EDUCATORS VOTE YES STRIKE!

Chicago Teachers Vote overwhelming for Strike Authorization as Contract Negotiations Continue; Union to use leverage to fight for smaller class sizes

CHICAGO – Today, the Chicago Teachers Union revealed nearly 90 percent of its eligible members voted to give their labor organization the authority to call a strike should contract negotiations reach an impasse. The Union has been in negotiations with the Chicago Public School system since November 2011. A new state law requires a 75 percent of all eligible CTU voters to vote in the affirmative in order to provide strike authorization.

Although both CTU and CPS are in the fact-finding stage of negotiations, the Union pointed out that the independent review will only provide recommendations on a small number of contract concerns. Public school educators say they are fighting for smaller class sizes, art, music, world language and physical education classes for students, and fair compensation for being asked to work under more difficult guidelines as determined by CPS.

Armed with strike authorization, teachers, paraprofessionals and clinicians say they believe this will give them more leverage at the bargaining table going forward. Should a strike become necessary, the Union’s 800-member House of Delegates will set the date for a work stoppage. The three-day vote tally showed:

Category	Number	÷ Membership =	%
Total Membership	26,502	÷ 26,502 =	100.00%
Members Voting “YES”	23,780	÷ 26,502 =	89.73%
Members Voting “NO”	482	÷ 26,502 =	1.82%
Members Casting Votes	24,262	÷ 26,502 =	91.55%
Members Not Voting (includes 494 spoiled ballots)	2,240	÷ 26,502 =	8.45%

Day	Daily Votes*	Number	÷ Vote Count =	%
1	Total Votes	19,614	÷ 19,614 =	100.00%
	“YES” Votes	19,235	÷ 19,614 =	98.01%
	“NO” Votes	379	÷ 19,614 =	1.93%
2	Total Votes	2,108	÷ 2,108 =	100.00%
	“YES” Votes	2,060	÷ 2,108 =	97.72%
	“NO” Votes	48	÷ 2,108 =	2.28%
3	Total Votes	392	÷    392 =	100.00%
	“YES” Votes	370	÷    392 =	94.39%
	“NO” Votes	22	÷    392 =	5.61%
S	Total Votes	2,148	÷  2,148 =	100.00%
	“YES” Votes	2,115	÷  2,148 =	98.46%
	“NO” Votes	33	÷  2,148 =	1.54%
Total Votes		24,262	÷ 24,262 =	100.00%
“YES” Votes		23,780	÷ 24,262 =	98.01%
“NO” Votes		482	÷ 24,262 =	1.99%

* Daily Votes were totaled each day for members on the roster for each school. "S" refers to Supplemental ballots, which are those cast by employees voting at a site where they do not appear on the roster (e.g. school social workers or nurses, who service multiple schools). These votes are tallied separately.

CTU President Karen GJ Lewis, NBCT, said the following during a news conference today:

“We have called you here today to announce the results of the strike authorization vote held last week. The results are not a win. They are an indictment on the state of the relationship between the ‘management’ of CPS and its largest labor force, members of the Chicago Teachers Union. It is also an indictment of the outside groups that seek to destroy the real work being done by Chicago’s teachers, paraprofessionals, and clinicians.

“We do not understand why Democrats for Education Reform, Education Reform Now and other organizations continue to stand on the backs of our children and profess to care about them when they ignore the harsh realities of their lives. And while our members work in schools that are under-resourced, under-staffed and under-appreciated, they have toiled in silence long enough while the mayors of this city have exerted control, shut down schools, and handed over facilities to their well-connected friends.

“The problems with our schools will not be answered by overpaid outside consultants or billionaire education dilettantes but rather by the people who actually work in our schools with our children in full partnership with the District. For some reason, this administration has behaved as if the Union was some out-of-touch bureaucracy only speaking for ourselves. But the dominant narrative among the so-called Ed Reformers in concert with city’s business fathers and mothers has been that the reason why CPS is in such bad shape is that its teachers are incompetent.

“This new leadership of the CTU were all classroom teachers and paraprofessionals two years ago. We have the pulse of our members. We listened to what they had to say. And we made a plan using the tools and the resources we have. That’s what teachers do. We analyzed the data and adjusted our plans. But all along, we had the feedback of the members in our schools. While the chaos on Clark Street continues, our members—intent on being heard—were loud, clear, and serious.

“We want a contract that gives Chicago’s students the schools they deserve. So we call on CPS to take the process seriously and negotiate with us in good faith and with an eye on the real prize: Our children.”

Proud to be a Teacher (Educator?) Ashamed to be CTA?

Proud to be a Teacher(Educator)?

Ashamed to be CTA?

Let me preface with the often used but true statement: I believe in unions, I have walked three picket lines before the age of 25 and CTA is functionally useless. As we stand on the parapet of the crumbling dreams of so many far sighted men and women. This our "Alamo," allegorically speaking,  and all we can hope for from CTA "leadership" is a half-hearted magazine column on issues they should have addressed four years ago. By the way, of course the magazine only goes out to educators. Let me remind President Vogal not all CTA members are teachers. Just the obvious majority.

Excerpts from and opinions on the article

Proud to be a Teacher

By CTA President Dean E. Vogel

Sometimes the challenges we face on a daily basis in our classrooms are so great that it’s hard to remember the rewards of our profession and the reason why we chose to be educators. That’s why it’s been a delight to read thank-you notes from students that our members have shared with us over the past few months. Letters to the “Thank You, Teacher!” project can be read online at www.cta.org/thankyouteacher, and they give us all a moment to pause and remember why we are in it and why we stay.

This month, I received a note from one of my former students, and believe me, it both surprised and deeply touched me. Rachel was a student of mine in kindergarten, and her childhood memories of my class included me playing the guitar, singing during circle time, and enforcing a rule against children playing with their Velcro shoes.

Rachel wrote, “Thank you so much for all that you did. My inner child and outer adult ever appreciate it.”

She concluded her letter by letting me know she is now in her seventh year of teaching and “couldn’t imagine being anything else but an educator.”

I felt the same pride when I went to Washington, D.C., to see Rebecca Mieliwocki, a California middle school teacher and member of the Burbank Teachers Association, honored as National Teacher of the Year during a White House ceremony.

Rebecca related that she had been working in publishing when she realized something was missing. I was struck by her comment: “I took some time to make a list of things I needed and wanted in my ‘perfect’ job: creativity, decision-making control, fun, flexibility, stability, the potential to work with young people. It dawned on me that teaching was the obvious place.”

Rachel’s note and Rebecca’s achievement served as personal reminders to me of why we do it. They are also reminders of why I became involved with my union. It was to make things better for teachers and for our students.

These days it’s hard for a teacher to turn around without feeling like she’s under attack. Many of us would prefer to retreat to our classrooms, mind our own business and just teach our students. We may not be interested in the political drama. But as the Greek statesman Pericles once said, “Just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”

Politics directly impacts almost everything we do in our schools and in our classrooms. And many politicians and corporate power brokers behave as if they know more about the dynamics of teaching and learning than we do. Yet no one knows better than we do what our students need to be successful.

We are facing some crucial issues coming up in the November election that will test that notion. As much as we’d like to shut the door of our classrooms and just teach, we won’t be able to do that without passing a funding initiative that will begin to provide the resources to adequately fund our schools. We won’t be able to do that if our voice is silenced and our ability to participate in politics is taken away. We won’t be able to do that if we don’t elect candidates who will advocate for public education.

In the coming weeks, I know many of us will be preoccupied with year-end activities (and the grim future with no Job, and) little time to do much else than help our students and each other tie things up and move forward. But as we head into summer, I hope you take some time for yourselves to recuperate and recharge. I also hope you take some time to become involved with this campaign season. Read through this issue of the Educator, go to our website, learn about the election issues we face, and step up. For the sake of our students, and for the sake of our profession, we all need to be involved in the election ahead. If not us, who? If not now, when?

Exactly dean when?

when WILL CTA DEVELOP A STRIKE AND DEFENSE FUND? WHEN WILL CTA SHOW SOME TRANSPARENCY WITH ITS INTERNAL OPERATIONS? WHEN WILL CTA STOP TAKING 70% OF OUR LOCAL DUES AND RETURN ALMOST NOTHING? WHEN WILL CTA LAWYERS START REPRESENTING EVERY MEMBER WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR THE "COMPROMISE BONUS" THEIR PAID? WHEN WILL CTA START TO EMBRACE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPALS SO EACH MEMBER HAS A SAY, AT LEAST IN THE ELECTION OF STATE "MANAGERS?" WHEN DEAN, WILL CTA STOP HIDING FROM dissent AND START TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND WHERE IT COMES FROM AND IT'S INTRINSIC VALUE? WHEN WILL CTA START A POLICY OF HONESTY WITH THEIR MEMBERSHIP? WHEN WILL CTA STEP UP AND LEAD US IN THE GOOD FIGHT INSTEAD OF SOFT SELLING EXCUSES AFTER THE FACT? AS THE TIDE OF GREED AND DESPERATE POLITICS IS ALREADY CRESTING, CARRYING OUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST HOPES IN ITS FILTHY WATERS; wHEN DEAN DOES CTA BECOME A REAL UNION?
I, PRAETORIAN (EDUCATOR)

Educator of the Year!

Educator of the Year 2011!  
CTA's Educator of the Year is Often a Great Teacher, but always a non-political, without options, without opinions and whose real qualification for the benign appointment is their ability to talk the Burlingame rhetoric (SIMILAR IN SIGNIFICANCE TO... "DO'N THE HAND-JIVE") with robot like precision. While being undeniably good at their craft, they are in fact, the "person(S) most likely if there were a real vote, to be voted "Miss Congeniality"). Actually, I believe at one time David Sanchez was Miss Congeniality. Five years straight!


So we at Disenfranchised-Educators have taken it upon ourselves to announce our own Educator of the Year. The qualities we will always seek for this entitled position are: that person be not only a good highly qualified educator whether classified, certificated, or administrative; who works hard (not 70 hours a week) and works passionately for students, their parents and and their coworkers. "Educators count too!" And it is mandatory that they have some sense of political awareness. We unreservedly embrace that idea even if theirs is a political position contrary to ours here at Disenfranchised – Educators, we must honor and investigate descention for its true utility. And unwavering foundation in a true democracy.


This year myself, our entire editorial staff (currently rumored to be somewhere in a bar near Juarez, Mexico) and our one reader – Marion where ever he is, have unanimously elected Ms. Maura Larkins of San Diego. She herself works from a blog site for educators. Our editorial staff have, in consultation with reader Marion (who in turn Bankrolled the cause - Yesterday's lunch) take great pleasure in announcing the many payments, many accomplishments and legal victories of this months winner; Maura. Tenacity and unwavering passion for doing the right thing sets her apart. Thank you Maura. "You have more admirers than you'll ever know."


 I Praetorian


Along with the many note worthy legal poundings She has given to the Southern California School Districts' special are those givin to those ignorant enough or so poorly managed that they fell prey to the cheapest choice of legal seaguls; Friedman, Flouckman and Freud. Otherwise known as the  F-UP law partners law firm.


F, F and FU have a Walmart approach toward signing and defending school districts. READ - Spending YOUR TAX DOLLARS. (even better, more than 400 School Districts nearby depend on the  F-UP GROUP who prey on simple minded HR directors and administrators, teasing them in with 200 dollars a billable hour. However, with 400 districts REPRESENTED, they don't even know the names of most of their superintendents. They actually have yet to prove they have 400 employees at all. Including the custodial staffs in two states. Still worse I hear. They keep loosing attorneys ... 


to the prison system and FEW OF THOSE ARE CAREER MOVES.  SO, IAM TOLD.




Tune in next week for Maura's Bio and Opinions on Education in California.


PLUS! Next week


"THE WORST EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR FOR 2011." You might be surprised... A first only at Disenfranchised-Educators. 

Judge Richard Cline opposes putting court documents online, then orders court records destroyed rather than turning them over to party

Judge Richard Cline opposes putting court documents online, then orders court records destroyed rather than turning them over to party

See all posts re Judge Richard Cline.

This is one of the documents that Judge Cline doesn't want online (see Courthouse News story below).


































If I didn't know better, I'd say that Judge Cline is trying to conceal his own actions as a judge in San Diego North County Superior Court

A petitioner in the David L. Bedolla case received notice from the court that her case records would be destroyed if she didn't request that the probate department turn them over to her. She filed an ex parte request to pick up the documents.

On May 22, 2012 Judge Richard Cline refused to allow her to have the documents, ordering them to be destroyed instead.

Interestingly, Judge Cline has told Courthouse News (see next story) that he no longer uses the court's new IT system to post documents online. Why is Judge Cline so opposed to allowing the public, and even the parties in a case, to have access to case documents?

Perhaps he wants to conceal some of his own orders.

On May 24, 2012, in the case mentioned above, he supported the court clerk's violation of law when she refused to file documents. Judge Cline has made it clear that he wants to help Roland Achtel win his case.

The above events put the following story in perspective: it appears Judge Cline doesn't like the public--or in pro per parties--to have access to court records.

Seniors Turn their Backs in Protest

Highs School Seniors Turn their Backs in Protest on Speaker, Sweetwater Trustee Jim Cartmill

UTSD

Originally Published May 30, 2012by Caroline Dipping in the San Diego Education Report

Protesting teacher layoffs, dozens of Mar Vista High School, Mar Vista, CA seniors turned their backs on the keynote speaker at their graduation ceremony Tuesday on the Imperial Beach campus.

Shortly after Sweetwater Union High School District board member Jim Cartmill began his remarks at the podium, the capped and gowned students stood and turned their backs to him. They held their stance for about 20 seconds before taking their seats at the request of Mar Vista Principal Wes Braddock.

The commencement exercise continued without interruption. Braddock said the fact the seniors resumed their seats within seconds indicated “they are respectful in their hearts,” but he was still disappointed by the demonstration...

A member of Occupy Sweetwater, a community activist group leading an effort to recall trustees  Ricasa,  McCann and Cartmill, said the group was not involved in prompting or planning the students’ actions. The group has collected more than 500 of the 18,000 signatures needed by Aug. 27 to recall the board members in light of a district attorney’s investigation into illegal construction contracting procedures.

“We’re just very proud that students took such a risk and stood up for themselves and their classmates,” said Lauren McLennan, an Occupy Sweetwater member. “Some adults are already trying to blame us, but it was the students’ decision and they organized it themselves.”

Hours after his graduation ceremony, Mar Vista High senior Josh Cade posted on Occupy Sweetwater’s Facebook page.

“We took a stand against their corruption and we recommend other graduating students mimic our actions to show the school board that they can’t continue this outrageous mishandling of their budget,” Cade wrote. “They are ruining lives of our cherished teachers, mentors, and friends; students, we need to show our disapproval. ..."

IS THIS THE EXCEPTION OR ... Castle Park Elementary's PTA President is Charged with Embezzeling $20,000 in Student Funds

Chula Vista: Castle Park Elementary's PTA President Kimberlee Simmons, who repeatedly levied personal attacks at the
school's principal, Ollie Matos in the local press; has herself been charged with embezeling $20,000 from student funds Simmons was in charge of.


Within a year of the Chula Vista Star-News' running a series of negative op/ed pieces based on attacks by Simmon's  and a few Castle Park staff members toward the Principal; authorities discovered that $20,000 was missing from the elementary school's PTA accounts.  Summarily, PTA President Kimberlee Simmons was arrested for the embezzlement.


The Chula Vista Star-News neglected to run the arrest story however. Even though it and other papers had published personal stories that attacked the principal. The Star-News didn't bother to print the purported $20,000 theft and embezlement story. Neither did the San Diego Union Tribune who also published similarly harsh opinionated reports on Matos' performance, Tribune Editor Don Sevrens neglected this aspect of the story as well.

PTA PRESIDENT Kim Simmons was elected in 2004, reportedly because School Site Council leader Felicia Starr wanted someone she could control in charge of the PTA.  Starr, a parent representative on the site council, made efforts to ensure that Latino parents did not get a vote. She is said to have engaged in hostilities with Latino parents who had innocently tried to nominate candidates for the position of president.   Starr and her teacher allies were so intent on having a PTA president who would rally with them against the principal, that loyalty to these "leaders" was the one and only criterion to be elected a candidate for PTA president.


As a result of the embezzlement (the second discovered at Castle Park Elementary within 6 years), there has been no PTA at the school from mid-2005 through mid-2009.  Parents just recently began to organize themselves through ACORN. The Star-News failed to inform their readers about the resulting secretive transfers of teachers Robin Donlan and Peg Myers, an the hundreds of thousands in school district money used to defend these teachers (and, as I previously stated often happens, a cover up for the district level administrators responsible.)


The Star-News publisher Linda Rosas Townson reportedly knew the truth, but chose to reveal only a select part of the story to the public and parents, possibly to protect some of the persons involved .

IS THIS THE EXCEPTION OR ... The PTO President of a Huntington Beach elementary school, is charged with One Felony Count of Grand Theft by Embezzlement

The PTO president of a Huntington Beach elementary school, Gail Diane Panella-Monestere, 52, of Huntington Beach, is charged with one felony count of grand theft by embezzlement, prosecutors said.

Originally Published Online in 
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

By ALEJANDRA MOLINA and SEAN EMERY  

Gail Diane Panella-Monestere, 52, of Huntington Beach, was charged with one felony count of grand theft by embezzlement, according to the Orange County District Attorney's Office. She is suspected of embezzling more than $22,000 from student fundraisers, authorities said if convicted, she faces a maximum sentence of three years in Orange County Jail.

The PTO is also known in other school districts as the PTA and the PTSA; a Parent-Teacher-Student- Organization. Panella-Monestere was responsible for tracking and maintaining fundraiser money for Sun View Elementary School between September 2010 and February 2011, the District Attorney's Office said.

Prosecutors said Panella-Monestere abused her position of trust and embezzled about $22,000 when she wrote unauthorized checks to herself from the PTO bank account in amounts ranging from $250 to $800. She cashed them for personal use, prosecutors added.

Panella-Monestere is accused of keeping cash raised from fundraising events intended to be deposited into the PTO bank account.

School administrators discovered fundraiser money was missing and reported the theft to the Huntington Beach Police Department, who investigated the case.

Panella-Monestere is scheduled to appear in court for an arraignment on June 29, court officials said.

IS THIS THE EXCEPTION OR ...

This story may sound unusual and appalling considering the accusations, however having worked as an ASB director for nearly 5 years and educator for 15, I can tell you that the kind of theft that is described in the article happens at almost every school - public or private. Without district direction, school level oversight and administrative accountability, these incidents happen with widespread regularity. State budget cuts have reduced the number of experienced administrators needed and the problem is multiplied.

BACKGROUND

Most of the time school fundraising, whether it's elementary, middle or high school, is done in cash. Checks and credit cards are seldom accepted. Checks – because of the large number that are return unpaid and credit cards because the schools themselves usually cannot afford the cost.

There are basically three entities that oversee various student fundraising; most are school clubs that fall under the auspices of the ASB (Associated School Body, or student government). Others are run completely by parents, and are independent of the school or district, these are called booster clubs. Neither the principal nor the school district maintains a functional oversight. The last is the PTSA, PTO or PTA, although it may be known under other names. This is the organization of parents who fundraise for the good of the school as a whole and who are governed-by a very strict code with district level and state level hierarchies. Still, the handling of the monies is left to the parent or parents in charge.

The PTSA or PTO works directly with the staff and principal in order to provide for or assist all the staff and students at that school. However the bookkeeping and handling of large amounts of cash is left up to the means of charter's officers, often parents without systematic direction and the temptation is too often that individuals undoing. Regardless of which three organizations, theft happens almost all the time somewhere at some school in your school district. Thefts from Booster Clubs, especially high school, often amount into the hundreds of thousands each year.

JUST ANOTHER LOCAL EXAMPLE?


At the Moreno Valley Unified School District middle school at which I was the ASB co-director, between 2008-2010, teachers and other staff including the principal and his relatives were responsible for stealing as much as $100,000 in cash from student funds.  This includes theft, illegal usage, deliberate misappropriation or laundering money into other bank accounts. Folks that's just one school in one medium sized school district! 

When this kind of mishandling becomes apparent, it is often impossible for concerned individuals to get district level administrators to respond to complaints or reports about stealing of student fundraising monies. Often, these administrators are afraid the situation will become public and the disappearance or mishandling of these monies will reflect poorly on them and their job performance. (In some instances it should.) So instead of fixing the problem, a labor intensive effort, many district administrators will take the easy way out and collaborate in a series of cover-ups hoping the problem can be quietly swpt away. But the problem just becomes systemic as has happened in Moreno Valley. 


Even when presented with evidence enough to warrant a formal investigation, the Riverside County Office of Education seems hard pressed to do anything about about uncooperative districts. In 2006 Moreno Valley Unified School District defied the Riverside County Grand Jury's direction to change its accounting practices. The then Assistant Superintendent of Fiscal Services lied in a letter to the Grand Jury regarding the matter and got away with it because his statements were not thoroughly investigated. The changes the grand jury directed have not been implemented to this day. And the relasted problems have grown much larger. In keeping with the ideology of cover-up is better, Moreno Valley Unified has also ignored the Federal Government Office of Civil Rights' list of demands for change after their investigation of the districts H.R. department practices in 2005.

This kind of system wide cover up also fosters acts of retaliation. District and site level administrators hoping to silence vocal staff or parents trying to do the right thing by way of the students and their schools. This is especially true if the issue has become endemic across the entire school district. For more than 15 years this has been the case in Moreno Valley.

Some of the irresponsibility and cover up allowing these problems occurs at the level of the district school board members. Often the issues are known and liabilities discussed in the board's "closed sessions." The personalities, backgrounds and voter perceptions of the board trustees influence their decisions. These factors make for a cauldron of personal vendettas, poor dicissions, illegal investigations – usually at the behest of one or more of the trustees, thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees, and/or blind adherence to the subjective recommendations by the above-mentioned district administrators whose very employment is determined by the whims of the board members they report to.


This problem is further complicated by the trustees need to show voters their school district is being well managed so these trustees will be reelected at the end of their terms. Conversely, a politician can not hope for election to a "higher office" if they are associated with some district scandal. For many trustees the school board is just a stepping stone towards a more powerful and well paying elected office.

For others being a board member is an extension of a narrcisstic facet of their personality. Where they can take the stage in front of neighbors and local individuals. For them, inspite of their retoric, students' and parents' educational needs are seldom their driving concerns.

Attorney Discipline: System Must Weed Out Unethical Lawyers Who Damage Profession's Reputation

Originally Published by the

Los Angeles Daily Journal 

December 16, 2002

By James C. Turner and Suzanne M. Mishkin

In the fall of 2002, HALT - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform released its Lawyer Discipline Report Card, the first comprehensive evaluation of the nation's attorney discipline system in ten years. The Report Card points to persistent problems that have gone largely unremedied for over a quarter of a century.

In 1970, a blue ribbon panel led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark conducted a groundbreaking review of the attorney discipline system, and found a "scandalous situation" that required "the immediate attention of the profession."

The Clark Committee itemized 36 defects in the disciplinary system, in particular, criticizing the practices of most disciplinary agencies, which "deliberately discourage any publication of information concerning their activities, believing that the public image of the profession is damaged by a disclosure that attorney misconduct exists."

In addition, this review found that a panel of lawyers, rather than judges or lay persons, controlled the disciplinary system, creating an institutional bias that grossly undermines the effectiveness of the entire disciplinary system.

Twenty-two years later, an American Bar Association commission, chaired by Dean Robert McKay of the New York University Law School, found that the public has a "growing mistrust of secret, self-regulated lawyer discipline."

Like the Clark Committee before it, the McKay Commission concluded that the practice of allowing bar officials to control state disciplinary systems creates the appearance of a gross conflict of interest, "regardless of the actual fairness and impartiality of the system."

Summing up the situation in 1992, the Commission criticized the entire country's lawyer discipline system as "too slow, too secret, too soft and too self-regulated."

While there has been some modest progress since these scathing indictments, sadly it has not been nearly enough to fix a badly broken system.

Just last month, Stanford University Legal Ethics Professor Deborah L. Rhode stated, "Bar disciplinary procedures are anything but user-friendly to the consumer, and most are more responsive to the profession's interests than the public's."

Similarly, judges, legal scholars, practicing attorneys and bar officials, who convened the National Conference on Professionalism at the University of South Carolina School of Law, broadly agreed that the current system of lawyer discipline has lost the public's confidence, and urged the profession to lead the way in demanding meaningful reforms.

HALT's Report Card is our effort to bring the deficiencies of the attorney discipline system to the attention of the profession and the public. The Report Card assesses the performance of disciplinary systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on six key factors: (1) adequacy of discipline imposed; (2) publicity and responsiveness; (3) openness of the process; (4) fairness of disciplinary procedures; (5) public participation; and (6) promptness.

The results expose an appalling pattern of toothless sanctions, unnecessary secrecy, biased procedures and endless delays.

More than 114,000 complaints were filed against lawyers in 2000, the most recent year for which the American Bar Association provides data. In that same year, the rate of formal discipline was less than 3.5 percent, and the rate of disbarment was less than one percent.

In California, 93 percent of investigated cases led to absolutely no disciplinary action. And this is not surprising given that California bar rules provide that a lawyer will only be disciplined if misconduct is proven by "clear and convincing evidence," a far more demanding standard of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" test that applies in other civil proceedings.

In state after state, we found that most complaints are not even investigated or are dismissed on technicalities, while only a handful lead to more than a slap on the wrist in the form of a private admonition or a closed-door reprimand. With this tiny trickle of discipline, is it any wonder that a recent Columbia Law School survey found less than one-third of Americans think lawyers are even "somewhat" honest?

In most states, attorney discipline proceedings are secret, non-public hearings where a panel of lawyers sits as both judge and jury. In many states, even the person who filed the complaint does not have a right to attend.

In California, there is not even token layperson representation in disciplinary decisions - instead, only lawyers decide if and when to impose sanctions upon their colleagues.

In every jurisdiction except Oregon and Arizona, disciplinary bodies refuse to release an attorney's full disciplinary history. Officials in California will only inform consumers of whether an attorney has been publicly disciplined; records of all complaints, formal charges and informal discipline are kept under seal.

Consumers in many jurisdictions are forced into silence by gag rules that threaten fines or jail for talking about the complaint or its outcome. Even those without gag rules frequently try to restrain speech, asking complainants to keep their grievances confidential.

Justice delayed may be justice denied, but it is par for the course in attorney discipline cases. Even the state that earned our highest grade (Massachusetts with a B minus) failed to act promptly on complaints - taking an average of 681 days to issue formal charges and well over two years to impose discipline.

In Washington State, it took one victim thirteen years to get an incompetent lawyer suspended. Many states, like California, do not even keep a record of how promptly they respond to grievances.

These are national problems; of the fifty-one jurisdictions we evaluated, thirty-nine earned a C- or lower; and twenty-one of these received Ds or lower (Pennsylvania and North Carolina flunked outright). California earned a mediocre C.

Part of the problem is that lawyer discipline bodies are asked to perform conflicting missions.

For example, the mission statement for the District of Columbia disciplinary body requires it to fulfill "a dual function: to protect the public and the courts from unethical conduct by members of the D.C. Bar and to protect members of the D.C. Bar" (emphasis supplied).

A lawyer discipline system serving two conflicting masters is bound to prove ineffective.

To correct the nationwide pattern of laxity, secrecy, bias and delay that characterize this broken system, we believe four fundamental reforms are needed.

* Lawyer discipline cases should be heard by publicly controlled disciplinary panels where non-lawyers have at least a majority voice. Independent medical boards in many states offer a superior model for ensuring accountability. These medical boards, which are appointed by governors and state legislatures, rely on physicians to help them understand technical issues, but the doctors stay out of the decision-making process. Lawyers should, too.

* The discipline system must come out into the open. Private reprimands should be replaced with meaningful public discipline. Hearings should be open to the public. And complaints against lawyers and sanctions should be a matter of public record, available to every citizen.

* Disciplinary policies should more closely approximate the rules governing the civil justice system. Gag rules should be abolished. If the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that an attorney has violated the rules of professional conduct, the attorney should be sanctioned.

* The glacial pace of attorney discipline must come to an end. Imposing real deadlines - requiring a preliminary disciplinary hearing within ninety days, for example - would be a giant step toward jettisoning bureaucratic red tape and creating a system that actually brings justice to victims of misconduct.

By adopting these simple reforms, we can replace a system that is an abject failure with one that actually protects consumers and begins to restore public confidence in the legal profession.

After thirty years of ignored calls for reform, responsible lawyers who have a real commitment to professional responsibility need to mobilize and demand action to fix the attorney discipline mess.

All who practice law have a shared interest in creating a system that investigates promptly, deliberates openly, and weeds-out unethical or incompetent attorneys who damage the profession's reputation.

By addressing long-recognized failures in the current disciplinary system, we have an opportunity to create a structure that engenders consumer trust and respect, rather than alienation and resentment. After three decades of marginal reform, can we do less?
-------------
* James C. Turner is Executive Director and Suzanne M. Mishkin is Associate Counsel of HALT, Inc. - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform.

Labels: 

Does it Matter if Mitt Romney was a "Vicious" Bully in the Exclusive Private High School He Attended?

Originally Published in the  Washington Post
Thursday, Mar. 10, 2012

See other posts on bullying.

The important question is whether Mitt Romney's character has changed since his high school bullying days. Obviously, he has learned to restrain from vocalizing about or physical aggression in public (If they ever existed). But if so, does he still have the urge to force others to think like him? To make them suffer for being different? Is he telling the truth when he says he does not remember the incident(s), to which other participants have confessed? (See second story below.)


Does it matter if Mitt Romney was a bully in high school? 
When Mitt Romney was a senior at his exclusive suburban Detroit’s Cranbrook High School. Romney led his own 'posse' that among other things, forcibly pinned to the ground and cut the long blond hair of a non-conformist junior, according to a Washington Post report.


Christian Science Monitor 
By Peter Grier
May 10, 2012

Does it matter if Mitt Romney misbehaved in high school? That question arises due to a report in Thursday’s Washington Post that when he was a senior at suburban Detroit’s Cranbrook school, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee led a “posse” that held down and forcibly cut the long blond hair of a nonconformist junior.

In this video, Romney apologizes for any pranks he may have pulled in high school that hurt or offended his fellows. However, according to fellow student Matthew Friedemann, quoted in the Post, “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Mitt proclaimed at the time of one of his alleged victims.

Mr. Romney himself said Thursday that he cannot remember the incident. The longhaired student in question, John Lauber, is now deceased. But Romney gave some legs to the story by apologizing repeatedly for any pranks he may have pulled in high school that hurt or offended his fellows.

“As to pranks that were played back then, I don’t remember them all. But again, high school days – if I did stupid things, I’m afraid I've got to say sorry for it,” said Romney in an interview on Fox News Radio. Why would he be "afraid" to do so? Wouldn't a leader - the caliber of a US President - step forward to except responsibility? Complete responsibility?

Romney’s opponents say they are torn by the relevance of an alleged incident that would have occurred some 50 years ago. But they forge ahead nonetheless, saying that if true, the forcible haircut could provide some insight into the character of a man who wants to sit in the Oval Office.

“Romney was 18 – old enough to vote, old enough to serve in the military, and old enough to know not to attack a vulnerable teenager unprovoked... "



Here's a quote from the Washington Post story:

"The 'John Lauber' incident was recalled similarly by five fellow students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be identified... “It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber...“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious. He was just easy pickin’s,” said Friedemann, then the student prefect, or student authority leader of Stevens Hall, expressing remorse about his failure to stop it. Friedemann, guilt ridden, made a point of not talking about it with his friend and waited to see what form of discipline would befall Romney at the famously strict institution. Nothing happened."

Mitt Romney forced to apologize after he 'mocked and assaulted high school classmate who was 'presumed gay' 

The Daily Mail
By DANIEL BATES
10 May 2012

Mitt Romney has been forced to apologize for forcibly shaving the head of a high school classmate who was regularly taunted for being gay.

The Republican presidential candidate grabbed tearful John Lauber and hacked away with a pair of scissors because he thought his bleached blond hair was "wrong".

Mr Romney also supposedly mocked another student who was a closeted gay by shouting "Atta girl!" when he tried to speak in class.

The damaging claims come a day after Barack Obama said he was in favour of gay marriage.

Mr Romney has made it clear he opposes it but issued an apology for fear of being seen as homophobic.

He said: "Back in high school, you know, I did some dumb things. If anyone was hurt by that or offended by that, obviously I apologize."

"But after all, high school years were a long time ago".

Interviews with Mr Romney’s former classmates at the $54,000 a year Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, reveal he was fond of jokes that were mostly good natured by sometimes had a hard edge.

After the shaving incident Mr Lauber ‘seemed to disappear’ from life in school and was later expelled for smoking and died in 2004 of liver cancer.

Torment: The republican presidential hopeful was said to have taunted students who were known to be gay and those from poor backgrounds at the exclusive Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

Decades after it happened Romney ran into one of his friends who helped hold Lauber down and told him: 'It was horrible.'

"It’s something I have thought about a lot since then'" said Romney.

The incident supposedly happened in the Summer term in 1965 when Mr Lauber, who was a year younger than Mr Romney, came back from Spring Break with his hair dyed blond and styled so it was draped over one eye.

According to the Washington Post Mitt Romney would not let it go and told his friend Matthew Friedemann: "He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!"

A few days later Mitt Romney assembled a four man posse which found Lauber, tackled him to the floor, held him down while the future governor of Massachusetts clipped away.

When it was completed the crowd cheered Romney as he walked out of the room.

The incident was recalled by five former Cranbrook pupils including Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor, who helped hold Mr Lauber down.

"It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me. What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do."

Phillip Maxwell, who is now a lawyer, added: "It was a hack job. It was vicious."

Mr Friedemann, who is now a dentist, also felt bad for not stopping it happening and admitted Lauber was "easy pickins" meaning he was unlikely to put up much of a fight.

Mr Romney’s time at Cranbrook is credited with shaping Romney into the hard-working, driven man he is today. It was also the time in his life when sports and socializing governed his life more than at any other time. Friends recalled how he and his friends would be up all night f....ing around, the sound of his laughter filling the corridors at 2am.

In English class Romney showed a less easy going side - Mitt Romney had a ritual of interrupting fellow pupil Gary Hummel, a closet gay, by shouting "Atta girl!"

According to the Washington Post he also behaved in very unfriendly manner towards scholarship student Lou Vierling when Romney found Vierling came from a poor area of Detroit.

Mr Romney’s wife Ann has claimed that contrary to his public image as a "tin man", as one friend has claimed, he is actually a "wild and crazy man."

And details about his pranks have come to light before, notably in the biography, ‘The Real Romney’, by Boston Globe investigative reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman

The problem with the latest revelations however is that they suggest a cruelty which voters might find hard to stomach.

Romney’s most famous such incident is also his most controversial - when he strapped his dog to the top of his car during a 12-hour drive from Massachusetts to Canada in 1983...

California Court of Appeal Determines Supervisory or Management Employees (Administrators) May Be Held Liable for Retaliation under the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act

Originally published on the website of legal firm Dannis, Woliver and Kelly -DWK.

On April 26, 2012, the Fourth District California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court in part, holding that management employees may be liable for retaliation under the Education Code. The Court of Appeal issued its decision in Hartnett v. Crosier (D058914), a case in which a former employee of the San Diego County Office of Education (“SDCOE”) sued several SDCOE employees, alleging that they retaliated against him in violation of the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act (Ed. Code, § 44110 et seq.). 

 Background

The California Legislature enacted the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act (“Act”) in 2000, so that public school employees, particularly classified school employees and teachers, may “bring forward to their supervisors or management improper activities without having to fear they are endangering their jobs.” Education Code section 44113 prohibits employees from using or attempting to use official authority or influence to interfere with protected disclosures under the Act. A protected disclosure is a good faith communication that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose information that may evidence either an improper governmental activity or a condition threatening health or safety of public employees for purposes of remedying the condition. 

The Act’s prohibition on use of official authority or influence to interfere with a protected disclosure includes “promising to confer or conferring any benefit; affecting or threatening to affect any reprisal; or taking, directing others to take, recommending, processing, or approving any personnel action, including but not limited to appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation, or other disciplinary action.” (Ed. Code, § 44113, subd. (b).) An employee who violates the prohibition may be liable in an action for civil damages brought against the employee by the offended party. Education Code section 44114, subdivisions (b) and (c) provide also that a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a public school employee or applicant for having made a protected disclosure is subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 and imprisonment in jail for up to one year as well as liability for civil damages, including punitive damages for malicious acts. 

Rodger Hartnett’s complaint stated that he was a claims coordinator in SDCOE’s risk management department. He alleged that he was discharged in 2007 not for incompetency, insubordination, and dishonesty as the school district contended, but in retaliation by several SDCOE employees for reporting that some SDCOE employees referred legal business to friends and family members in exchange for gifts, gratuities, and discounted personal legal services. He claimed his discharge violated the Act and entitled him to punative damages and attorney fees among other relief.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the individual employee defendants, finding that Education Code section 44113, subdivision (a) did not impose liability because the defendants were management employees as defined in the Educational Employment Relations Act (“EERA”) and that Education Code section 44114, subdivision (d) did not provide punitive damages and attorney fees for Hartnett because he was also a management employee. Hartnett appealed, contending the trial court erred in these determinations

.

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that management employees who are also supervisory employees with authority over personnel actions are not exempt from liability under the Act. The Act references the EERA to define “employee,” which excludes management employees, but the EERA also separately defines supervisory employees.   The Court agreed with the Third District Court of Appeal’s conclusion in Conn v. Western Placer Unified School Dist. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4^th 1163, that Education Code section 44113 does not exempt management employees from liability for retaliation if the employees were acting as supervisory employees when they committed the allegedly offending acts. In Hartnett, the Court of Appeal reasoned that to exempt management employees exercising supervisory authority in personnel actions would exempt those most likely and able to retaliate against employees making protected disclosures and thwart the Act’s very purpose. The Court did uphold the trial court’s determination that Hartnett was not entitled to claim the additional remedies of punitive damages and attorney fees because he was a management employee.

Impact

Management employees may be held liable for claims of retaliation under the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act if such employees are acting as supervisory employees with authority over personnel actions when they commit the allegedly offending acts.