An educator seeking to overturn an unsatisfactory annual performance rating must meet is very high standard of proof

An educator seeking to overturn an unsatisfactory annual performance rating must meet is very high standard of proof

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,192

M.H., a tenured teacher of mathematics employed by the City School District of the City of New York received an unsatisfactory annual rating following four unsatisfactory observation reports. M.H. appealed the rating to the Chancellor’s Committee Chairperson. The Chairperson conducted a review at which M.H. was represented by an advocate from the relevant collective bargaining entity.

The Chairperson recommended that M.H..'s appeal be denied and that the unsatisfactory rating be sustained. The Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education adopted the Chairperson recommendation. M.H. appealed the Chancellor's decision to the Commissioner of Education.

After addressing a procedural issue, the Commissioner considered the merits of M.H.'s appeal, noting that the standard of proof required to overturn an unsatisfactory rating is very high and in the absence of a showing of malice, prejudice, bad faith or gross error, the Commissioner will not substitute his or her judgment for that of the Chancellor.

M.H., said the Commissioner, "... failed to meet her burden of proving that the unsatisfactory rating was based upon malice, prejudice, bad faith or gross error," explaining that the record indicates that the assistant principal conducted three formal observations of a math lesson taught by M.H. as well as one walk-through evaluation.. In the last observation report made by the assistant principal, the assistant principal concluded that:

(1) The lesson taught did not match the lesson written on the board or prescribed in M.H. ’s lesson plan;

(2) M.H. posed questions in which the answers were embedded;

(3) M.H. failed to implement previous recommendations, made in previous observation reports to “engage the students by creating a physical setting that promotes teamwork”; and

(4) there was no “share/summary” presentation, as observed in during the last observation.

The Commissioner said that in the course of the walk-through evaluation, "the assistant principal concluded that [M.H.] continued to struggle with questioning techniques", noting that earlier she had provided M.H. with a document called “Asking Better Questions” and that M.H. had failed to incorporate any of the suggestions contained in that document. 

As to M.H.'s argument that the observation reports were not based on “facts,” “statistics”, or “appropriate supporting data,” M.H. cited no legal requirement that evaluations of personnel must be based on such criteria, and the Commissioner said she found nothing inappropriate about the procedure utilized by the district. 

Although M.H. did not participate in a pre-observation conference before each observation as required, the Commissioner said that she did not find that such noncompliance prohibited imposing an unsatisfactory rating based upon the observations of the assistant principal and further found that the observations and conclusions of the assistant principal supported the unsatisfactory rating imposed on M.H..

Concluding that M.H.'s unsatisfactory rating was supported by the evidence in the record, and that M.H. "has not met her burden of proving malice, prejudice, bad faith or gross error attributable to the respondent," the Commissioner dismissed M.H.'s appeal

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume57/d17192

Determining an educator's seniority in a tenure area for the purposes of layoff upon the abolishment of a position or positions

Determining an educator's seniority in a tenure area for the purposes of layoff upon the abolishment of a position or positions

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,190

On June 16, 2008 16 elementary education teachers received appointments to positions in the elementary education tenure area effective September 1, 2008.  On June 16, 2015, the School Board [Board] abolished eight positions in the elementary education tenure area. effective July 1, 2015. Scott Page, Kiernan Terranova and Penny Valvo, [Respondents] were among the teachers retained while Gwendolyn Gingrich, Cindy Inglut and Kyle Mack [Petitioners] were among those excessed following the abolishment of the 8 positions.*

Petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Board's decision to excess them as a result of the abolishment of the eight position, contending that they were "not the least senior persons in the elementary tenure area." Supreme Court, Erie County, granted the school district’s motion to dismiss for lack of primary jurisdiction** and the Commissioner of Education assumed jurisdiction in the matter.

Petitioners contend that the Board erroneously credited Page, Terranova and Valvo with more seniority credit than Petitioners by providing them with seniority credit for prior interrupted substitute service.  Petitioners asked the Commissioner to rule that the Board violated Education Law §§2510(2) and 3013(2) and to reinstate them "with back pay, lost seniority credit, pension credits and other emoluments of the positions."

After considering procedural issues the Commissioner noted that it was undisputed that:

1. Petitioners were continuously employed by school district from September 1, 2008 through July 1, 2015 and that Page, Terranova and Valvo were each appointed by the Board on June 16, 2008. 

2. The record shows that the Board credited Page for regular substitute service from April 1, 2008 through June 12, 2008 (the school year ended on June 20, 2008); Terranova for regular substitute service from February 26, 2008 through June 13, 2008 (the school year ended on June 20, 2008); and Valvo for regular substitute service from April 6, 2006 to June 30, 2006, August 30, 2006 through June 30, 2007 and September 10, 2007 through November 16, 2007; thereby crediting these Respondents with more seniority credit.

The issue to be resolved, as identified by the Commissioner was whether the Board properly credited Respondents for substitute service that was not immediately prior to their June 16, 2008 probationary appointments for purposes of calculating seniority credit for the purposes of layoff under Education Law §§2510(2) and 3013(2) "where it appears from the record that respondents Page and Terranova’s service ended a week prior to their probationary appointment and respondent Valvo’s service ended more than a year before her probationary appointment."

Education Law §§2510(2) and 3013(2) govern the rights of individuals relate to a teacher’s abolition rights and provide, in pertinent part, "Whenever a trustee, board of trustee, board of education or board of cooperative educational services abolishes a position under this chapter, the services of the teacher having the least seniority in the system within the tenure of the position abolished shall be discontinued."

The Commissioner then observed that:

a. It is well-settled that for purposes of determining the seniority rights of teachers when a position is abolished, it is the teacher having the least seniority in the tenure area of the position abolished whose services must be discontinued;

b. It is well-settled that seniority credit for full-time substitute teaching under Education Law §2510(2) need not immediately precede full-time probationary experience; and

c. The Court of Appeals accepted the Commissioner’s interpretation in Appeal of Carey, 31 Ed Dept Rep 394, Decision No. 12,678, that a teacher whose full-time regular substitute service was interrupted could nonetheless receive seniority credit for such service.

In Carey the Commissioner said that Education Law §2510's "salutary purpose is furthered by allowing seniority credit for full-time substitute teaching even though interrupted." In contrast, the Commissioner has ruled that [i] “Teachers lose their seniority rights when they sever service with the school district" and [ii] "A teacher whose full-time service is interrupted by part-time service in the same district does not lose the right to claim such prior full-time service for purposes of seniority.”

The Commissioner concluded that the relevant consideration in this instance is whether Page, Terranova and Valvo’s employment in the school district was severed by the teacher or the district and concluded that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that Respondents voluntarily severed their employment with the district. 

In the words of the Commissioner: "All that is established on the current record is that each of these Respondents had a regular substitute position that terminated prior to their probationary appointments, which suggests that their substitute service was terminated by the district." Accordingly, the Commissioner dismissed Petitioners' appeal, holding that the Board "properly treated [Respondents'] prior regular substitute service as interrupted rather than severed service and properly credited them for their prior regular substitute service in the district."

 

* Petitioners characterize the district’s decision as "abolishing their positions." It would be more accurate to state that the district abolished eight positions and then determined that Petitioners were the least senior in the tenure area of the positions abolished. Only in the event the incumbent was the sole individual having tenure in the tenure area of the abolished position could it be said that his or her position was abolished.

** The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction is applied in the event a judicial tribunal determines that the petitioner[s] should have first appealed to the Commissioner of Education  as he or she "is uniquely suited to resolve the matter and . . . possesses the specialized knowledge and experience required to determine the factual issue" involved in the litigation [see, for example, Donato v. Bd. of Educ., 286 A.D.2d 388].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume57/d17190

_______________________

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual -This e-book reviews the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5216.html  

_______________________ 

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued during the week ending September 30, 2017

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued during the week ending September 30, 2017

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full report

Audit Recommends Improved Oversight of Nurse Licensing by State Education Department

The State Education Department should improve its process to investigate serious complaints against nurses and more actively monitor professional misconduct, according to an auditby New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

State Comptroller DiNapoli Announces Latest Fiscal Stress Scores

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System has designated 27 municipalities across the state as fiscally stressed. The list, which includes eight counties, eight cities and 11 towns, marks the fewest number of municipalities listed in stress since DiNapoli implemented his early-warning system in 2013. 

The Erie Canal: Celebrating 200 Years of a National Landmark 

This year is the 200th anniversary of the groundbreaking of the Erie Canal. The Office of the State Comptroller played a key role in overseeing the funds for the building of the Erie Canal, which took eight years to complete initially at a cost of $7 million, an enormous undertaking at the time. Starting in 1817, the State Comptroller served on the Canal’s Board of Commissioners, which was responsible for transacting all canal business; later, the duty of auditing the Canal’s accounts was assigned to the Comptroller’s office. The Canal contributed to the rise of New York City as a global financial capital and energized the state's economy.

A court's review of an administrative decision made after an adversarial hearing is limited to considering if the decision is supported by substantial evidence

A court's review of an administrative decision made after an adversarial hearing is limited to considering if the decision is supported by substantial evidence

2017 NY Slip Op 04447, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Commissioner of the City of Mount Vernon Police Department, after a disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law, found the employee [Petitioner] guilty of certain disciplinary charges and imposed the penalty of termination. Petitioner initiated an Article 78 action challenging the Commissioner's determination.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner's action and dismissed the proceeding "on the merits, with costs."

The court explained that "Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing at which evidence is taken pursuant to direction of law is limited to a consideration of whether that determination was supported by substantial evidence upon the whole record."

Citing Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, the Appellate Division said that in the event there is conflicting evidence in the record or different inferences can be drawn from the evidence in the record, "the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the [administrative agency]. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [such agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists."

Here, said the court, "any credibility issues were resolved by the Commissioner and we find no basis upon which to disturb the determination, which was supported by substantial evidence."

Addressing the penalty imposed on the employee by the Commissioner, termination, the Appellate Division applied the so-called "Pell Doctrine," Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, and held that "the penalty of termination of [Petitioner's] employment was not so disproportionate to the offense committed as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_04447.htm

_____________________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition, and as an e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html

_____________________

The United State Supreme Court's 2017 October Term - selected cases

The United State Supreme Court's 2017 October Term - selected cases  

Source: Justia

Below are selected cases of the 29 scheduled to be considered by the United States Supreme Court during its October 2017 term that may be of particular interest to those involved in or with the public sector:

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states. Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.*

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full report

Carpenter v. United States A case in which the Court will determine whether the warrantless seizure and search of cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days violates the Fourth Amendment.

Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeers the regulatory power of states in contravention of New York v. United States.

Gill v. Whitford A case in which the Court will decide whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable, and whether the district court erred in striking down Wisconsin’s redistricting plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

* All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. You may subscribe to one or more newsletters clicking on daily.justia.com.