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




Sunday, November 11, 2012

Riverside Deputies Union Office Is Raided

Sheriff Deputies' Union Office Is Raided
In Riverside County, federal agents seek evidence while use of a trust fund is probed.

Originally published
 September 29, 2006 
LATimes
by Maeve Reston |
Armed federal agents in blue windbreakers and business suits raided the office of the Riverside Sheriffs' Assn. on Thursday, an action that comes as the FBI investigates the use of the association's legal trust fund (was Sayer's run for sheriff, and McNamara's  attempted illegal backdoor handout of $500,000 to Sayre a part of this?).

Officials at the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office refused to discuss the investigation, but an agent involved in the raid at the Riverside office park was seen carrying a search warrant that included the last name of the sheriffs' association president, Pat McNamara.
Description: http://articles.latimes.com/images/pixel.gif

This summer, federal prosecutors filed a confidential document in Superior Court stating that the FBI and U.S. Department of Labor were investigating whether money from the association's legal trust fund was embezzled, according to a report by the Press Enterprise in Riverside. The document was inadvertently posted on the court website and then removed, the newspaper reported.
The attorneys for the union and the legal trust fund released a brief statement after the raid: "The RSA and its Legal Defense Trust have fully cooperated with the Department of Labor inquiry from the very beginning, and will continue to cooperate with authorities. Both the RSA and the Legal Defense Trust believe that they have done nothing wrong or improper, and they look forward to being vindicated in this matter."

McNamara did not return calls for comment Thursday.

The Riverside Sheriffs' Assn. represents 2,700 deputies and other law enforcement and public safety personnel employed by Riverside County.

Thursday's raid comes in the midst of a nasty court battle between McNamara and a former employee who handled the union's legal defense fund.

McNamara is suing the former employee, Scott Teutscher, alleging defamation, and this month federal officials won a court order to the halt the discovery phase of that case, saying they needed to complete "certain criminal proceedings" involving McNamara and Teutscher.
The legal dispute between the two men, who oversaw the day-to-day operations of the association's legal trust fund, began in 2005 after several sheriff's offices in Riverside County received unsigned faxes bearing the heading "Corruption Within the Sheriffs' Association."
The memos alleged that money was embezzled from the union's legal trust fund under McNamara's direction to pay the attorney fees of a former Riverside County sheriff's deputy who was facing criminal charges, according to court documents

In the defamation lawsuit filed last year, McNamara accused Teutscher of sending the anonymous faxes and making other remarks accusing him of embezzlement to ruin McNamara's reputation.
More details of the case emerged this month when Teutscher filed a counter-lawsuit against the association, McNamara and other RSA employees.

Teutscher, who declined to comment, states in court documents that after he became the association's legal operations manager in 2002, he noticed that McNamara and other top officials were funneling trust fund money to Duane Winchell, who was described in the lawsuit as McNamara's "personal friend" and a former deputy who had been fired.
Court records show Winchell was charged with stalking and vandalism in 2002.
Teutscher alleges in his lawsuit that when he confronted McNamara and other top RSA officials about what he viewed as improper transactions, he was told to "shut up" and do his job.
Description: http://articles.latimes.com/images/pixel.gif
The lawyer for the union, Manny Abascal, said the organization acted appropriately in providing benefits for the fired deputy.

"The union has a benefit plan that provides legal services for a deputy in need," said Abascal, noting that the union reviewed Winchell's case and determined that he was covered.
"We don't discuss the merit or circumstances of any individual cases," he said. "The decision was made to provide him benefits under the plan, and the union stands by it."
Teutscher said that about six months after the anonymous faxes went out accusing McNamara of wrongdoing -- which he denies sending -- he cooperated with officials from the district attorney's office who interviewed him about the possible misuse of funds.

A spokeswoman for the district attorney's office said the investigation was handed over to federal officials.

Around that time, Teutscher maintains, an employee in his office falsely accused him of throwing a file at her three months earlier. It was an accusation he said was used as a ruse to get him fired.

Before he was terminated Sept. 11, 2005, Teutscher says, he met with RSA Executive Director James Cunningham, who asked him to admit that he had been meeting with investigators and giving information about the internal affairs of the association.

Abascal said the association intended to vigorously contest Teutscher's lawsuit.
"We do not in any way agree with that characterization" that he was wrongfully terminated, Abascal said. Call me simple but when the hell did a union official  start toeing the line for that agency's HR or IA department? Let's Not Forget that it was McNamara who arranged the secret back door contribution with Harold "Rick" Sayre for over half a million dollars. Remeber it was the Deputies themselves who had to break up that love trist.

The more I read on Abscal the better Teutscher's statements sound.

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"