Cautionary Story for UFT Members

Bronx Borough Office Admitted Blunder May Cost Teacher His Job

When Scott Weill, a tenured junior high school teacher, was served with charges and specifications on December 16, 2006 the nightmare had just begun. Mr. Weill was charged with, among other things, showing an inappropriate movie and making "despicable comments" to his students

Knowing that service of the charges required him to seek legal counsel, he met with UFT Special Representative Rodney Grubiak and Paul Eagan at their offices on December 19, 2006. During the meeting Mr. Weill advised the Bronx reps that he wanted a hearing on the charges. He completed the forms necessary to obtain a NYSUT lawyer and was assured that the request for a hearing would be duly and timely filed.

Education Law § 3020-a 2 (c) provides that a request of a hearing be made "[w]ithin ten days of the receipt of the statement of charges".

On January 13, 2007, Mr. Weill received a letter from Michael Best, General Counsel to the Chancellor, headed 'Notice of Inquest". The letter informed Mr. Weill that he failed to request a hearing. Mr. Best then wrote: "Since you have failed to request a hearing in a timely manner, your right to a hearing is deemed waived."

Mr. Weill was further advised that the charges against him were subject to disposition by the Panel at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

Under 3020-a2(d) all "unexcused" failures to request a hearing are deemed waived.

Mr. Weill submitted an excuse. The excuse was that "somehow" the Bronx office sent the request by certified mail but no receipt for the mailing could be found.

According to Jose Vargas, Bronx Borough Representative, this problem extended to another teacher as well. Vargas wrote, "Mr. Weill was one of two teachers who came to our office on December 19, 2006, after being served with charges and specifications. They came to the office to request a hearing and for representation. The other teacher was Sonia Ortiz. Both of their cases were processed in the normal way."

Vargas described the "normal procedure as "start[ing] with the teacher meeting with a representative. The representative reviews the package of papers served on the teacher and fills out the letter requesting a hearing. The letter is given to our office manager to send it certified mail, return receipt requested to both the Department of Education and the Commissioner of Education. In addition copies of the entire package, including the letter requesting a hearing, are forwarded to counsel for the New York State United Teachers; the law firm that would represent the teacher at the hearing."

"When I found out that the letters for both teachers were not received by either the Department of Education or the Commissioner of Education, I notified my supervisor at the UFT and counsel. In addition, my office manager and I tracked all of the paperwork. Based on our investigation, it appeared that the papers for each teacher were processed in accordance with our normal procedure. However, we could not find proof that the letters were mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, as per our procedure. I can only speculate that the letters by the two teachers requesting hearings were not received by the Department of Education and the Commissioner of Education due to either a clerical error in our office or in the offices of the recipients."

Vargas continued, "When I learned of the date on which the Panel for Educational Policy would be acting on the charges and specifications against both teachers, I arranged to attend the public meeting with the intention of addressing the Panel regarding Mr. Weill's and Ms. Ortiz's failure to request a hearing.

Vargas claims he appeared before the Panel on January 22, 2007, and read a statement which he had prepared. He added that "Following my presentation, Chancellor Klein stated that Theresa Europe (an attorney in the Chancellor's Office of Legal Services) was waiting for an affidavit from the lawyer for the two teachers [involved in] the matter."

Incredibly, Vargas claims that he "did not understand what the Chancellor meant by an affidavit and I did not pursue." He subsequently learned that the "Panel granted Ms. Ortiz's request for a hearing but denied Mr. Weill's request despite the fact that their situations were exactly the same."

Weill was terminated on February 28, 2007.

He obtained counsel and brought a proceeding against the DOE.

On April 18, 2008 Justice Leland DeGrasse denied Weill's application for a hearing since he "merely surmises that persons responsible for filing the request failed to do so."

Weill appealed and on April 2, 2009 the Appellate Division found that the Panel never indicated whether it had considered Weill's excuse in its decision to go forward without a hearing. The matter was sent back to the Panel to offer its statement of reasons.

The moral of this cautionary tale is that the UFT, like the Department of Education, is a giant bureaucratic machine and sometimes materials will get lost. If you want to make sure your information has been processed correctly, get a copy for yourself of every piece of paper that the UFT is sending out on your behalf and send what you can on your own after you meet with UFT officials. Also, make follow-up calls and send emails to the UFT. According to their duty to represent us fairly, they must answer member requests for information. In the end, however, the UFT loses nothing from their errors; the member is the person who is terminated.

Finally, while it doesn't appear that Vargas did anything in bad faith as he did stand up for Weill by speaking on his behalf at the PEP meeting. However, it must be asked how anyone can rise to be a UFT Borough Representative and not know what an affidavit is? Don't they teach some basic law terms to representatives?