Chicago’s Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy is Taking Aim at (Gun Manufacturers') Lobbyists

Chicago’s Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy is taking aim at (gun) lobbyists who mcCarthy says prevent politicians, from implementing more gun control measures. (Because they, the vicious gun lobbyists, have apparently discovered that the smell of freshly minted $20s and $50s alter the living brain cells of humans - well especially Human Politicos; wave stacks of $20s in front of the otherwise up-standing politician and that politician; he or she will become giddy,  confused, dizzy, completely malleable in terms of their values. Kind of like waving oxymoron, excuse me, Oxycodon in front of Rush Limbaugh, an otherwise caring, loving and insightful “talking head” who with the help of Rupert Murdoch seek only the essence of truth and fairness in everything they air).

(This unseen life altering presence is a kin to a disease for most politicians. Rumors are leaning toward another re-wright of the  Americans with Disabilities Act. ADAAA 2011)

“If there was a special interest influencing police work, I believe that would be called corruption,” McCarthy said. “So, if it has to do with donating money, versus a popular vote, I think we have a bigger problem in this country and someone has to wake up to that.”
Gun rights advocates seized on the comments, saying that McCarthy was blaming the city’s gun violence on donors and lobbyists who advocate for the Second Amendment.

“Garry McCarthy’s understanding of our Constitution barely qualifies him as a meter maid, never mind the chief of the nation’s third largest police department,” Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson said.

Despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw more than 500 homicides last year for the first time since 2008, and some 43 murders took place in January. That has prompted several pro-gun rights groups to say it proves new gun control measures aren’t the answer.

McCarthy told FoxNews.com Owned and controlled by aforementioned Murdoch, he never advocated “getting rid of the Second Amendment.”  He said he was making the point that there is popular support for new gun control laws and that lobbyists are stopping elected officials from reflecting the will of the people.

“How is it [special interests] are controlling politicians?” he said. “How are they controlling elected officials? It’s not by popular vote.”

McCarthy in the past has blamed “government-sponsored racism” and Sarah Palin for Chicago’s gun violence. He has been outspoken in his opposition to handgun proliferation, telling a radio panel last month he equates fewer guns with improved public safety.

“When people say concealed carry, I say Trayvon Martin,” McCarthy said, referring to the Florida teen who was shot and killed last February by a neighborhood watch volunteer, sparking controversy across the country. “I say Trayvon Martin because the answer to guns is not more guns, and just simply putting guns in people’s hands is going to lead to more tragedy.”

McCarthy backs banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring background checks for anyone who buys a gun, mandatory reporting of the sale, transfer, loss or theft of a gun and mandatory minimum prison sentences for people convicted of illegally possessing a gun.

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

Posted on 5/17/12 • Categorized as

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.
 


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.

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?

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!

Labels: Board Trustees that Lie, bought and sold, civil rights for the rich and connected

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

By Lenny@perdaily.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