Denial of access to teacher’s mailbox during "non-challenge period" lawful

Denial of access to teacher’s mailbox during "non-challenge period" lawful

89 AD2d 967, Appeal dismissed, 58 NY2d 823

An individual attempted to obtain access to teacher mailboxes in the face of the District’s policy of granting exclusive access to such mailboxes to the certified or recognized employee representative.

The Appellate Division rejected the individual’s denial of free speech argument on the basis that:

there were many alternatives means available to him to communicate with the teachers and

there was not denial of equal protection, as individual and the Middle Country Teachers Association were not similarly situated and therefore there was no differential treatment.

The Appellate Division also pointed out that the District’s policy was not in operation during the period when the certified or recognized union’s representation status could be challenged (See §208.2, Civil Service Law) and dismissed the appeal.

In many school districts the contract itself provides for “exclusive” rights of access to employees in the negotiating unit, except during the “challenge period”. 
.

State legislature resists providing information requested by the Moreland Commission to the Commission

State legislature resists providing information requested by the Moreland Commission to the Commission

Source: Office of the Moreland Commission

Reacting to the Senate and the Assembly “refusal to cooperate” with the Commission in its efforts “to examine abuse of office by public officials and misconduct while in office,” the Commission issued the following statement:

STATEMENT FROM MORELAND COMMISSION CO-CHAIRS

"Pursuant to the Executive Order, the mandate of the Moreland Commission, among other things, is to examine abuse of office by public officials and misconduct while in office. Our investigation includes examining New York State legislators and their connections to outside business practices.

"On August 27, we requested information to be submitted by certain legislators. Leaders of the legislature for both the Assembly and Senate refused to cooperate.

"The Commission voted today [October 15, 2013] to aggressively move forward in compelling production of information into specific matters that the Commission is investigating.

"The Commission will continue its mandate of investigating corruption, issuing subpoenas, holding public hearings and will issue our first report on December 1."

Co-Chairs
Kathleen Rice
Milton Williams, Jr.
William Fitzpatrick

.

Teacher terminated after being found guilty of filing a fraudulent affidavit to obtain a free New York City education for her non-resident child

Teacher terminated after being found guilty of filing a fraudulent affidavit to obtain a free New York City education for her non-resident child

Matter of the Department of Education of the City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06615, Appellate Division, First Department

A New York City School teacher was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law alleging that she had “fraudulently obtained a free New York City public school education for her son during the 2009-2010 school year.”

Finding the teacher guilty of certain charges and specifications filed against her and not withstanding the teacher’s efforts to mitigate the penalty to be imposed by noting her previously “unblemished record as a teacher” and her offering to pay the appropriate tuition for her child’s education, the arbitrator imposed the penalty of termination for her misconduct.

The teacher then filed a petition pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules in an effort to have Supreme Court vacate the penalty imposed. Supreme Court sustained the arbitrator's determination and dismissed the teacher's petition.*

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's ruling, noting the arbitrator’s decision was supported by adequate evidence in the record. Further, said the court the teacher “did not urge the hearing officer to apply a heightened standard in finding fraud.”

The Appellate Division said that under the circumstances “the penalty of termination is not shocking” in view of the teacher’s using “a fraudulent affidavit to obtain a free New York City education for her non-resident child.”

* The Supreme Court's ruling on the teacher's Article 75 petition is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2011/2011_33408.pdf

The Appellate Division’s decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_06615.htm

 .