Arbitrator Carol Wittenberg Doesn’t Need DOE Evidence

*Note: I had to jump out of vacation mode here in Greece for this one.

I cashed in my American Airlines miles and came here with my family in attempt to unwind and relax. Now since I came to Greece, I’ve really gone almost cold turkey as far as education reform and my own battle goes. I really haven’t been on Twitter and I temporarily unsubscribed from many education reform lists. I’ve archived many other emails to read when I get back to “work.” However, I was at the beach a few weeks ago and jumped on the beach bar’s Wi-Fi. I remember staring at the blue Mediterranean and being relaxed when my phone buzzed. It was an email from the United Federation of Teachers. I thought to open this email as I knew it was the reassignment location decision by Arbitrator Carol Wittenberg. It’s like not buying cigarettes when you’re trying to quit, but occasionally bumming one from a friend. The NYC Department of Education had violated their own regulation by reassigning me out of my district in Staten Island and banishing me 20+ miles away for over a year. It was a simple decision as the DOE had no proof or supporting documentation, and I, as always, was armed to the teeth with evidence.

I skimmed the email and read “Unfortunately, the arbitrator did not agree with our position and ruled in favor of the DOE.” I put the phone down and picked up my wine glass instead and stared out to the water to see my family playing. Greece was working, but the gears in my head were also on the move again. I thought to download the attached decision later.

Over the last three weeks I had read and re-read the really bizarre decision by an arbitrator who was known to be “fair” (or so I’ve heard), and exchanged some emails with my attorney and the UFT. Then, as I laid down on a hammock, under the shade of grapes and grape vines I decided to write the below email to Arbitrator Carol Wittenberg. I inserted the attached emails below the respective paragraphs.

—————–

From: “Mr. Portelos”



Date: Aug 5, 2013 11:48 AM



Subject: Carol Wittenberg Decision



To:

Madam Arbitrator Carol Wittenberg,

I have reviewed your latest decision that pertains to my reassignment location case. Prior to our hearing date I had not only read up on your vast and commendable history, but was also verbally told of your fair decisions by others. I’ll admit that with your history of fairness, my extensive and detailed evidence supporting my case and the Department of Education’s lack of supporting evidence, Ileft the hearing thinking I would be back in Staten Island and this case was “in the bag”. This makes your decision to uphold the Department’s violation of Chancellor’s Regulation C-770, and keeping me 20+ miles away, a much harder pill to swallow.

I’d like to go over some of the key elements of the case and see where we might disagree.

The issue before you was:

“Did the Department of Education violate Articles 20, specifically Chancellor’s Regulation C-770, when it reassigned Francesco Portelos to a location outside of his community school district consistent with the limitations of the collective bargaining agreement If so, what shall the remedy be ”

CHANCELLOR’S REGULATION C-770
5. Assignments for Suspended Employees Suspended employees are to be assigned within their own districts or divisions. Requests for a temporary change of assignment because of extraordinary circumstances must be directed in writing to the Executive Director of the Division of Human Resources, with supporting statements for the request. The Executive Director shall confer with the Office of Legal Services regarding this request. The employee is not to be reassigned from the district or division until written authorization has been granted.

I believe we can agree that the dominant document here is Chancellor’s Regulation C-770 and it states that the department may “temporarily” reassign an employee out of their district due to “extraordinary circumstances” and have “supporting documents.” My first question to you Madam Arbitrator is “Do you feel 450+ days can be considered as ‘temporary'”

Now I’d like to move to the “extraordinary circumstances” phrase.

The Department’s attorney, Kerri Crossan, introduced Michelle Nacht, an administrative assistant who is involved in reassigning employees, to give testimony. Ms. Nacht stated that Greg Bowen, a deputy network leader with no involvement in my school or network, told her that in the day and a half I was at the Petrides complex in Staten Island I was a “wanderer” and in a room with computers and “little supervision.” He also claimed that I was seen “eavesdropping outside the superintendent’s office”. Supposedly I was also told to “remain in my assigned room”, but in over a year we were never told by who or shown any documentation of this request. For these reasons Ms. Nacht decided to move me two boroughs away. She didn’t decide to move me to a room with more supervision, but to a basement two boroughs away where my supervisor was three floors above me. I have to add that my initial assignment at Petrides was just one room away from mysupervisor, Ms. Kristine Broschart. Do you see the issue here I went from a few steps from supervision within my district to three floors from any supervision. This all came out during the hearing though, so it should have been in your notes.

Ms. Krossan presented into evidence an email thread between the executive director of human resources, the chief executive director of human resources and Ms. Nacht that took place after the initial violation and my reassignment to Ozone Park, Queens. In the thread we can deduce that the executive directors had no idea as to why I was reassigned out of my district. Lawrence Becker even stated “not sure what reason to give.” See attached pictures. That poses the question “How was CR C-770 adhered to if there was no written request made to the executive director” You mentioned this in your decision here, but considered it unnecessary now. ” With regard to the technical violation, the only appropriate remedy is to require the Department to reissue its written authorization, a remedy that is required under the Feldman award. However, since the Department complied with this requirement in May 2012, such a remedy is moot.” Although I agree with you that the written authorization is a moot point now, would you agree that it shows mishandling of my case and disregard for regulation and policy

image
image
image

The union and I presented into evidence an excerpt of the sworn federal testimony of Andrew Gordon. I’ve attached that as well, but you should have it in your file. At the time of my reassignment he was the executive director of human resources and Ms. Nacht’s immediate supervisor. Mr. Gordon indicated that he received a call from Superintendent Erminia Claudio about my alleged “wandering” and “eavesdropping”. There was no mention of Ms. Nacht or Greg Bowen. This contradicts Ms. Nacht’s testimony and the union asked for this reason you should dismiss her testimony entirely. Apparently you did not dismiss it at all and instead took it to be fact. Two opposing testimonies from the Department and this did not phase your decision making process at all Did you even read the deposition of Andrew Gordon DEPOSITION EXCERPT HERE

I think my next question is also a good one. Why weren’t Greg Bowen and Superintendent Erminia Claudio called in to give testimony about this alleged wandering and eavesdropping Perhaps because their testimony would be under oath Since they made false accusations, that would put them in hot water. I want to add that Greg Bowen and Superintendent Erminia Claudio are currently under investigation for violation of NYC Charter section 1116. Assigned case 2013-3720 R-OSI.

I’d like to go over the allegations of wandering and eavesdropping. Madam Arbitrator did you take detailed notes during my testimony Just to reiterate the main entrance to the complex was through a security entrance. The superintendent’s office, as I stated under oath, was seven to ten feet away and in view of the guard and security camera. (See attached picture taken a year later). How can I possibly eavesdrop even if I wanted to Wouldn’t I be seen by the guard or recorded by one of the many cameras Was there any video recording submitted of this wandering or eavesdropping No, because it doesn’t exist. Actually was there any “supporting documentation” to support the claim for “extraordinary circumstances” as required by CR C 770 No there wasn’t, but you stated in your decision that the Department did provide it. “First, the Grievant helped create the circumstances leading to his reassignment by not remaining in the room to which he was assigned, giving the Superintendent cause for concern based upon two things: one, the Grievant’s access to the district’s computer system; and two, his “wandering” around in the vicinity of her office, raising concerns that he might be eavesdropping on her conversations” Again what evidence was submitted to show this Madam Arbitrator, how did you expect me to enter and exit the building

image

I also stated that I would need to go down two long hallways and three flights to get to my assigned room across the complex. Inclusive of lunch, I would do that trip four times a day. See attached schematic depicting the route. Was that the “wandering” Greg Bowen was speaking of

image

You also added this as supporting the extraordinary circumstances: “… given the Superintendent’s concern, there was no other location within Staten Island that accepted reassigned employees. Therefore, the lack of another location within Staten Island in proximity to the Grievant’s home served as an additional “extraordinary circumstance” supporting the Department’s decision to reassign the Grievant to his Network office in Queens” That’s not true. A teacher in my school was alleged to have bent back the finger of a pupil and tear the shirt of another. They were reassigned to the main office answering phones. The main office of my same school that is. I was alleged of hacking my own website and was sent twenty miles away from my home and family for over a year

In your decision you also made mention of the allegations against me. You were given a copy of the SCI report. Did you read the part where the DOE’s Chief Information Security Officer made mention that the DOE had no recourse over what people do with websites they own Did you read their conclusion that was vague and didn’t indicate what they found I had done wrong You also made mention that I had access to the district’s network system and was unsupervised. I was actually in a room with broken computers and had no access to any district computer or network. Although other “unsupervised” reassigned teachers in my room did have full access to computers. See attached picture. They were alleged to have been teaching under the influence of drugs and scolding children, and they were left in their reassigned district. Again, I was alleged to have hacked my own website and was sent several districts away. Does that make sense

Finally we also included an email from Ms. Broschart, my supervisor at Petrides, that indicates she had no involvement in my reassignment. My supervisor located one room away had no knowledge of my wandering and eavesdropping Then who told me to remain in my room You seemed to have omitted all this information from your decision. Actually you omitted a lot of my evidence from your decision. Again, very surprising coming from the Carol A. Wittenberg.

In conclusion, Madam Arbitrator Carol Wittenberg it appears there might have been other factors that affected your decision as facts from the Department simply did not exist.

READ ARBITRATOR CAROL WITTENBERG’S DECISION HERE

You may also find this post of interest.

http://educatorfightsback.org/angela-who-is-greg-bowen-and-why-is-he-so-concerned-with-printer-ink-levels

And this ARBITRATOR SUBVERSION

-Francesco Portelos
mrportelos@gmail.com
educatorfightsback.org
Parent
Educator
UFT Chapter Leader IS 49
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King Jr.
*sent from my Galaxy S3. Please pardon any typos

Back to vacation mode…

UPDATE: DISTRICT 31 SUPERINTENDENT ERMINIA CLAUDIO ANNOUNCED HER RETIREMENT SURPRISING MANY. NOT ME.

About Francesco Portelos

Parent and Educator fighting for the student and the teacher.

Bookmark the permalink.

26 Comments

  1. The only chance you have is in Federal Court! You must prove that Ms. Hill was missal locating funds and she wanted you out of the picture! In addition, you have to show how your two School colleagues were conspiring and benefitting from Ms. Hill! Enjoy your vacation! Josh

  2. This is insane and very sad with how corrupt the system is. I agree with Josh by saying that your only hope is federal court. Enjoy what’s left of your vacation!

    ~Bronx Professora

  3. Mr. Portelos, OSI and SCI are goal keepers for the other team! Stop forwarding them your plays.

  4. You have suffered so much. Please enjoy your vacation. I’ll keep reading. Greece! Alright!

  5. I really missed hearing from you but I’m also glad you took the summer off for you and your family. You really are an inspiration to me. Today is Fidel Castro’s birthday. You have that same kind of tenacious spirit.

  6. Arbitrators can make blatantly false decisions because there is no punishment for doing so. When the accused has their day in a real courtroom, the decision is reversed, but the arbitrator is not punished. Enjoy your vacation. Hope the grapes are very sweet.

  7. Hi Francesco , first let me say that Arbitrator WITTENBERG WAS PROBABLY A MEMBER OF THE NAZI SS DURING WW2 , IN ANOTHER LIFE . THIS SYSTEM IS SUCH A DISGRACE !WE HAVE A ” CRUCIFIED BY THE DOE” T SHIRT, FOR YOU , WE HAD THEM MADE FOR EVERYONE WHO CAME TO THE RALLY ON JUNE 10 . JUST ENJOY GREECE AND WE WILL TALK SOON , MY FRIEND . BOBBY PRO

  8. If the right person becomes the new mayor, they’re ALL going to be out of jobs: OSI, SCI, Arbitrators, etc. Then teaching can once again become a dignified and respected profession. Mr. Portelos, I must say,your talent and intelligence are very apparent.

  9. Zulma, retired teacher, former chapter leader

    One thing I admire about you is your “cojones” for not giving up and the fire in your belly to continue your fight for justice.

    If you see that they don’t want to play by the rules, then you play harder until the rules they are supposed to play by hits them all in their bureaucratic asses.

    It is time that someone like you puts them (the mass corrupters) in their places. I hope that your persistence and perseverance pay off when you expose their double-standard, law-breaking, crony-supported scamers that they called the Dept of Education in the media.

    I’ll be the first one at your exoneration celebration!

  10. Pingback: Back to “Work”- 500 Days Out of the Classroom | Educator Fights Back

  11. Pingback: Rubber Room Administrator Michele Nacht Exiles Educators Far From Home | Educator Fights Back

  12. The comments on this page lead me to the conclusion that the students under your tutorage have a heavy cross to bear due to your low intelligence and navet. I hope you all attempt to find other professions — hopefully in another Country — and maybe the scars you are leaving on society will heal. It will probably only take a couple of days as you all seem like easily forgettable folk, the kind the wind blows away: never to be remembered again.

  13. I noticed the people or person in charge of this thread gave portelos the last word even though his message was over a year earlier than mine. This is fitting, as it perfectly exemplifies the academic dishonesty that you false teachers exhibit in the classroom and on the web. You people do not impress. Todd

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *