices their lawless procedures in bringing "Just Cause for Termination" to all cases of 3020-a arbitration. 

Both NYSUT and the DOE Attorneys are contracted to "prosecute" teachers under the presumption that all individuals brought to 3020-a are guilty of the charges. Other presumptions that effect all cases are: the case must look at ONLY the specifications, and nothing else (i.e., the principal is breaking the law with special needs children, stole money, has skeletons in his/her closet, the person making the charge is not in the school, didnt see what happened, wasnt there...). Obviously, anyone who says that ALL facts must be brought in to the hearing to give motive and prove innocence is someone who must be tarred and feathered. That's me and the lawyers I work with, but  we do not care about this fluff and stuff, and all of that leads to a stronger case in court for any kind of appeal against the arbitrator.

For instance, on April 19, 2013, I walked by a hearing room with the door open, at 49-51 Chambers Street, and I heard NYSUT Attorney Maria Elena Gonzalez Lichten telling Arbitrator Stephen O'Beirne how "she" put my email on her blog, and...". You dont think that the Attorneys speak to arbitrators only about the cases they are doing before them, do you? Anyway, I am posting the stuff I have already placed on this blog about Maria Elena Gonzolez Lichten, wife of Stuart Lichten, to update Mr. O'Beirne on what I have written, see here, here, and here. Mr. O'Beirne is an excellent Arbitrator, in my opinion, and can see through this infantile approach to squashing opposition to the Plan ("terminate any DOE employee who has tenure and is brought to 3020-a") . By the way, Mrs. Lichten, when you said in your email that I lied, I am still waiting to hear about what, so that I may address whatever it is that I lied about? My email address is betsy.combier@gmail.com, as you know.

Now to the charging process and determination of probable cause. If you are handed your specifications with a cover letter that says "...Principal __________ has found probable cause on the charges preferred against you" tell your attorney to ask, on the record and to the arbitrator, how the principal can find probable cause against you, considering the fact that Education Law 3020-a states that the school board must go into Executive Session and vote on whether there is probable cause, bring in Appendix A, usually served with the specifications - if you dont get this document, print out Education Law 3020-a and bring in those pages. (New York State Education Law 3020-a(2)(a)). New York City is part of New York State, and as far as I know, no agreement which conflicts with the law is valid.

The April 15, 2010 so-called 'agreement' signed by Joel Klein and Mike Mulgrew cannot be legally binding because Joel Klein signed the 'agreement' as chancellor, and he was never legally chancellor because he never had a contract, required by Education Law Section 2590-h. I wrote the "Who Are You Kidding Award Goes To Joel Klein" in 2007, but Mike Bloomberg never gave out any contracts to Klein, Black or Walcott. On January 7, 2013, Arbitrator Roy Watanabe asked DOE Attorney Lisa McFadden if Walcott had a contract. She said yes, and brought into the 3020-a hearing the waiver given to Walcott by New York State Commissioner David Steiner, giving Walcott permission to be chancellor:

Waiver from Steiner To Dennis Walcott

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that as Mr. Walcott did not sign this document, there is no term of office, and for many other reasons, this is not a contract, howevermuch the Gotcha Squad says it is. Compare with the contracts of Harold Levy and Rudy Crew in my 2007 article "The Who Are You Kidding Award Goes To Joel Klein"

I noticed what they were doing eight years ago. For 5 years I remained a silent observer, writing notes on everyone from a corner by the wall as a member of the public. Then someone at the DOE made up that I taped during a hearing, and this was completely false, but I became the omen of doom when the Attorneys realized that I knew what the fraud was. NYSUT Attorney Shawn T. Kelly, for example, on May 25, 2011 while everyone at 49-51 Chambers Street was on the sidewalk due to a firedrill, screamed "Dont talk with Betsy Combier, you will be terminated..." and other nonsense.

Then there are the screamers and naysayers from the DOE, Ian Nikol, Nancy Ryan, Dennis Da Costa, and Mallory Sullivan, all Department Attorneys who would rather scream  at me and try to get me run over by a bus than address the fact that they are harming innocent people without just or probable cause.

EDUCATION LAW §3020-A MANDATES A VOTE ON SPECIFICITY BY A SCHOOL BOARD

Education Law requires a vote by the school board precede a determination of “probable cause” upon which to bring charges against teachers removed from their schools. (Education Law §3020-a, Article 61) This provides all pedagogues protection from vindictive Principals who may want to remove senior teachers from their positions because they make salaries that could pay for two teachers instead of one.

NYS Education Law §2590-g does not address the issue of review and scrutiny of whether there is probable cause to proceed with the prosecution of disciplinary charges against tenured educational personnel. The requirements of NYS Education Law §3020-a and §3020-a (2)(a) , under which tenured personnel may be disciplined for “Just Cause”, are absolute and require that before charges can be brought against a tenured educator, the School Board must:

a. Determine that there is “probable cause” for the proceeding with charges by a majority vote by the Board.
b. Make this determination within 5 days of the charges being filed with the Board.
c. Ensure that the decision to proceed with the charges is not frivolous, arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory.

Without a school board to perform these functions – and, the New York City Panel For Educational Policy (“PEP”) never has taken on this function – there is no oversight by anyone other than the tenured teacher’s Principal to initiate the disciplinary process and Local Superintendent to endorse the Principal’s request to prefer file charges against any educator a Principal chooses to remove from the school the Principal administers.

The lack of independent review and lack of oversight by anyone other than the tenured teacher’s Principal to initiate discipline is not consistent with Education Law §3020-a. This constitutes a de facto denial of equal protection of the §3020-a law, as all arbitrators who sit on the panel to hear 3020-a charges are not permitted by law, collective bargaining agreement, or any other contractual arrangement to make a decision on charges unless they have been voted on by the New York City Board of Education before a tenured teacher is given these charges, pursuant to Education Law §§ 2590-j, 3020, and 3020-a.

The relevant parts are as follows:
“Filing of charges. All charges against a person enjoying the benefits of tenure as provided in subdivision three of section one thousand one hundred two, and sections two thousand five hundred nine, two thousand five hundred seventy-three, twenty-five hundred ninety-j, three thousand twelve and three thousand fourteen of this chapter shall be in writing and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board during the period between the actual opening and closing of the school year for which the employed is normally required.”

Section 3020a(2)(a) of The NY Education Law states:

“Disposition of charges. Upon receipt of the charges, the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board shall immediately notify said board thereof. Within five days after receipt of charges, the employing board, in executive session, shall determine, by a vote of a majority of all the members of such board, whether probable cause exists to bring a disciplinary proceeding against an employee pursuant to this section. If such determination is affirmative, 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.”

Furthermore, Section 2590(j)(7)(b) of The NY Education Law specifically states:

“Charges may be initiated by the community superintendent against any such employee.” There is no mention of a principal finding probable cause. Certainly it is unreasonable to believe that due process exists when a principal charges a teacher without any accountability to anyone for that decision, and then finds probable cause for charging the teacher. Therefore the Just Cause Standard is not reached, and no hearing can proceed.

Before a tenured teacher can be brought up on disciplinary charges, the Education Law lays out a number of procedural hurdles that a Board of Education must comply with. These procedural hurdles are in place to protect the rights of the tenured teacher to fair process, and constitute jurisdictional pre-requisites to a §3020-a disciplinary hearing. Chief among these procedural hurdles is the requirement that probable cause to prefer charges must be voted on by the Board of Education (see, e.g., Education Law §3020-a(2)(a)).

Compliance with this provision is a jurisdictional condition precedent to a §3020-a disciplinary hearing. Without it, the hearing cannot go forward. Prohibition is the appropriate procedural remedy for the assertion of a claim where prohibition is available “to prevent a body or officer from proceeding or threatening to proceed without or in excess of its jurisdiction.” See: Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 N.Y. 2d 46, 51; Garzilli v Mills, 250 A.D.2d 131 (3d Dep’t 1998); Community School Board No. 29, SED No. 3562 (Howard Edelman, a member of the UFT-DOE arbitration panel in New York City -Dec. 14, 1998).

In New York City, §3020-a teacher disciplinary proceedings have become penal in nature and not arbitral in the same manner labor grievances are resolved. Matter of Clayton v Bd. of Educ., 49 A.D.2d 343 (3rd Dept 1975). Submission to these disciplinary hearings are compulsory and the jurisdiction of the hearing officer is derived from statute. Teachers are charged, similar to an indictment in the criminal world, upon determination of probable cause.

When I started examining the procedures used by the newly instituted Department of Education, I saw that my knowledge of education law and arbitration, which I got by reading my own books (I am not an attorney) did not give me any clue as to the random and arbitrary nature of the 3020-a hearings I was asked to attend in NYC. So, I studied the lawyers and the arbitrators to try to find out how the law could be ignored. Then the Gotcha Squad realized that I was on to something, and took it upon themselves to attack me.

So now I can write about the lawyers who decided to attack, and will provide my website with the names of the Attorneys who threw aside the lives, careers, health benefits and tenured positions of teachers in order to make a profit.

NY Appellate Bench Rips Cardozo in Law Journal Letter

LINK
In a stunning rebuke to NYC’s top lawyer, Michael Cardozo, 18 of the 20 justices that sit in the Appellate Division, First Department have taken him to the woodshed with a letter in the New York Law Journal coming out tomorrow (12/17/09). The response comes due to Cardozo’s attack on the state’s judiciary last week. Cardozo is now starting his third term as the city’s Corporation Counsel.
The appellate court judges are responding to Cardozo’s December 7th column on improving efficiency in the courts, a subject I wrote about a few days ago when both bench and bar came down on him hard in NYC’s Top Lawyer Gets Reamed For Inefficiency (By Both Bench and Bar).
But now it is not simply one panel of judges ripping the city for its own inefficiency, or lawyers writing letters to the paper. Now the vast majority of the appellate bench that hears NYC cases has called Carozo’s “imperious outpouring of advice” “insulting.” They went on to write, led by Presiding Justice Luis Gonzalez (pictured), that:

“We feel compelled to respond to his misguided assertions, his misplaced blame and his attacks on the state trial judges…”
The First Department hears cases from the Manhattan and Bronx courts. And the Second Department, which sanctioned the city just last week in Byam v. City of New York for a decade of delay in providing discovery, handles Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island (as well as other downstate counties).
You could almost see the smoke pouring off the keyboards of the judges as they wrote of Cardozo regarding changes in the use of 60-day reports that judges make to track cases:

In large measure, his facile proposals amount to an echo of reforms that are under way or have already been adopted by our former and current chief judges… Every one of these items has already been implemented by the Office of Court Administration, which on a constant basis compiles and circulates large amounts of information regarding judges’ job performance.
The idea that current reports are being inaccurate implied, to the court, that some dishonesty was going on. The letter stated:

The idea that complaints must be filed with the Judicial Conduct Commission in order to ensure accuracy in 60-day reporting requirements baselessly implies that there is actually a problem with inaccuracy, an implication for which Mr. Cardozo provides no support.
After defending the trial judges against Cardozo’s charges, the appellate judges lowered the hammer on him, placing the blame for much delay and inefficiency squarely at his feet (just as this letter Helene Blank and Marc Dittenhoefer did the other day):

In fact, it is ironic that the Corporation Counsel blames the courts for a failure to deal appropriately with litigation delays, since it is the office of Corporation Counsel of the City of New York that plays a significant role in causing those undue delays. For one thing, there is always a backlog of ready city cases in the dedicated city parts, and, with each part being assigned only two city attorneys, neither plaintiffs’ attorneys nor the trial judges have the means to ensure that ready cases can proceed immediately to trial; the city alone wields that authority. A vast amount of inefficiency impeding the resolution of litigation is also created by the city’s oft-demonstrated cavalier attitude toward its discovery obligations. The city’s almost routine failure to timely and fully cooperate with its discovery obligations, even in the face of repeated court orders, is regularly confronted by city part judges attempting to solve the city’s intransigence (see e.g., Lewis v. City of New York, 17 Misc. 3d 559 [2007]).
What followed then was a litany of First Department cases in which the sanction of attorneys fees was imposed on the city as a result of its “inexcusably lax” responses to discovery orders.
And then a concession about city cases that all the personal injury attorneys in this town already knew, but had always been simply implied by the courts:

[A]s a rule, our courts give far more leeway to the city than we typically do to other defendants in civil actions.
Cardozo isn’t having a very good holiday season. In fact, having so many judges angry at him, I’m thinking this will be his last holiday season in his office.
It’s worth noting, however, that in an interview with the Law Journal that accompanied the letter (can’t find link), Justice Gonzalez said the First Department’s “track record of evenhandedness in our treatment of Mr. Cardozo’s client, New York City,” would continue despite the judges’ criticism. He went on to say, “The bottom line is our judges are always mindful of our ethical responsibilities and our members have always dealt with Mr. Cardozo’s client in a fair and even-handed manner and we will continue to do so.”
The Corporation Counsel has 650 attorneys working for it, and handles a wide range of legal issues on behalf of the city. Background here on Cardozo as he prepared to start his third term.

Sabtu, 12 Januari 2013

The Gotcha Squad and How the TPU Charges Teachers Without Any Factual Data (And NYSUT Lawyers Agree With This)



To the New York State legislature: 
please review and change the 3020-a/grievance/U-rating Appeal process! As it exists right now, this process is not fair, balanced, factual, rational or beneficial to children who need to have good teachers in their classrooms.

Thank you.

Betsy Combier

With the talk about evaluation and teacher performance coming to the deadline for getting $millions here in NYC, I am listing the documents which I have posted on my website (Parentadvocates.org) and this blog that are important to the argument that teachers have not been fairly assessed, and tenure rights have been generally ignored under the umbrella of a sham version of "due process".

The RMC Contracts and Training Manual for the PIP+, TAC memos, Performance Management document, and the Office of Labor Relations' Disciplining Teachers are all now available to anyone.
These documents reveal that there is, actually, no data being used to assess teachers, and observations are simply a higher-up's opinion, or hearsay, and are not final determinations (Elentuck v Green). According to the case McPherson v NYC DOE this hearsay is not enough to prove that the process is arbitrary in a federal court, and I think that observations without data (such as test scores, student grades and IEPs, OORS and SOHO reports) are not enough to prove by any standard that a teacher is not effective.
A few guidelines: Do NOT, under any circumstances, sign up for PIP+. This program is designed to get you terminated. PIP+ is in the CBA as "approved". If you turn it down as I suggest (I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice) and you are brought to 3020-a, the DOE's argument will be that you turned it down because you will not recognize how bad you are as a teacher. Your argument is that the PIP+ process is designed to create the necessary documentation to terminate you, and you will not succumb to a set-up where the principal gets the observations and can change them before they are given to you. Or something along those lines. All the documents below are used by the Gotcha Squad to get rid of tenured teachers, who are already defined as "incompetent". Notice I say "defined" as opposed to "determined". The bizarre fact of the incompetency hearings are that if a principal says you are an "ineffective" teacher", this suddenly is transformed into a fact. 

Unfortunately, at 3020-a, NYSUT has not brought in any factual data that would help support another argument, and the teacher is terminated on the basis of hearsay. Ask your NYSUT attorney when you meet with him/her how many cases he/she has won. There are many reasons why NYSUT Attorneys do not win their cases (the arbitrator makes a difference as well - there are strong, fair arbitrators on the 3020-a panel, and weak unfair as well).

 When a principal finds Just Cause to terminate you, the NYC Department of Education takes this as not as hearsay/opinion, but "Fact". And here's the problem: UFT and NYSUT believe the opinion of a principal is a fact, too. 

The denial of rights started with this:
Letter to the U.S. Department of Justice from NYC Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo
 Pages index -11
Pages 12-25
Pages 26-41
Pages 42-58
Pages 59-80

 Editorial: The New York City DOE is a Sham and Mike Bloomberg is the Flim-Flam Man
David Brodsky
  
Education Law 2590-h (The NYC Chancellor MUST have a contract)
  PIP+ Peer Observation and Evaluation
The Administrative Trials Unit (ATU) has hired a team of lawyers who work in a new ATU subgroup called "Teacher Performance Unit". Randi Weingarten, President of the United Federation of Teachers and American Federation of Teachers, calls them the "Gotcha Squad". The use of TAC (Technical Assistance Conference) memos in the preparation of charges to prefer against allegedly incompetent teachers is an outrageous process that I hope, with this exposure, will end.

In New York City, tenured teachers are being removed from their classrooms and positions by Principals and administrators suddenly and, in many cases, without probable and/or just cause. In fact, the entire structure of the New York City Department/Board of Education is intertwined with the General Counsel and the lawyers working in the Office of Legal Services. It's hard to separate the two, and this is one of the biggest problems with Mayoral control as it now stands in New York City. The New York City Board of Education ("NYC BOE") keeps all documents and information secret under the description "Attorney Client Privilege".

However, the BOE gladly gives journalists all the information he or she wants, to "prove" by a preponderance of the evidence that a teacher is guilty of something. Steve Brill's article in the New Yorker magazine is a great example of this.

A teacher may be accused of "verbal abuse" or "corporal punishment" in the same way as being charged with "incompetence" - see the story of Glenn Storman, his complaint in federal court, and the decision in New York State Supreme Court where Judge Kornreich said the OSI investigation and the New York City BOE were "irrational". But this did not stop the NYC BOE, PS 212 Principal Josephine Marsella, OSI investigator Dennis Boyles, and Deputy Chancellors Andres Alonso and Marcia Lyles, both of whom have left New York City. We might ask Joel Klein if Alonso and Lyles were forced out because of this case. Read the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck and you will get a very good summary of the "Gotcha Squad" at work.

Mr. Storman has filed objections to Magistrate Peck's Recommendations.

The Gotcha Squad is empowered by the absolute immunity given to NYC BOE managers and administrators, who are defended in court by the Corporation Counsel, the Law Department of the City of New York...nice free legal help. Additionally, the arbitrators and NYC BOE Attorneys in the 3020-a proceedings ignore the "Labor FAQs" of the collective bargaining agreement policies established between the NYC BOE nd the UFT, all the time. I know, because I have attended the open and public 3020-a hearings of tenured teachers since 2003.

It is obvious that the Mayor has total control over every part of the public school governance structure. A tenured teacher has no rights at all, and can be removed as easily as a non-tenured teacher or any employee. The tenured teachers have holding pens called temporary re-assignment centers or "rubber rooms". There are currently 7 such places located throughout New York City. A teacher may end up re-assigned because a principal may decide that he/she doesnt like him/her, must remove a him/her because he/she is talking about crimes being committed in the school, or must remove a him/her because he/she is earning a salary that is very high due to more than 20 years in the system, etc. The real reason may be that the teacher is too old, too fat, too short, wears red, doesn't wear red, and other such nonsense.

Then, after the Gotcha Squad at 51 Chambers Street in Manhattan have been informed that a teacher, let's say you, are the subject of an investigation, Director Theresa Europe may place you on her "Ineligible/inquiry List". This list is keyed into the computer under your social security and file number, and will prevent any prospective employer from hiring you any time in the future. Theresa Europe gets the last word. In the case of Philomena Brennan, she wanted Ms. Theresa Europe to take her off of the "no hire" list, and had to sue to get her name removed. Ms. Europe removed her name from the Ineligible List rather than have to submit to New York State Supreme Court Judge Alice Schlesinger why and how she keeps such a list, and the method she uses to remove names, as Schlesinger ordered.. Theresa Europe wants to remain in control of this career-ending list.

We all must defend our right to know who is saying what to whom. In New York City today, however, I believe that the NYC BOE's secret disciplinary process is unfair and I have posted this story to hopefully find another, more just way to deal with alleged "incompetent" teachers, whatever that term means. (See "Strategic Management of Human Capital")

The Teacher Performance Unit (“TPU”) is a unit comprised of experienced attorneys who litigate incompetence cases against ineffective tenured pedagogues. This unit provides counsel to principals and other school officials in connection with the preparation and litigation of 3020-a disciplinary charges involving allegations of incompetence. TPU’s goal is to help principals improve teacher quality in their schools by bringing and litigating these cases in a thorough, expeditious and effective manner.

The Labor Support Unit (“LSU”) is comprised of education consultants who work in partnership with TPU to provide direct support to principals who are confronted with ineffective tenured pedagogues. The goal of LSU is to work with the principal to help them design support plans for ineffective tenured pedagogues, to provide guidance and general assistance to the principal; to assist the principal in organizing the documentation; to conduct additional observations upon request of the principal; and to coordinate with the Peer Intervention-Plus (PIP+) Program and Teacher Performance Unit. (See Peer Intervention Program)

Marcia Lyles

The problem is, well...one of the problems is: what does "incompetence" mean? Who defines whether or not a teacher is, really, "incompetent"? The No Child Left Behind legislation requires that every classroom have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. The problem with this is, what does the term “highly qualified” mean? Who is a “good” teacher and who is a “bad” teacher? We have no ‘American standard’ to help us define what it means to be a “good” teacher, other than to record the scores on standardized tests of students in each class. There are thousands of reports on how this happens, but in the end, defining a “good” performance is almost always a subjective judgment.

The parents of public school children and the teachers of the public schools in NYC know that Mayor Bloomberg and NYC BOE CEO Dennis Walcott dont want anyone to have any power over educational policy decisions except them, and their people. So they designed a process which I call the "rubberization" process to remove anyone from his or her job for any reason, at any time.

How The New York City "Gotcha Squad" Gets Tenured Teachers Declared "Incompetent", and Placed in a Rubber Room 
by Betsy Combier
LINK