Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Broken up Nine CHILD ABDUCTION Gangs, Arresting 355 Suspects and Rescuing 89 Children.

Police rescue 89 abducted kids, arrest 355
Published: 2012-12-26




A NATIONAL operation in China has Broken up Nine CHILD ABDUCTION Gangs, arresting 355 suspects and rescuing 89 children.

The Ministry of Public Security said it conducted the nine-province operation this month after receiving reports of child abductions in Fujian and Yunnan provinces, Xinhua news agency reported.

The ministry said the child trafficking activities spanned several provinces and that the suspects bought abducted children in provinces including Yunnan and Sichuan and transported them to other provinces, where they were sold. All the rescued children are being cared for while authorities collect DNA to help identify their parents.

The umbilical cord of one baby was still attached when it was rescued by police in Sichuan Province.

Police said some village officials responsible for family planning were found to be involved in trafficking. Civil servants were also among buyers in Fujian Province.

The operation took place starting on December 18 in nine provinces that also included Anhui and Guangdong.

Chen Shiqu, director of the Child-Trafficking Strike Force, said that since the country launched the campaign against child-trafficking in April 2009, Chinese police have broken up and about 11,000 traffickers and saved an estimated 54,000 children.

Wang Xizhang, vice chief of Fujian Criminal Investigation Corps, said that such gangs often had clear labor divisions. Some were in charge of buying and abducting kids, some looked for buyers and some were in charge of transportation.

"A child bought for about 30,000 yuan ($4,809 US Dollars) in Yunnan could be sold for 70,000 to 90,000 yuan to the end buyer. It was low cost and huge profit," said Wang. "Many of the traffickers were middle-aged women in rural areas, who had poor educational backgrounds and little income."

"They usually covered children up with thick blankets and clothes," said Li Xiaowei, a Fujian police officer who participated in the joint action. "Many of the abducted children were newborn babies. They could not stand such a trip and often died of diseases or even suffocation."

Chen said a the Chinese National DNA Database for abducted people was established in June 2011. It collects samples from parents who have missing children.


Our Hearts Go Out to these Firemen

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Dismissal Bill Falters in Assembly

A bill that would make it easier to fire teachers and administrators failed to pass the Assembly Education Committee on Wednesday. Sen. Alex Padilla’s controversial SB 1530 will be dead for the session unless he can persuade one more Democrat to reverse positions.
 
The bill had bipartisan support in the Senate, where it passed 33-4, but, in a test of strength by the California Teachers Association, only one Democrat, Education Committee Chairwoman Julia Brownley, and all four Republicans backed it in the crucial committee vote. The other six Democrats either voted against it (Tom Ammiano, San Francisco; Joan Buchanan, San Ramon) or didn’t vote (Betsy Butler, El Segundo; Wilmer Carter, Rialto; Mike Eng, Alhambra; and Das Williams, Santa Barbara).

The bill follows 2 incidents of sexual abuse in Los Angeles Unified and elsewhere, the worst of which involved Mark Berndt, 61, who’s been accused of 23 lewd acts against children at Miramonte Elementary in LAUSD. Padilla, a Democrat from Van Nuys, said SB 1530 responded to complaints from superintendents and school board members that it takes too long and is too expensive to fire teachers facing even the worst of charges. Rather than go through hearings and potential appeals, LAUSD paid off Berndt with $40,000, including legal fees, to drop the appeal of his firing. PUBLIC RELATIONS BABY!

Under current law, dismissal cases against teachers and administrators go before a three-person Commission on Professional Competence, which includes two teachers and an administrative law judge. Its decision can be appealed in Superior Court. (Lets not be having any radical notions of educators being innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers. OAH IS A TRIBUNAL OF STATE PAID INCOMPETENCE WITH THEIR OWN SET OF DUBIOUS RULES.)


SB 1530 would have carved out a narrow band of exceptions applying to “egregious or serious” offenses by teachers and administrators involving drugs, sex, and violence against children. In those cases, the competence commission would be replaced by a hearing before an administrative law judge whose (SUPPOSED) advisory (AND BULLSHIT SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT ) recommendation WHICH WILL BE TREATED THE SAME AS A CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL COURT WHERE THEY HAVE RULES BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION,) would go to the local school board for a laughable final decision. That decision was made when the teacher was first suspended, with or without merit. That OAH circus decision is sometimes appealable in court.

The bill also would have made admissible evidence of misconduct older than four years. Berndt had prior reports of abuse that had been removed from his file,  because a statute of limitations in the teachers contract in LAUSD prohibited their use. (Couldn't these self-serving fools find another example?)

School boards already have final say over dismissal of school employees other than teachers and administrators, so the bill would extend that to efforts to remove “a very creepy teacher” from the classroom,” as Oakley Union Elementary School District Superintendent Richard Rogers put it. “What is more fundamental than locally elected officials responsible for hiring and dismissal?” he asked.

The bill had the support of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and the LAUSD president, Monica Garcia, who described her fellow board members as “seven union-friendly Democrats” who want to “get rid of people who will hurt our children.” Monica must receive campaign support from the bills backers.


But Warren Fletcher, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, countered that “SB 1530 solves nothing, places teachers at unfair risk, and diverts attention from the real accountability issues at LAUSD.” Turning the tables, Fletcher, CTA President Dean Vogel, and others have filed statements with the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing to investigate Superintendent John Deasy’s handling of misconduct allegations in the district.

The argument that current law works resonated with Buchanan, who served two decades on the San Ramon Valley School Board. Calling the bill “intellectually dishonest” because nothing can prevent another Miramonte from happening, she said, “We never had problems dismissing employees.” She acknowledged that the “long, expensive dismissal process” needs to be streamlined, but the bill doesn’t get it right. A teacher at a school in her legislative district was accused of sexual misconduct by a student who got a bad grade. That teacher “deserves due process.”

The two teachers on the Commission on Professional Competence provide professional judgment that’s needed to protect the rights of employees, said Patricia Rucker, a CTA lobbyist who’s also a State Board of Education member. “We do value the right to participate and adjudicate standards for holding teachers accountable,” she said.

Fletcher said that school boards would be subject to parental pressure in emotionally charged cases, and, as a policy body, should not be given judicial power. Assemblyman Ammiano, a former teacher, agreed. “A school board is not the one to make the decision,” he said.

Wrong! They make the decision in closed session. The OAH is just a formality. So as to look good on paper.


Full-scale assault on the educator dismissal laws - David Welch wants to make it even easier to be FIRED FOR PERSONALITY AND NON-EDUCATION BASED REASONING

Full-scale assault on dismissal laws


Nonprofit with big name attorneys files suit
By  John Fensterwald
EDUCATED GUESS
 
 A nonprofit founded by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur has filed a sweeping, high-stakes lawsuit challenging state teacher protection laws. A victory would overturn a tenure, dismissal, and layoff system that critics blame for the hiring and retention of ineffective teachers. A loss in court could produce bad case law, impeding more targeted efforts to achieve some of the same goals.
Students Matter is the creation of David Welch, co-founder of Infinera, a manufacturer of optical telecommunications systems in Sunnyvale. The new nonprofit filed its lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday on behalf of eight students who attend four school districts. A spokesperson for the organization told the Los Angeles Times that Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad and a few other individuals are underwriting the lawsuit. They have hired two top-gun attorneys to lead the case: Ted Boutrous, a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of  Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Ted Olsen, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush.
The lawsuit asserts that five “outdated statutes” prevent administrators from making employment decisions in students’ interest. The tenure statute forces districts to decide after teachers are on the job only 18 months whether to grant them permanent job status. Once granted tenure, they gain due-process rights that make it expensive and difficult to fire them even if they’re “grossly ineffective.” And then, when an economic downturn comes – witness the last four years – a Last In/First Out (LIFO) requirement leads to layoffs based strictly on seniority, not competency.
The protection of ineffective teachers “creates arbitrary and unjustifiable inequality among students,” especially low-income children in low-performing schools, where less experienced teachers are hired and inept veteran teachers are shunted off, under a familiar “dance of the lemons” since they cant be fired. Because education is a “fundamental interest” under the state Constitution, the five statutes that “dictate this unequal, arbitrary result violate the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution” and should be overturned.  The lawsuit doesn’t prescribe a solution.

Incremental versus global approach

Students Matter’s wholesale assault on the laws contrasts with fact-specific, narrowly tailored lawsuits brought by attorneys for the ACLU of Southern California and Public Counsel Law Center. Two years ago, they won a landmark victory in Reed v. the State of California when Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William Highberger found that the heavy churn of teachers due to LIFO at three Los Angeles Unified middle schools violated students’ right to an equal educational opportunity. That decision led to a settlement between the district, the mayor’s office, and the attorneys that has protected the staffs of 45 low-performing schools from layoffs for the past three years. The strength of that case lay in its ability to tie specific harm to students to the layoff law, which explicitly permits exceptions to seniority layoffs to protect students’ fundamental constitutional rights. LAUSD had not exercised that exception. (United Teachers Los Angeles has appealed; arguments will be heard June 28.)
Earlier this year, the Sacramento-based nonprofit EdVoice brought suit against Los Angeles Unified over the pro forma way it conducts teacher evaluations. But here, the suit isn’t seeking to overturn the Stull Act, which defines how evaluations are done; it says that the district (along with nearly every other one) has chosen to ignore the law’s requirement that student performance be included in teacher evaluations.
Screen Shot 2012-05-17 at 12.09.04 AM 


There’s no shortage of critics of the tenure, dismissal, and layoff laws, which teachers unions have lobbied hard to preserve. California is one of few states that have not lengthened the probationary period for teachers. More than two dozen states have strengthened their evaluation systems in the past several years. California’s dismissal law, with its 10-step process laden with due process, can cost districts hundreds of thousands of dollars to fire a teacher on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance, which is why districts often work around it by paying teachers to retire or pushing them from one school to another.

Persuading a judge that the practical problems and the effects of the laws rise to the level of a constitutional violation is another matter. (In an analogous case, California is among the nation’s bottom spenders on K-12 education; it has tough standards and a challenging student population. But attorneys last year failed to convince a Superior Court judge in Robles-Wong v. California and Campaign for Quality Education v. California that adequate education funding is a constitutional right.)

Tough burden of proof

The tenure law may be particularly challenging. As the suit points out, something like 98 percent of probationary teachers have gotten tenure. The two-year probationary period (actually 18 months, since teachers must be notified by March of their second year) is not long enough. Too often evaluations have been slapdash. But the law itself doesn’t require a district even to cite a cause in denying tenure; the power of dismissal lies with the employer.

Students named in the lawsuit are from Los Angles Unified, Pasadena Unified, Sequoia Union High School District, and Alum Rock Union Elementary District, although only Los Angeles Unified and Alum Rock, which serves 11,000 students in San Jose, are specifically cited as defendants, along with  Gov. Brown, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, the State Board of Education, the state, and the State Department of Education.

The only specific reference to Alum Rock was in the identification of plaintiff Daniella Martinez, 10, whom the lawsuit says chose to transfer to a public charter school because “of the substantial risk that she would be assigned to a grossly ineffective teacher who impedes her equal access to the opportunity to receive a meaningful education.” The initial filing doesn’t cite evidence of  specific teachers who negatively affected Daniella or the other seven defendants. It refers to studies by such groups as the National Council On Teacher Quality, which issued a blunt assessment of the tenure and dismissal practices of Los Angeles Unified, and on research by Hoover Institution author Eric Hanushek, who concludes that just by dismissing 6 to 10 percent of weakest teachers, students’ academic achievement and long-term earnings as adults would increase significantly.
Los Angeles, as the state’s largest district, may have been named as a defendant because its superintendent, John Deasy, has been outspoken about the need to change labor laws. United Teachers Los Angeles has also  sued over a comprehensive teacher evaluation system that Deasy has put in place.

Deasy would appear to be a friendly witness for the plaintiffs. In a statement, he said he supports lengthening the probationary period, quickening the dismissal process, and reforming the state’s layoff law. “To my dismay, we have lost thousands of our best and hardest-working classroom instructors through the last hired, first fired rule. When forced to reduce our teaching staff through budget cuts, we are compelled through state law and union rules to base these difficult decisions primarily on seniority,” Deasy said.

But when questioned, Deasy will be pressed to acknowledge that it may not be the laws but the implementation that counts. Since joining the district, first as deputy superintendent, then superintendent, Deasy has pushed administrators to apply more scrutiny in granting tenure and more perseverance in dismissing bad teachers. Last year the district terminated 853 teachers. Furthermore, the number of probationary teachers denied tenure rose significantly last year: from 89 in 2009-10 (10 percent of those eligible) to 120 teachers in their first year and 30 in their second year. Other superintendents would agree that well-trained, persistent principals can document the case for teacher dismissa ls, notwithstanding cumbersome, excessively burdensome requirements.


Saturday, December 22, 2012

Local news media documents LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy in a lie then does nothing to confront Deasy about it

Thanks to Lenny Isenberg
The following is a crystal clear example of how a mainstream local news media is able to document LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy in an outright lie then do nothing to confront Deasy or anybody else at LAUSD with the lie(s). The first video below is of an interview that KNBC Conan Nolan did with Superintendent John Deasy on February 13, 2012, where Deasy justifies giving alleged teacher child molester Mark Berndt $56,000, because according to Deasy, Reporter Nolan, and a supposed 2009 L.A. Times survey, 50% of teachers get their jobs back at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Deasy didn't want to take the chance that Berndt would get his job back. 

The second video completely contradicts this and was done by Nolan's reporter colleague at KNBC Patrick Healy on March 13, 2012, which says that in 2011, LAUSD got rid of 853 teachers and not one got their job back and only two went to the OAH and both lost. Both statements cannot be true and yet neither Nolan or Healy or any other news media dares to report the truth about Deasy and LAUSD, even though, given their daily access to LAUSD, they undoubtedly know the truth.

It is clear that Deasy is lying on this and other assertions. Last week, he claimed that only the worst teachers were being incarcerated in teacher jails by LAUSD and that if teachers are cleared by the police, they get their jobs back immediately. I have many many teachers in my database who have sat in teacher jail for over 3 years many without any charges and long after they were cleared by LAPD. And yet no mainstream or public media reports this.

Listen carefully to Superintendent Deasy closely when he says, "We don't know the facts in the case," but then says "We are within our rights to make a judgment call of inappropriate behavior and initiate termination proceeding." Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty or due process of law? The hysterical witch hunt atmosphere that now prevails at LAUSD, which Deasy continues to exploit after Miramonte, has now destroyed the lives of hundreds of teachers without a shred of verified evidence given under penalty of perjury. There is not one case in my database that LAUSD has respected teachers civil rights and given them timely due process of law in a neutral forum as clearly required by law.


Smiling John Deasy.jpg
click on photo


Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Another School District in State Receivership

California Department of Education News Release
Release: #12-109
December 7, 2012
Contact: Paul Hefner
E-mail: communications@cde.ca.gov
Phone: 916-319-0818

New Interim Administrator Appointed for Inglewood Unified School District

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson today appointed La Tanya Kirk-Carter to serve as interim Administrator of the Inglewood Unified School District after accepting the resignation of Administrator Kent Taylor.
"This change is in the best interests of taxpayers, students, and employees of the Inglewood Unified School District," Torlakson said. "I'm confident that our work to address the district's troubled finances will proceed without interruption."
Taylor stepped down after the California Department of Education (CDE) learned of financial commitments he had made without the required CDE approval and prior to the completion of a financial review and plan to restore the district to fiscal health.
Kirk-Carter previously served as Assistant Superintendent of Business Services at the district. She will serve in an interim capacity until a new permanent administrator is named.
The state took over the district in September under legislation passed at the request of the district that provided up to $55 million in emergency state loans to help the district meet its financial obligations. The legislation required the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to assume all the legal rights, duties, and powers of the governing board of the district.
Inglewood Unified School District is the ninth school district in California to request an emergency loan, thus triggering the state takeover, since 1990. Since then, local governance has been returned to four of these districts.
Related Content
# # # #
Tom Torlakson — State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Communications Division, Room 5206, 916-319-0818, Fax 916-319-0100

THE 11 BASIC POSITIONS FROM WHICH ADMIN CAN WRONGFULLY DESTROY AN EDUCATOR:



THE 11 BASIC POSITIONS FROM WHICH ADMIN WILL RAPE AN EDUCATOR: LAWLESSNESS AND THE PRICKS THAT GET PAID TO PERPETRATE IT ON YOU! 

Thanks again to the hard work of Lenny Isenberg

 Not if, but when HR or Your site Administor turns on you (for personal or financial reasons) and forces you to grab your ankles; in California you can expect:

1. A complete denial of basic due process of law

2. NO verified criminal charges under penalty of perjury and in front of a jury of your peers as required by law, the constitution and specific Supreme Court Ruling. But you will be suspended pending dismissal none the less.

3. You will be presumed guilty from the onset! Instead of being presumed innocent, a basic right in criminal and civil courts, so too the burden of proof is thrust on the educator without regard to your constitutional rights, US supreme court rulings and hundreds of State Education, labor, and government codes. This is the nature and rule of CA Administrative Law and the OAH.

4. CTA attorneys are supposedly paid to "defend its members." These same firms also take a large piece of other school district's budgets for prosecuting union employees. For instance, the CTA attorneys WILL go along with months to years  of stalling by agreeing to continuance after continuance inspite of stature to the detriment of their clients with the only goal of stringing out their billable hours only to settling the case at the employees expense and often termination. ...CTA then pays them an extra bonus, 40% of the paltry punitive settlement. Too often  the desperate and scared educator IS COERCED by these attorneys INTO SIGNING bullshit entrapment laden agreements.

5. Teachers are now automatically hit with the vague ambiguous "morals charges" under California Ed. Code 44939 to strip them of their right to grievance and arbitration under collective bargaining. Expect the local union to look the other way. Or try to tell you the union legal doesn't protect members from this kind of allegation. An almost certain lie. Even the infamous 'hatchet' ALJ H. James Alher admitted in a hearing, that he could not define the term "Moral Turpitude" yet he allows it as a charge and convicts many educators on its foundation. If in southern California, you are assigned Ahler as the ALJ over your OAH hearing tell your attorney to file an immediate request to have him replaced. This guy works almost directly out of the district's law firm's pockets. He is immune to discipline per Federal rule over ALJ's. Ahler, while driving intoxicated (twice the CA legal limit)  hit and killed a pedestrian in Vista CA.

6. No legal Skelly hearing  will  be provided. A  pre-disciplinary requirement on the district who must required by the 1975 case that states charges and evidence needs to be provided pre-discipline to charged teacher. This is never done. Half the time HR is still trying to figure the best charges to file against the educator. Some times they wont even tell you that the meeting is a skelly hearing, whose subsequent report to the school board for approval will become permanent record.

7. There is no bond provision or other ability to stop teacher from being put on unpaid administrative leave without benefits. How many people can survive under these circumstance and at the same time hire their own attorney in addition? This would cost them $5000 for openers with some teachers already having been fleeced of over $100,000. In Moreno Valley, CA the local is very reluctant to let go of any money for  the defense of  their members. Nor will you be able to look at that attorney's billable hours and retainer fee. Rumor is that each educator has over $20,000 dollars supposedly set aside by CTA. But CTA will never admit the existence of this.

8. Your CTA local provides no legal assistance and will only refer to their local attorneys such as the infamously incompetent Ron Skipper, Matt Singer (and others in Southern California. Happy to sell you out or ignore pertinent laws to ease their work load while collecting their easy money CTA checks.)

9. Example: Article V of the LAUSD/UTLA Collective Bargaining Agreement allows UTLA to bring a consolidated action on behalf of all their teacher members so charged in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, LAUSD's own Bulletin Policies dealing with housing teachers, duration of housing, and who should be housed, and violation of state codes and federal law. UTLA NEVER has done this and makes every effort to keep teachers divided and unaware of each other. Strength in numbers? Check the wording of your contract. Other locals have similar.

10. In no other profession, e.g. lawyer, doctor, accountant, police officer, where the professional is licensed from the state;  will the public employee - educator - be deprived of the constitutional property right to make a living in their trained field without a criminal court conviction of that case and the same charges.

11. My personal favorite is when CTA, that you have paid dues to for years, deprives you of the right to vote in any union election or take part in any union activity. By this bizarre logic, all your district would have to do is put all teachers on unpaid administrative leave and no member would be able to vote to stop them. Huh? Yep! It looks like some districts are trying to do just that.


Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Fontana School Board Member Kathy Binks



A Rare Commodity: Board Member Kathy Binks


Originally published in the San Bernardino
Sun Telegram

Fontana Unified School District

... Discussion on an adult bullying prevention policy was tabled to give board members time to review a proposal "with teeth" that was presented by Board Member Kathy Binks. Binks presented an alternative to the policy, which was drafted by the board's attorney and included in the packet of information board members receive prior to the meeting. 

Binks' proposed a resolution to control "instances of bullying and bullying-like conduct by adults, including, but not limited to, governing board members, toward other adults, including other board members" calls for "governing board members found by a majority of the board, during a properly agendized public meeting of the board, to have violated this policy may be subject to appropriate legal action, public censure and public disclosure of the conduct found to be in violation of this policy."

Binks, who is retiring from the board after 25 years of service on Dec. 12, said she hopes other board members will pursue implementation of this policy.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

CTA REFUSES TO USE BUT A FRACTION OF IT'S ONE-THIRD BILLION DOLLAR annual INCOME TO onerously and relectantly PROTECT AND DEFEND (some not all of) IT'S MEMBERS IN NEED.

Our's is the first era where Teachers in California Have NO Enforced Rights though dozens of laws, statutes, and codes exist to protect our them. This has come to pass due mostly to the ineptitude and corporate style greed of The California Teachers Association, Our "Union." Sometimes calling itself a "Professional Organzation," not a Union. 

CTA REFUSES TO USE BUT A FRACTION OF IT'S ONE-THIRD BILLION DOLLAR annual INCOME TO onerously and relectantly PROTECT AND DEFEND (some not all of) IT'S MEMBERS IN NEED. It seems fitting you should know the salaries of the people who take an average of $75 per month from each educator (CTA states 325,000, down from over 345,000 members.) 75X325,000.00 = $ 24,375,000 PER MONTH, 12mo.X $24,375,000.00 = $292,500,000.00 per year. CTA is the richest state union in the country and the richest of its type in the world. The same CTA that gave itself through your local representatives, no membership votes were cast, an income increase every year that there have been teacher layoffs - the last six years.



I personally couldn't get a qualified CTA attorney to represent me at all. Inspite the local's CTA representative promising me that "it would be no problem." CTA legal refused to allow me an attorney in an administrative hearing regarding my pending dismissal on a set of out and out LIES by Moreno Valley Unified School District's, HR Drag Queen - Henry H. Voro's. CTA legal also refused an explanation or to provide the total each member is allotted for legal defense.
What are they hiding now?

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

ARE YOU being targeted and threatened with removal from your teaching position with the School District ? STOP!



ARE YOU being targeted and threatened with removal from your teaching position with the School District ? STOP!
With teachers being targeted and removed from their teaching positions with the Moreno Valley Unified School District (MVUSD) on trumped up charges without even basic constitutional guarantees of due process of law and in complete derogation of their rights as clearly laid out in applicable legal precedent, it is important that teachers so targeted seize the initiative, while not passively submitting to this witch hunt. To that end, the following document should be used to put MVUSD on notice, when they move for your illegal removal from you teaching position. Putting the district on notice like this will be the first step in a battle where you will frame the conversation for a change, while recapturing your status as an adult, professional, and well educated teacher who will not go quietly into the night (WHICH EXACTLY WHAT THEY REALLY WANT).

Originally published on Perdail.com
Edited by I, Praetorian  

Form Letter for "Skelly" meetings

I have been directed to attend a meeting on _______ to discuss my "possible dismissal". I have also been informed that this is my "opportunity to be heard".

I am a permanent, certificated employee. Under the California and United States Constitutions and I have a protected property interest in my continued employment and licensing as a California teacher. I also have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in preserving my reputation.

Since you are threatening me with immediate, unpaid suspension, it is my understanding that this meeting would be a pre-disciplinary proceeding that is required under California law. I also understand that under California law: (a) I am entitled to know all of the legal reasons or grounds that support the District's belief that I should be dismissed before the meeting, (b) I am entitled to review all of the evidence that the District contends to support the legal grounds for my dismissal before the meeting, (c) the meeting must provide a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations, and (d) the meeting must be fair and impartial.

I have also been given the option to offer a written response. However, unless I am provided with the above information, I cannot meaningfully respond to unspecified charges based on evidence I am not permitted to review before the meeting whether orally or in writing. Also, without an opportunity to review the evidence supporting the charges, I am unable to respond to the evidence.

I shall be pleased to respond to any and all written charges that are presented to me. However, in order to do so, I request that the District provide me with copies of all of the evidence that is being offered against me. Therefore, please re-schedule the meeting to provide me with at least five (5) working days for me to review the charges and evidence.


I have received a copy of this letter on ___________.
Signed ____________________________________school person
NAME PRINTED______________________________

If mailed: Send certified mail, return receipt requested. Enclose a return envelope and copy of letter and add sentence:

Please date and sign one copy of this letter and return it to me in the postage paid envelope provided for your convenience.


BEWARE OF THE FOLLOWING TO RULES THAT ABSOLUTELY APPLY TO YOU:

A Lybarger admonishment derives its name from Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles 40 Cal. 3d 822 (1985). In interpreting Government Code Section 3303(e) and (h) the California Supreme Court determined that whenever a supervisor/manager interrogates an employee and (a) it appears that the employee may be charged with a criminal offense as a result of his misconduct, or (b) the worker refuses to answer questions on the ground that the answers may be criminally self-incriminating, the questioning must be preceded by a “Lybarger admonishment.” As such, The employee must also be told the following:



• Among other things, that although the employee has the right to remain silent and not incriminate himself

(1) his silence could be deemed insubordination, leading to administrative discipline, and
(2) any statement made under the compulsion of the threat of such discipline (i.e., incriminating statements) could not be used again him in any subsequent criminal proceeding.


Remaining silent:

• If the employee continues to stand on his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in the face of the above admonition, he risks disciplinary action for his refusal to answer. If the worker agrees to answer questions after the above admonition, management can use his answers for administrative purposes ONLY including discipline– but not criminal prosecution.

Remember, before any meeting with a supervisor where the employee reasonably believes discipline may result, a union representative should be consulted, and the right to have one present is guaranteed under the Weingarten rule. 

The employee must also be told the following:


• Among other things, that although the employee has the right to remain silent and not incriminate himself

  (1) his silence could be deemed insubordination, leading to administrative discipline, and

   (2) any statement made under the compulsion of the threat of such discipline (i.e., incriminating statements) cannot be used against him in any subsequent criminal proceeding.


Remaining silent:

• If the employee continues to stand on his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in the face of the above admonition, he risks disciplinary action for his refusal to answer. If the worker agrees to answer questions after the above admonition, management can use his answers for administrative purposes ONLY (THOUGH THIS MAY INCLUDE USE FOR DISCIPLINE , SUSPENSION, OR DISMISALL)– BUT not  criminal prosecution.

HOWEVER, before any meeting with a supervisor where the employee reasonably believes discipline may result, a union representative should be consulted, and the right to have one present is guaranteed under the Weingarten rule.You should ask for the local president or senior member of the cabinet to represent you.
 The Garrity Rule: However, An employee statement obtained under threat of removal from office cannot be used in subsequent criminal proceedings. 



WHAT IS INSUBORDINATION?

When you refuse to carry out a direct order, it is called insubordination. Most of
 the time, the union cannot protect a worker who refuses a direct order - even 
if the order is against  your rights under the contract or law. Workers have 
to follow the order and then file a grievance. This is called “obey now,
 grieve later.”

WHAT MUST MANAGEMENT SHOW?

To discipline an employee for insubordination, management has to show that:
·        The supervisor/manager told the worker that it was a director order; AND,
·        The supervisor/manager told the worker what would happen if he/she
    disobeyed the order.

When can you refuse a direct order?
There are two reasons that you can refuse a direct order: 

1.YOU REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT YOU WERE TOLD TO DO SOMETHING 

ILLEGAL; OR, 
2. YOU REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT YOU WOULD BE IN IMMEDIATE DANGER.

“OBEY NOW – GRIEVE LATER”

“Obey now, grieve later” can be very frustrating and unfair. It can take a long 
time to settle a grievance, even if you win. All the time you are fighting to win
the grievance, you are supposed to go along with management’s unfair order. 
Talk to the union to see if there is a way to speed up the grievance. Also, 
talk with your co-workers and the union representative to figure out ways
to pressure management to wait for the grievance to be  settled before
making anyone follow the rule.

If you or someone you know has been targeted and are in the process of 
being dismissedand need legal defense, get in touch:

Lenny@perdaily.com   OR   R. Alexander Bright




This is the fight of our professional careers. Are You In or Out?

What's taking so long? This is the fight of our professional careers. Are You In or Out? "Hell has a special level for those who sit by idly during times of great crisis."
Robert Kennedy

The Art of SETTING LIMITS, Its not as easy as it looks.

Art of Setting Limits Setting limits is one of the most powerful tools that professionals have to promote positive behavior change for their clients, students, residents, patients, etc. Knowing there are limits on their behavior helps the individuals in your charge to feel safe. It also helps them learn to make appropriate choices.


There are many ways to go about setting limits, but staff members who use these techniques must keep three things in mind:
Setting a limit is not the same as issuing an ultimatum.
Limits aren’t threats—If you don’t attend group, your weekend privileges will be suspended.

Limits offer choices with consequences—If you attend group and follow the other steps in your plan, you’ll be able to attend all of the special activities this weekend. If you don’t attend group, then you’ll have to stay behind. It’s your decision.
The purpose of limits is to teach, not to punish.
Through limits, people begin to understand that their actions, positive or negative, result in predictable consequences. By giving such choices and consequences, staff members provide a structure for good decision making.
Setting limits is more about listening than talking.
Taking the time to really listen to those in your charge will help you better understand their thoughts and feelings. By listening, you will learn more about what’s important to them, and that will help you set more meaningful limits.
Download The Art of Setting Limits

SYSTEMATIC USE OF CHILD LABOR


CHILD DOMESTIC HELP
by Amanda Kloer

Published February 21, 2010 @ 09:00AM PT
category: Child Labor
Wanted: Domestic worker. Must be willing to cook, clean, work with garbage, and do all other chores as assigned. No contract available, payment based on employer's mood or current financial situation. No days off. Violence, rape, and sexual harassment may be part of the job.

Would you take that job? No way. But for thousands of child domestic workers in Indonesia, this ad doesn't just describe their job, it describes their life.

A recent CARE International survey of over 200 child domestic workers in Indonesia found that 90% of them didn't have a contract with their employer, and thus no way to legally guarantee them a fair wage (or any wage at all) for their work. 65% of them had never had a day off in their whole employment, and 12% had experienced violence. Child domestic workers remain one of the most vulnerable populations to human trafficking and exploitation. And while work and life may look a little grim for the kids who answered CARE's survey, it's likely that the most abused and exploited domestic workers didn't even have the opportunity to take the survey.

In part, child domestic workers have it so much harder than adults because the people who hire children are more likely looking for someone easy to exploit. Think about it -- if you wanted to hire a domestic worker, wouldn't you choose an adult with a stronger body and more life experience to lift and haul and cook than a kid? If you could get them both for the same price, of course you would. But what if the kid was cheaper, free even, because you knew she wouldn't try and leave if you stopped paying her. Or even if you threatened her with death.



Congress Aims to Improve Laws for Runaway, Prostituted Kids

by Amanda Kloer

categories: Child Prostitution, Pimping

Published February 20, 2010 @ 09:00AM PT

The prospects for healthcare reform may be chillier than DC weather, but Democrats in the House and Senate are turning their attention to another warmer but still significant national issue: the increasing number of runaway and throwaway youth who are being forced into prostitution. In response to the growing concerns that desperate, runaway teens will be forced into prostitution in a sluggish economy, Congress is pushing several bills to improve how runaway kids are tracked by the police, fund crucial social services, and prevent teens from being caught in sex trafficking. Here's the gist of what the new legislation is trying to accomplish:

Shelter: Lack of shelter is one of the biggest vulnerabilities of runaway and homeless youth. Pimps will often use an offer of shelter as an entree to a relationship with a child or a straight up trade for sex. In the past couple years, at least 10 states have made legislative efforts to increase the number of shelters, extend shelter options, and change state reporting requirements so that youth shelters have enough time to win trust and provide services before they need to report the runaways to the police. Much of the new federal legislation would make similar increases in the availability and flexibility of shelter options.

Police Reporting: Right now, police are supposed to enter all missing persons into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database within two hours of receiving the case. In reality, that reporting doesn't always get done, making it almost impossible for law enforcement to search for missing kids across districts. This hole is a big problem in finding child prostitution victims and their pimps, since pimps will often transport girls from state to state. The new bill would strengthen reporting requirements, as well as facilitate communication between the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the National Runaway Switchboard

We Must Never Forget These Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen and Women

We Must Never Forget These Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen and Women
Nor the Fool Politicians that used so many American GIs' lives as fodder for the fight over an english noun - "Communism"