In case you missed them:
Part 2: A Tale of Two Videos
Part 4: $ubpoena with a Capital $
I received a call from a retired teacher who stated he was speaking to someone who left SCI that told him “It’s the biggest sham. You won’t believe what went on there.” I don’t know about the biggest sham, but we know enough that not everything is kosher when it comes to SCI and full and fair investigations. That goes for OSI and OEO as well, but more about them another time. Keep in mind that I have been under and still under over 30 investigations.
I’m going to pick one allegation out of a hat and compare SCI’s Investigation to my own. Ready?? Here we go.
Sometime in 2012 I reported an allegation given to me by other staff members. It was simple and easy to investigate. I actually investigated it without interviewing anyone.
Allegation: “An administrator had a teacher working under their immediate supervision Monday to Friday and on the weekends this same assistant principal worked under the supervision of that same teacher at a tutoring center.”
It was basically a role reversal. Imagine you are a teacher and on the weekends you ran a restaurant and your principal was your waiter? Hold that though for a minute and smile.
Now in a perfect world that shouldn’t matter and all work was for educating students. However, then why would we need Samantha Biletsky, Director of the DOE’s Conflict of Interest Board? The allegation above is considered a Conflict of Interest.
The name of the teacher, AP, witnesses and tutoring company were given sometime in May 2012. Almost a year later and there was nothing. Then finally…like a scroll tied to the claw of a white dove came… The Berta Dreyfus IS 49 SCI Report. Fifteen pages of imagination, a Law and Order writer’s dream and an AP English teacher’s nightmare (I’m just kidding Ms. Loughran, but the report did lack clarity and was all over the place).
As to that investigation, First Deputy Commissioner Regina Loughran lumped it in with a few other allegations and threw the magical words “This investigation did not find evidence to support the allegations.”
SCI: “OK, I guess the AP said no and the teacher said no, so case closed. Oh crap, we forgot the Portelos Factor. Who the hell put him in the Rubber Room to think 7 hrs a day and 1,260 hours a school year anyway?” http://youtu.be/P92DUA1BR1w?t=2m9s
So there I am in the Rubber Room reading this and I thought “Wait a minute” and I pulled up the Assistant Principal’s personnel file I had FOILed. I skim through it and find the below resume.
I saw the name of the tutoring company and I then web searched it. Guess who the manager was. Yes, that teacher. I then got up and went around the Rubber Room high fiving everyone. They didn’t know why, but knew Portelos was on to something, so they complied and put their hands up. “Don’t forget us when you are the Special Commissioner!” one joked. “Forget you? I’m coming after you!” I joked back to the lead teacher who was removed for months without knowing why.
I then sent a follow up email to Samantha Biletsky and SCI with the evidence I found. No Response.
Come on SCI…. I know most of you are retired detectives with many commendable years of service, collecting pensions and this salary at SCI, but some of you have to feel a little guilty. Right? Correct me if I am wrong, but am I way off on my posts and theories posted here about faulty investigations? When the allegation is against an administrator, you will not call in all witnesses, but if it is against a teacher, you will bring in their 3rd grade teacher if you could. More about that in SCI Part 6.