Proposed changes to the Education Law §3020-a disciplinary procedures

Proposed changes to the Education Law §3020-a disciplinary procedures

Source: Office of the Governor

On January 21, 2015 Governor Andrew M. Cuomo presented his “2015 Opportunity Agenda” in course of delivering his "State of the State Message."

The Governor said that ”The current teacher discipline and termination system, commonly known as 3020-a hearings, is broken. The hearings are costly and time-consuming for districts, and allow arbitrators to overrule administrators’ determinations of competency and of appropriate remedies. Administrators take on protracted battles that they may or may not win, at great cost to themselves and their school communities, in attempting to eliminate ineffective and incompetent educators in their buildings.Below is the Governor’s proposal to “Make it easier, fairer and faster to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom” 

Proposal #43: Make it easier, fairer and faster to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom
 
The Governor had proposed the following reforms to Education Law §3020-a hearings “to streamline the hearing process, shift the presumptions, and strengthen evidentiary standards,” including:

1. In the case of a teacher accused of physical or sexual abuse of a child, there will be an expedited hearing with a decision rendered within 60 days.

2. Easing the legal burden on school districts seeking to remove a teacher that has been rated ineffective two years in a row.

3. Elimination of the current legal requirement that administrators must attempt to “rehabilitate” teachers who are incompetent or engage in misconduct.

4. Removal of the requirement that children must testify in person and will allow them to testify via sworn written or video statements.

5. Clarification of the existing law with respect to the dismissal of a non-tenured teacher.

The Governor’s full “2015 Opportunity Agenda” policy book is available here, and the corresponding presentation is available here.

Arbitrator rules that retired employees entitled to certain benefits available to active employee as though their service “was not interrupted”

Arbitrator rules that retired employees entitled to certain benefits available to active employee as though their service “was not interrupted”
Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Lieutenants Benevolent Assn., 2015 NY Slip Op 00459, Appellate Division, First Department [See, also, Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Sergeants Benevolent Assn., 2015 NY Slip Op 00460 and Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Sergeants Benevolent Assn. 2015 NY Slip Op 00326 handed down on the same day by the the First Department]

Supreme Court confirmed an arbitration award that held that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated the parties' governing collective bargaining agreement when the Authority discontinued “free "E-Z Pass" privileges for retired police lieutenants.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling, explaining that the relevant “Memorandum of Agreement” [MOA] expressly incorporated the terms of a 1973 Port Authority Administrative Instruction, PAI 40-1.01, that provides that retired employees "receive the same allowance to which they would be entitled if their Port Authority service was not interrupted."

The court held that this language vests retired members of the Authority with a lifetime interest in the EZ-Pass privileges they enjoyed while employed did not exceed the arbitrator's authority since it is not "completely irrational."

The court also commented that Supreme Court stated in its ruling that the arbitrator noted that "it will take a new Collective Bargaining Agreement and MOA to end free passes for [the Authority's] members, past and present."

The Appellate Division observed that the court's remark regarding "a new collective bargaining agreement" is dictum and that the statement of the arbitrator, that the court paraphrased, was also dictum. 

"Dictum" is Latin for "remark," and is used to describe a comment by a judge or other tribunal in a decision or ruling that is not required to reach the decision and which does not have the full force of a precedent.

New York State's Public Administration Traineeship Transition Program (PATT)

New York State's Public Administration Traineeship Transition Program (PATT)

Source: NYS Department of Civil Service’s Division of Staffing Services General Information Bulletin, #15-01

The New York State Department of Civil Service’s Division of Staffing Services has issued a General Information Bulletin, Bulletin #15-01. The Bulletin describes the Public Administration Traineeship Transition Program (PATT) and provides information addressing appointments from PATT eligible list #00-271, including:

Minimum Qualifications for appointment from the PATT List;

How a PATT Appointment could affect a candidate's eligibility for other appointments from the list;

Advanced Placement from PATT Lists;

Transfers and other PATT Appointments; and

Foreign Degrees and Coursework 

The text of Bulletin 15-01 is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/GIB15-01.pdf

Elements considered by courts in evaluating the results of an arbitration

Elements considered by courts in evaluating the results of an arbitration

2015 NY Slip Op 00444, Appellate Division, First Department

In response to a challenge to an arbitration award where the penalty imposed was termination, Supreme Court denied the Article 75 petition seeking to vacate and arbitration award

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling, noting the following elements concerning the arbitration:

1. The selection of the Hearing Officer comported with the law, in this instance Education Law §3020-a[3][b][ii]).

2. The record showed that the individual “had an adequate opportunity to prepare for the hearing” in that he was sent the notice of charges and specifications approximately a month before the hearing and had “retained counsel over a week before the hearing.”

3. The specifications sufficiently apprised the individual of the charges against him, including the bases for the charges and listed specific dates that corresponded to numerous observation reports and letters in the individual’s personnel file.

4. The individual was able to mount a defense, called witnesses and his counsel had the opportunity to examine or cross-examine every witness.

5. There was no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's credibility findings in favor of the Department of Education's witnesses

6. The Hearing Officer's determination was in accord with due process, rational, and supported by adequate evidence

________________

The Discipline Book, - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

____________

 

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending January 16, 2015

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending January 16, 2015

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full report
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Wednesday announced his office completed audits of the:

Clark Mills Fire District,

Village of Clinton,

Elba Fire Department,

Village of Ellenville,

Village of Harriman,

Hughsonville Fire Company,

Village of Livonia,

Plattekill #1 Fire District, and the

Town of Schroeppel.