ADDENDEM TO "AN OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN"

State panel OKs demotion; fatal crash involved judge

By Onell R. Soto

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE

September 21, 2002

(NOTATIONS IN ITALICS ARE PURELY THE OPINION OF THE POSTER)

Judge H. James Ahler, 54, of Escondido, hit and killed a pedestrian in Escondido within an hour of drinking three glasses of wine a year ago,  (BULLSHIT, AHLER IS 6'2 AND ABOUT 260 LB.S. THERE IS PHYSIOLOGICAL WAY THAT A MAN THAT SIZE COULD HAVE REACHED PT. 15 PERCENT BLOOD ALCOHOL, TWICE THE STATE LIMIT ON THREE GLASSES OF WINE. SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER AHLER LIE: MY OPINION. AT .15 PERCENT MOST DRUNKS ARE SEEING DOUBLE AND SLURRING THERE WORDS. yet THE DA SAID ALCOHOL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AHLER HITTING AND KILLING THAT PEDESTRIAN. I REITERATE... BULLSHIT) according to the decision by the California State Personnel Board.

After the fatal Sept. 18, 2001, crash, he served ONE night in jail, pleaded  guilty to "misdemeanor drunken driving," paid $1,200 in fines and had to  attend counseling and ONE session in which victims described the impact of drunken driving on their lives and those of their loved ones, court records show. Ahler has been an administrative law judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings in San Diego since 1994, typically hearing  similar cases in which professionals have their licenses suspensions or revoked

BUT HOW AHLER  SUFFERED HE CLAIMS!
 Because of his conviction, Ahler – who had been promoted in June  2001 from a position paying $102,614 annually to a higher rank as an  administrative law judge specialist, which pays $107,641 – was demoted. HE HAS SINCE MADE UP THAT SALARY DIFFERENCE MANY TIMES OVER - UNLIKE the "discipline" shoveled out to MOST OF AHLER'S VICTIMS OTHER WISE KNOWN AS  "DEFENDANTS" when FORCED INTO AHLER'S KANGAROO COURT. 

WWHATEVER  THE AGENCY WANTS.  PAID FOR BY HUGE LAW FIRMS FOR THESE "Agencys" i.e. Government or school district employees. 

But H. JAMES AHLER KEPT HIS JOB!  How many paychecks a month does Alher get? (Or perhaps he's paid in cash for his services to these agencies and their attorneys?) Ahler told officers when he was arrested that he drank three glasses of  wine within an hour of the crash, according to documents from the  personnel board, which hears appeals from state employees who feel they've been wrongly disciplined.

In Vista Superior Court, Ahler admitted his blood-alcohol level at the time of the crash was .15 of a percent, nearly twice the .08 of a percent at which California motorists are presumed to be too drunk to drive.

Compare "Dickless" James Ahler's own behavior with the average "discipline" afforded most drunks who kill another human while driving intoxicated! Don't take my word look this up yourself. But don't bother asking Sacramento! No one seems to want to talk about Ahler's Behavior. This includes the AG's office, Jerry Brown's office, the supervising ALJ appointed by Brown.

Ahler was not charged with killing 67-year-old Charles Ames of Escondido because his drinking didn't contribute to the death, said prosecutor Evan Miller. He admitted to being drunk while driving but that drunken driving didn't contribute? WOW, I want to be President of a local bar, no pun intended, association.

Miller said Ames (the pedestrian), whose own blood-alcohol level was reported to be .28, crossed against a red light in a dark corner wearing dark clothing. None of a half-dozen witnesses to the crash saw him before impact, he said. (Sorry but that  sort of surprise on the road happens 2-3 times in the experiences of most drivers ,SOBER drivers and in similar circumstances almost NEVER end up in a COLLLISION LET ALONE A FATALITY involving a pedestrian at an intersection. Most are lit anyway.)  How the hell were there six witnesses at four A.M. anyway? Were they all
NNorth County San Diego attorneys?

Defense lawyer Daniel Cronin said Ahler was "not responsible for the death." )

"The pedestrian ran out in front of him,"Cronin said. "It would have happened if he was stone cold sober." (AND NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD, TRAFFIC LIGHTS OR HIS VEHICLES SPEED.)

Ahler challenged the demotion, which took place during the standard probationary period relating to the June 2001 promotion (SO INSTEAD OF REMORSE, ALJ H.JAMES AHLER IMMEDIATELY STARTED TO WHINE AND BITCH IN PUBLIC ABOUT NOT GETTING A $102 DOLLAR A WEEK RAISE)

In his defense, Ahler argued that his supervisors should have simply written a letter disapproving his actions, not taken away his promotion.  He said that, except for the conviction, he continues to do his job well.

Lawyer Everett Bobbitt, who represented Ahler before the personnel board, said the demotion was too harsh, especially because Ahler continues handling complicated cases and deserves the higher rank.

"It's really not a demotion. They're just taking money away," Bobbitt said. "The work hasn't changed at all." But an administrative law judge with the State Personnel Board ruled Ahler violated his duty as a judge by driving drunk. (Yep, he's still doing a piss poor job  that his reputation demands)

"Such conduct does not comply with the law, does not promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and demeans the judicial office," Judge William A. Snyder wrote two weeks ago, paraphrasing the Canons of Judicial Ethics in his decision upholding Ahler's 

demotion.

Snyder said some of the people coming before Ahler might question his impartiality. He noted that Ahler and his colleagues decide whether OR NOT TO FIRE AND DESTROY THE LIVES OF AHLERS JUCICIAL VICTIMS IN MUCH THE WAY HE KILLED THAT PEDESTRIAN - WITH IMPUNITY.

WHY DOES JERRY BROWN AND KAMELA HARRIS ENDORSE THIS FOOL'S BEHAVIORS BOTH ON AND OFF THE BENCH... PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE HE AND HIS BEHAVIOR ON THE BENCH EXIST AT ALL. IGNORE IT AND IT WILL GO-AWAY. 

H. JAMES AHLER IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE HIS PRESENCE WITH OAH IS THE FAULT OF THE GOVERNOR AND  ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMELA HARRIS. AHLER WILL BE THEIR RESPECTIVE LEGACYS IN MY MIND WHEN I THINK OF JUDCIAL MISDEEDS

.http://schoolcounselingvideocast.blogspot.com/2012/09/blog-post_14.html

OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN - FIRE JUDGE H. JAMES AHLER

August 12, 2012

Honorable Governor Jerry Brown,

Honorable Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California

Honorable Linda Cabatic, OAH supervising ALJ

PRA coordinator

Full Disclosure, Chief News Editor

CNN Regional News Editor

Let me ask what I am sure is and has been known in Sacramento for a decade. What circumstances has allowed a man convicted of killing a pedestrian while driving intoxicated, (by State standards), to remain as an Administrative Law Judge until now? To my knowledge, he was never disciplined for the manslaughter of the pedestrian in Vista, CA where he sits at the head of the North County Bar Association. 

In my opinion, he unofficially sits as paid "in-house Judge" for the likes of a private law firm, Friedman, Fagan and FulFrost. This firm represents almost 420 school districts. Ahler has the well-deserved reputation as executioner over the lives and careers of hundreds of educators. Almost all of these educators are denied the legal due process demanded by law, contract, the CTC and California Ed Code standards for disciplining educators. 

Ahler appears oblivious. Yet H. James Ahler's victim's family is denied closure or justice because Ahler appears to have skated under the radar by virtue of his office and connections made while in that office, according to The San Diego Tribune. Governor Brown, how can someone convicted of a misdemeanor for killing a man walking home while Ahler was about on a drunken stupor - BEHIND THE WHEEL - ever sit in judgment of anyone’s employment?

I have started investigating Judge Ahler’s association with large law firms representing (Government funded) public schools and against educators all at the top of their districts pay scale. Ironic? I am sure I will have a considerable amount more to ask once the investigation is concluded. However Governor Brown Sir, the question remains. How does a man like Ahler sit as lawfully employed Judge in any venue in California under your watch?

Under your watch Sir, you appointed Linda Cabatic to replace the former OAH supervising judge. I am sure you saw the need for change of the quasi-constitutional and quasi ethical tribunal. Despite your efforts, nothing of substance has changed and Administrative Law Judges like James Ahler sit in judgment and in Ahler's case specifically; while having escaped fair judgment himself. Ahler is an example why the OAH is universally seen as the new extension to Public School District’s hiring and firing process and their ability to cull highly paid Educators from the payroll. In turn more educators are having to sue their districts in Civil court to find a remedy. Ultimately, this ends up costing the local tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary attorney’s fees and judgments every year.

 No Educator enters this process expecting any semblance of 'justice,' especially when agency attorneys can depend on the strategy of a last minute motion to remove a presiding ALJ and without notifying the defendant, pull Ahler in. 

Ahler himself has been suspended for his overt acts to control the outcome of OA hearings in favor of the agency (e.g. OAH hearing Maura Larkins, San Diego.) As Governor, why would you allow the likes of H. James Ahler to represent the OAH of our State? Yet, Ahler remains a dirty little secret of California's legal system. Ahler represents a significant stain on your administration and bane to the CTC's efforts to keep good educators. I hope you will order an investigation of H. James.

FDN’s video “The Cost of Courage.” Richard I Fine's fight against judical corruption, Los Angeles and California.

Thank you for your personal attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

IMAGINE!

Imagine…  union leadership that truly represents rank-and-file interests and those of students...instead of themselves and the school district. 

Originally posted by Leonard Isenberg
Perdaily.com

posted in LAUSD,UTLA

Strike Continues as Chicago Teachers Mull Contract's Gains and Losses

Theresa Moran

|  September 17, 2012

Striking Chicago teachers will remain out of the classroom until Wednesday at least, after delegates decided to give union members time to debate the tentative contract negotiators brought to them on Sunday.

Delegates said that all members of the union--not just elected representatives--should get a chance to review and weigh in on the proposed agreement before a decision was made to go back to work.

The agreement makes significant gains on many key issues for the union, including how teachers are evaluated, while accepting concessions in health care and job security. Still left to be determined is how the city will find the funds needed to overhaul crumbling schools and pay for the libraries, health, and social services that the union demands for schoolchildren.

The school board has been trying for the past week to isolate the union negotiating team from the Chicago Teachers Union's broader membership, going so far as to tell the press that a settlement was sure to be in place by the beginning of this week, long before delegates, let alone rank-and-file members, had even seen contract summaries.

But CTU's leadership refused to push the tentative agreement on members without letting them decide for themselves whether it was acceptable. "I'm not going to say this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and try to sell it to them. I'm not a marketer," said union President Karen Lewis. "Our people know how to read, they know how to do math, and they understand these things."

According to Vice President Jesse Sharkey, "the board forgot to do one thing: bring along the people who actually do the work."

MOMENTOUS DECISION

Delegates agreed. High school history teacher Jen Johnson, a member of the team coordinating strike logistics, said even though delegates could have decided on ending the strike themselves, they didn't think it was fair to make such a "momentous decision" without broader member input.

"It's not just a contract vote," she said. "We're on strike and it's a different context. People felt very strongly about having a little time with their members."

At Hibberd Elementary, picket line chants were replaced with murmurs and questions this morning as teachers huddled in groups of three and four to peer over contract summaries circulating through the crowd.

"Morale is much higher today than it was last week because now we have a framework and something tangible in our hands," said kindergarten teacher Emily Gann.

After the morning picket, Hibberd teachers filed into a nearby church for a report from delegates on yesterday's meeting and a discussion of members' opinions on the tentative agreement.

Union delegates held similar meetings with their members today across the city.

Delegates will meet again Tuesday night to vote on the tentative agreement.

WHAT'S IN IT

The tentative agreement contains some bright spots. Not only was the union able to stave off merit pay, but it maintained raises based on education and experience that Mayor Rahm Emanuel (and corporate education interests nationwide) have vowed to end.

Student test scores will now comprise up to 30 percent of a teacher's evaluation, the minimum allowed by state law. Mid-year evaluations, which principals often use to oust teachers, have been disallowed.

The union also gained ground on recall rights, a key concern for teachers as the city is poised to close some 200 schools. Laid-off teachers would have full recall rights if their old jobs are reinstated within 10 months. At least half of all positions that open up must now be filled with a laid-off teacher.

At the same time, the agreement is by no means perfect. Keeping teacher health care contributions low required the union to sign off on an unpopular "wellness program" that uses carrot-and-stick incentives to force members to participate in diet, nutrition, and disease monitoring.

The evaluation system will include a "needs improvement" category that makes it easier for teachers to be let go.

And not much progress was made on an issue considered vital to the union's community supporters, reducing class size. School officials had attempted to gut the contract language that governed class size, which CTU fought off. But the language as it stands has proved insufficient and difficult to enforce. Current policy requires the district to take action when class size exceeds 35, but teachers have reported kindergarten classes over 40 and high school classes over 50.

Perhaps most worrisome to teachers anticipating school closures, though, is the fact that laid-off teachers would now receive only six months of severance pay as opposed to a year, the current practice.

While she's encouraged by the progress that's been made, Johnson says she's still "very concerned about teacher evaluations, the length of the displacement pool, and the lack of movement on wraparound services."

The board agreed to increase those services by hiring more social workers, psychologists, counselors, and nurses, but only if new revenue became available. The union has campaigned to redirect millions of dollars in tax breaks handed to downtown business interests to schools.

Johnson hopes that by staying out longer, more progress can be made on these key issues. "This is a game of chess and it's the board's move. We've shown our strength."

COURT-SIDE

Emanuel tried to make his next move today by filing for an injunction against the union, claiming members were striking over illegal non-economic issues like class size and recall rights.

The union, though, has announced legal reasons for the strike since the beginning. When the strike was announced last Sunday, union leaders gave evaluation procedures and policies as their major reason for going out.

In deciding to continue the strike, delegates said only that they wanted to give members the chance to review the agreement.

The injunction request also says CTU is putting the city's children in danger by closing down schools and leaving them nowhere to go.

The Chicago Sun-Times rebutted the idea that children were in grave danger, reporting that homicides in the first four days of the strike were even down from the same dates last year.

The district's "spur-of-the-moment decision to seek injunctive relief some six days later appears to be a vindictive act instigated by the mayor," said CTU spokeswoman Stephanie Gadlin.

Cook County Judge Peter Flynn seemed to agree this morning. He moved to delay a hearing on the board's request for an injunction until Wednesday, saying he wanted to speak with the union first.

To change the terms of the deal, the union's membership would have to reject the tentative agreement and send negotiators back to the table.

Gann, for one, is happy with the deal as is.

"There are a lot of things in the contract we didn't think we were going to get," she said. "No one thought we'd get them down to 30 percent" on evaluations.

Nonetheless, she's glad members get the chance to do a close reading.

"We want to make sure things are set up to benefit students and get the educational system more towards the way we want it to be," she said. "If it's not, we'll just keep fighting."

18

09 2012

by Leonard Isenberg
posted in LAUSD,UTLA
No Comments

‹ LAUSD: THIS AMERICAN LIE

Am I crazy too

Here's how every child can have an excellent teacher--
without firing or laying-off any teachers!

Follow up to the post, "Am I crazy to think that...

by Maura Larkins

San Diego Education Report

By Maura Larkins 
"There’s very good evidence that teacher quality
matters a lot in terms of student performance in
school and success later on in life.

The economist Raj Chetty of Harvard, for example, has found that students randomly placed with more experienced kindergarten teachers not
only perform better on tests but earn more and save more for retirement as adults, are likelier to go to college, and go to better colleges than their peers with less experienced teachers.

Eric Hanushek of Stanford estimates that a good teacher – defined as at the 84th percentile... Provides students with test scores associated withan increase of between $22,000 and $46,000
in lifetime earnings."--Washington Post
Lots of kids get stuck for years with various incompetent teachers, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can fix the problem. And not spend any more money!

HERE'S THE PLAN:

An excellent teacher could come into each classroom for just a few hours a week and make a huge difference--if that teacher had responsibility for student  success and authority to make decisions.

Parents should not need political clout to get a good teacher for their child. Every student should--and could--have a great teacher, without wasting time and energy on the losing battle to fire incompetent teachers.

The truth is that the critical moments in learning don't happen continuously five hours a  day. They add up to at most a couple of hours each day, and probably much less. The rest of the time an ordinary, mediocre teacher can handle the skill practice and lesson reinforcement, omputer activities, art projects, silent reading (how much skill is needed to be in charge of that?) and so on.

GIVING SUPPORT TEACHERS A REAL JOB

At my old school we were paying a top salary--well over $60,000, for a computer teacher who was very nice, but her job was merely to familiarize kids with computer programs. An aide could have done the job. When the principal (Ollie Matos) tried to switch that computer teacher to giving basic reading and math lessons, the teachers went ballistic. The story became a sensation in the San Diego Press, and a group of angry teachers were named the "Castle Park Five" by San Diego Union-Tribune editor Don Sevrens. Basically, what the teachers wanted was 45 minutes a week in which they could send their students to another teacher. But in my plan, classroom teachers would have this kind of help and relief for more than an entire day each week! The nice computer teacher could become a master teacher!

Resource teachers like computer teachers and language and math support teachers could become master teachers. And let's face it: how much good are those resource teachers able to do? They go around and offer suggestions, but they are really doing the equivalent of passing out band-aids. I would never want such a job. It might be relaxing not to have direct responsibility for student learning, but isn't that the point of being a teacher?

NO MORE ABUSIVE TEACHERS

Academics would not be the only thing that master teachers would be responsible for. 
Abusive, immature teachers with a habit of undermining students could be overruled and 
guided by the master teacher.

WE COULD SAVE MONEY!

Why do we pay bad teachers the same amount of money as good teachers? It makes no 
sense!

Excellent teachers should be paid much more than average teachers, and could be responsible for all students in several classrooms.

Each classroom could have a full-time regular teacher who be paid a lower salary, but would be eligible to become a master teacher. The master teacher would also be responsible for helping and guiding the regular teacher.

In California the average teacher salary is roughly $60,000 (with a starting salary of $35,000.) We could allow regular teachers to rise in salary to an average of $50 thousand, and allow master teachers to rise to an average of $100 thousand--for overseeing our classrooms (or, in a time of better budgets, three classrooms.

Money for support teachers and teacher aides would be switched to master teacher positions in the classrooms. (Of course, special education would still require teacher aides.) Some people who are currently teacher aides could become regular teachers.)

Here's the comparison for four classrooms and one extra salary (thousands):

Currently: $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 = $300

New plan: $100 + $50 + $50 + $50 + $50 = $300

MEANINGFUL EVALUATIONS OF TEACHERS WOULD BE REQUIRED
Of course, meaningful evaluations of teachers would have to be instituted to make this plan work. Current evaluation systems are worse than useless. My plan would call for frequent observations by both master and regular teachers, but they would observe classrooms in other districts to keep school politics out of the process as much as possible. The observations would have a beneficial side effect: they would allow teachers to pick up new ideas.

I believe it would be good to use student test scores when choosing who is to be a master  teacher, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. The good thing about it is that it would take some of the politics out of teacher evaluation. It should be noted that although student test scores vary widely from year to year for most teachers, some teachers do get 
consistently high scores from their students year after year.

"Am I crazy? I believe every child can have an excellent teacher--without firing any teachers?"

TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2012

Posted August 21, 2012 by Maura Larkins,

San Diego Education Report Blog

Am I crazy? I believe every child can have an excellent teacher--without firing any teachers!

Lots of kids get stuck for years with various incompetent teachers, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can fix the problem. And save money!

Am I crazy to think this?

HERE'S THE MATH:

Here's the comparison for four classrooms and one extra salary (thousands):

Currently: $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 = $300

New plan: $90 + $45 + $45 + $45 + $45 = $270

HERE'S THE PLAN:

An excellent teacher could come into each classroom for just a few hours a week and make a huge difference--if that teacher had responsibility for student success and authority to make decisions.

Parents should not need political clout to get a good teacher for their child. Every student should--and could--have a great teacher, without wasting time and energy on the losing battle to fire incompetent teachers.

The truth is that the critical moments in learning don't happen continuously five hours a day. They add up to at most a couple of hours each day, and probably much less. The rest of the time an ordinary, mediocre teacher can handle the skill practice and lesson reinforcement, computer activities, art projects, silent reading (how much skill is needed to be in charge of that?) and so on.

GIVING SUPPORT TEACHERS A REAL JOB

At my old school we were paying a top salary--well over $60,000, for a computer teacher who was very nice, but her job was merely to familiarize kids with computer programs. An aide could have done the job. When the principal (Ollie Matos) tried to switch that computer teacher to giving basic reading and math lessons, the teachers went ballistic. The story became a sensation in the San Diego Press, and a group of angry teachers were named the "Castle Park Five" by San Diego Union-Tribune editor Don Sevrens. Basically, what the teachers wanted was 45 minutes a week in which they could send their students to another teacher. But in my plan, classroom teachers would have this kind of help and relief for more than an entire day each week! The nice computer teacher could become a master teacher!

Resource teachers like computer teachers and language and math support teachers could become master teachers. And let's face it: how much good are those resource teachers able to do? They go around and offer suggestions, but they are really doing the equivalent of passing out band-aids. I would never want such a job. It might be relaxing not to have direct responsibility for student learning, but isn't that the point of being a teacher?

NO MORE ABUSIVE TEACHERS

Academics would not be the only thing that master teachers would be responsible for. Abusive, immature teachers with a habit of undermining students could be overruled and guided by the master teacher.

WE COULD SAVE MONEY!

Why do we pay bad teachers the same amount of money as good teachers? It makes no sense!

Excellent teachers should be paid much more than average teachers, and could be responsible for all students in several classrooms.

Each classroom could have a full-time regular teacher who be paid a lower salary, but would be eligible to become a master teacher. The master teacher would also be responsible for helping and guiding the regular teacher.

Here is a chart of average teacher salaries in the US.

In California the average teacher salary is roughly $60,000 (with a starting salary of $35,000.)

We could allow regular teachers to rise in salary to an average of $45 thousand, and allow master teachers to rise to an average of $90 thousand--for overseeing four classrooms.

Money for support teachers and teacher aides would be switched to master teacher positions in the classrooms. (Of course, special education would still require teacher aides.) Some people who are currently teacher aides could become regular teachers.)

Here's the comparison for four classrooms and one extra salary (thousands):

Currently: $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 = $300

New plan: $90 + $45 + $45 + $45 + $45 = $270

MEANINGFUL EVALUATIONS OF TEACHERS WOULD BE REQUIRED

Of course, meaningful evaluations of teachers would have to be instituted to make this plan work. Current evaluation systems are worse than useless. My plan would call for frequent observations by both master and regular teachers, but they would observe classrooms in other districts to keep school politics out of the process as much as possible. The observations would have a beneficial side effect: they would allow teachers to get pick up new ideas.

I believe it would be good to use student test scores when choosing who is to be a master teacher, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. The good thing about it is that it would take some of the politics out of teacher evaluation. It should be noted that although student test scores vary widely from year to year for most teachers, some teachers do get consistently high scores from their students year after year.

What to Do if the Unthinkable Happens... and You are Forced to Rely On Your CTA Appointed Attorney?

The following came from Union Plus Legal Services web site:
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the claims here in

AFT, pursuant to the AFT Legal Defense Fund, assists FEA by sharing the costs of in-house counsel on matters that fall within the scope of its program.  In-house counsel provide representation to locals in matters before the Public Employees Relations Commission; appeals of final agency orders; and legal actions relative to collective bargaining, organizing or political action.  The Office also provides representation to individual members in dismissal, certification, appeals of final agency orders when legally warranted, and other matters as determined under the program.

Find a Lawyer in Your Area

NOTE: When you contact a lawyer in the network, tell them you're calling for the Union Plus Legal Service so you can get your free initial onsultation and discount.

1.     Call  1-888-993-8886 (9-7 ET, M-F) or

2.     Find a lawyer online and after selecting a lawyer, use the online tool to notify that lawyer by email of your intent to contact their office; you can even briefly describe your legal issue.

3.     Print a Union Plus Legal Service business card as a handy reference.

No participating lawyers in your area? Let us know where the program needs participating lawyers, email legal@unionprivilege.org or recommend a lawyer in your area by completing this form.

Find a lawyer in your area using the Union Plus Legal Service

In legal matters, union members rely on expert advice. And to help find lawyers who can answer their personal legal questions, members can consult the Union Plus Legal Service.

Need a lawyer? Lawyers in the legal panel have expertise in:

 Family law
 Traffic matters
Wills and estate-planning
Real estate
 Immigration law and more.

The Union Plus Legal Service helps:

Make legal services more accessible and affordable to union members and their families.
Simplify the search for legal advice for working families.
Encourage the use of preventive law-get advice before a legal question becomes a legal problem.

"Legal aid services you can trust:"

Selective? (HARDLY!) Union Plus Legal Service lawyers are carefully selected to make sure members receive the best cheapest services available (to CTA). Labor-friendly? (Unless you think attorney malfeasance and the loss of YOUR career unfriendly.) Many of the panel of attorneys serving the program have been selected from lists of lawyers involved in the union movement and those involved with similar group legal services programs. 

Do You Know? Is it Really True? Not in This Educators Experience

One of the (supposed) benefits provided by NEA and your State Association is job rights protection under the Kate Frank/DuShane Unified Legal Services Program (ULSP). The following is printed right off a state NEA affiliate's site:


The ULSP is a jointly sponsored NEA and state affiliate program that provides appropriate legal assistance to members who are subjected to discipline or discharge by their employer. But did you also know that NEA provides two other important benefits that may be available to members who are falsely accused?  


Some cases involving very serious allegations can result in criminal charges being filed against you and may require you to retain a criminal defense attorney. If the charges arise in the course of your employment and you are fully exonerated or all the charges are dropped, then the NEA (approved )Educators Employment Liability (EEL) Program will reimburse you up to $35,000 for attorneys’ fees.  (Note:  If the criminal charges are limited to corporal punishment, there is reimbursement even if you are not exonerated.)  JUST DON'T GET CAUGHT DISSENTING FROM THE CTA/NEA PARTY LINE OR YOU'LL STAND ALONE REGARDLESS.


Be sure to contact your state Association CTA, before retaining a criminal defense attorney. (THIS WAY THEY CAN CHECK YOU AGAINST A LIST OF KNOWN CTA DETRACTORS.) Your state Association may be able to recommend a reputable attorney who has experience with child abuse cases.


You also might be sued for damages by the alleged victim and/or the parents. Under the EEL Program, all NEA members are covered for claims up to $1 million in civil lawsuits against them for damages and attorneys’ fees arising out of their employment activities. The policy kicks in after any insurance available through the school district, and is subject to several exclusions.  

Check with YOUR state Association (Of course! Those lying pricks!) for additional information about the scope of  CTA coverage under the EEL Program.

Our Union Leaders Are Betraying Us. Lieing to us. Stealing From Us...

First published Monday, June 04, 2012

in Schools Matter.

Attention All Teachers (Educators): Your Union Leaders Are Betraying You

Though this article is about Massachusetts it perfectly true for California as well. Last year Paul Toner, the ostensible leader of the MA Teachers Association, surrendered his membership by capitulating without a whimper to the first step in the corporate blueprint to replace tenured and experienced teachers with a new generation of untrained neophytes who will cycle through the system after a two to three year stint.  That first step in that process was to establish a teacher evaluation scheme based on student test scores, and to link job security pay to those test scores.  Toner accomplished this feat without a vote by the rank and file--not even an opinion survey. 

This kind of open contempt for the teachers he was elected to represent in 2010 signified a transparent betrayal of teachers and children for the self-aggrandizing goal of cozying up to the corporate foundations and education terrorist organizations like Stand for Children (see Jonah Edelman spill the beans on the real goals of Stand on Children).

Now we find that President Toner has surrendered Massachusetts teachers once more in Step 2 of the corporate education deformers' plan to destroy teacher tenure, job security, and due process .  From Barbara Gordon posted Saturday on Facebook:

This week the Massachusetts Teachers Association's Board of Directors voted to put forward legislation that will end the use of tenure and seniority as the primary factors to use in layoff situations. Instead, the primary criteria will be performance evaluations and "the best interests of the students" with seniority being used only for "tie-breakers."  

This was a "legislative compromise" the MTA leadership worked out with educational terrorists Stand for Children, who had a ballot question that did the same thing and more, ready for the November election. The MTA leadership negotiated this compromise without input or approval from rank and file MTA members. Their position is that there is no way we could have beaten Stand on the ballot question so it was better to compromise and lose seniority rights and involuntary transfer rights than to fight and possibly lose those things and more.  

People are shocked and furious. Does anyone have any ideas for anything we can do about this? They are pushing to get this into the legislature and passed by July 3, the deadline when Stand for Children has to submit the final paperwork for the ballot question. 

We know we might lose the ballot question, but we wanted a chance to fight. If the MTA leadership will not fight for us, where are we? What are we paying our dues for?

And this from Tim Scott:

MTA & STAND FOR CHILDREN: As we know, collective bargaining entails negotiating with our employer over our compensation, hours of work and working conditions (broadly). Under these rules, we often need to organize ourselves to take action to ensure that we strengthen our contracts, while not giving away past gains. 

The current MTA leadership has now decided to take us in a new and very different direction and bargain (secretly in the beginning) with Stand for Children - a private anti-union, corporate front group - not only over contractual issues, but fundamental union rights. Instead of organizing members and allies to fight this aggressive assault by a group notoriously hostile to teachers unions, Toner and company chose to take a pathetic and defeatist stance to enter into "negotiations" with Stand, knowing that teachers rights and the the union's integrity will be significantly damaged.

There is one solution to this problem, and it is the same solution to the problem RIDDLED OFTEN CORRUPT NEA and CTA:  replace the duplicitous cowardly union leaders who have sold millions of dues paying union members down the river in mass, espousing the same at the local level and refusing to allow descent.  But even these measures will not be enough, for the new leaders must be chosen (which would imply the right for members to vote) from those few young men and women with courage and a willingness to lead the FIGHT. Who will restore the social justice mission that unionism was once based upon, a mission that advocates for children's rights to read and learn and grow, parents rights to have a say in school matters (COURAGE ENOUGH TO SAY THE SCHOOL BOARD SYSTEM FAILED AT THAT TASK), and workers' rights to the respect and dignity that is afforded teachers and school staff in other countries as a matter of course.

 There is no future for educating all children, or parents emmeshed in their children's learning while having Gates and Broad control the voices of Educators by buying off phony leaders like Paul Toner, and ramrodding poorly thought out ideals (extrapolated from reading a lot of books, we're told) but having no significant idea what occurs in the classroom. That's right Neither ever taught. 

 Let's not forget GATES built Microsoft on stolen tech that it's self was stolen by JOBS from Bell Laboratorys, and grew the behemoth MS without any real competition. He doesn't qualify as a sociology or education genius in my book. He just has a lot of money. So does the prince of Saudi Arabia. Are the Saudi Royals then education experts as well?

If the teaching profession is to be saved for now and the future, teachers must take back their unions (F... that, union leaders need to reach out to members in meaningful ways, open their accounting books, embrace descent) prepare for the impending fight to come (yes, be prepared to strike!) and reclaim the mission that made them a movement of solidarity among teachers, parents, and students.  There is no other choice, and there is no greater calling.
I Praetorian