Subornation of Perjury
Suborn:
To induce a person to give false testimony.
Perjury:
The willful utterance of a false statement under oath.
Department of Education's
November 22, 2015 Ruling & Rationale
of Education Law 3020a Pedagogy Charges
Filed on September 08, 2014
Against Tenure Science & Mathematics
Middle School Dual Language Educator
Mr. Luis Angel Perez
- Approximately 441 days -
From the day the 3020a Charges were filed,
(September 08, 2014),
to the day the verdict was handed down,
(November 22, 2015).
Only seven (7) 3020a Hearing Dates:
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Thursday, May 07, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Mr. Williams authored the verdict in the form
of
an “OPINION AND AWARD” note.
Said note lists that out of 36 specifications/allegations
made against Educator Perez by DOE Officers,
15 of them, “have not been sustained”, &
21 of them, “have been sustained”.
The First Three (3)
These first three observations were conducted
during the 2012-2013 school year.
Some facts about school year 2012-2013:
1. At the inception of this school year, (as well as toward
the end of the prior school year), Educator Perez was
threatened to be deliberately placed to teach a low grade
that
he knows nothing about, warned that he will make mistakes,
threatened that he will get an unsatisfactory rating, and
threatened that his teaching license will be taken away.
Some facts about 2012-2013 school year:
2. After teaching Middle School Science and Mathematics
for over 6 years, in the 4th floor, Educator Perez was
maliciously reassigned to a different floor, (second floor),
to teach a grade that he never taught before, (first
grade), and reassigned to teach all content areas, which
included subjects that he never taught before, (such as
Social Studies, Reading,
& Writing).
Some facts about school year 2012-2013 :
3. Friday, October 19, 2012,
Educator Perez was directed, by DOE Officer/Principal
Pedraja,
to observe Educator KN teach her first grade class
for the last time this school year.
4. October 22, 2012, Educator Perez was directed to take
over Educator KN's class, by himself, for the
rest of the school year.
The First Three (3)
DOE Hearing/Arbitration Officer
Richard D. Williams' Ruling & Rationale
of a Formal & an Informal Observation, conducted on
November 19, 2012 & February 04, 2013,
respectively,
by DOE Officer/Principal Miriam Pedraja,
as a Mere Pretext to Suppress Corruption.
Regarding Specification/Allegation 1(a),
"... Respondent failed to properly, adequately, and/or
effectively plan and/or execute separate lessons observed
...",
Pertaining to a November 19, 2012
Formal Observation,
DOE Hearing/Arbitration Officer Williams writes –
Regarding Specification/Allegation 1(b),
"... Respondent failed to properly, adequately, and/or
effectively plan and/or execute separate lessons observed
...",
Pertaining to a February 04, 2013
Informal Observation,
DOE Hearing/Arbitration Officer Williams writes –
Regarding Specifications/Allegations 1(a) & 1(b),
Although DOE
Hearing Officer/Arbitrator
Richard D. Williams
ruled that these Specifications/Allegations
were, “not sustained”, ...
...he writes,
“…due to the acknowledgement of receipt,
I will credit and consider
that on December 12, 2012, Respondent was aware
that concern was expressed by his administration about
his classroom management, classroom routines, lesson
planning, lesson execution and use of assessments.”
As you can see,
Mr. Williams writes the same thing
for the informal observation
of February 04, 2013.
However, Hearing
Officer/Arbitrator Williams
conveniently failed to
mention, credit or consider, on the record,
that on February 26, 2013,
several DOE and United Federation of Teachers, (UFT),
Officers were aware, via an email titled,
Rebuttal to your “Formal Observations” and your
pretext “Plan of Action”, ...
... that, concern was expressed by their Educator about,
1. DOE administration threatening to give him
an unsatisfactory rating for the 2012-2013 school year
even prior to the start of this particular school year,
2. that the Action Plan created by administration
was intentionally filled with
unfair and impractical demands, ...
... and
3. that the contents of the observation reports
were completely baseless, deceitful, reckless,
irresponsible, unprofessional, and a clear
manifestation of abuse of power.
Assess for yourself.
Discuss & critique with the people around you
&/or
write a reflection in your personal journal.
DOE Hearing/Arbitration Officer
Richard D. Williams' Ruling & Rationale
of a Formal
Observation, conducted on May 03, 2013,
by DOE Officer/Principal Zoraida Hernandez,
as a Mere Pretext to Suppress Corruption.
Regarding Specification/Allegation 1(c),
"... Respondent failed to properly, adequately, and/or
effectively plan and/or execute separate lessons observed
...",
Pertaining to a May 03, 2013
Formal Observation,
DOE Hearing/Arbitration Officer Richard D. Williams ruled
that, "... Specification 1(c) is sustained.", and
writes –
This here contradicts
what actually happened
&
contradicts the actual document
submitted into evidence by DOE Officers.
For Example -
1. The allegation that, "Respondent refused to sign
for the document on June 17, 2013, ...",
directly contradicts the evidence
submitted & examined by DOE Officers.
Signature is clearly evident
directly below Educator's Comment.
2. The three (3) periods after the opening
quotation mark, also known as an ellipsis,
implies that Mr. Williams left out some of
the original writer's words in the
material that he is quoting here.
However, the evidence
also
proves this to be false.
Assess for yourself.
Discuss & critique with the people around you
&/or
write a reflection in your personal journal.
Mr. Williams continued to write –
1. Where is the evidence for this alleged
"implication" & "assertion"?
2. The implications and assertions that are actually
neglected & rejected here by Mr. Williams &
other DOE Officers
are the ones pertaining to the formal compaints,
filed by Educator Perez
of abuse of power,
bullying, and harrassment,
suffered in the hands of DOE Officers,
which has a profound
negative impact
on Students, Parents, & Educators.
Mr. Williams continued to write –
Evidence on the record where evaluator unreasonably
denied Educator Perez a more specific date
of observation can be
found on the
pages & sections below:
237: 13-23, 238:
7-11, 238: 23-25 & 239: 2-7.
The School's Practice of Informing Educators of Which
Specific Class Will Be Observed:
DOE
Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that
it was the practice at Amistad that the administrator
would inform the teacher of which class the
administrator was going to specifically observe,
in a formal observation,
(237: 13-23).
DOE
Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that it
was her practice to specifically tell the Educator what
class she would be coming in to formally observe,
(238: 7-11).
Yet, she
testified that for this observation she
did not provide Educator Perez with a specific day
and a specific time to be observed,
(238: 23-25 & 239: 2-7).
This is a clear cut example of disparate treatment.
DOE Officer/Principal Hernandez admittedly deviated
from the normal practice at the Amistad school
as well as her own normal practice
when dealing specifically with Educator Perez.
Assess for yourself.
Discuss & critique with the people around you
&/or
write a reflection in your personal journal.
Additional Fact Findings
Testimony of Attendance of Action Plan Meeting:
Notice that -
DOE Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that she was
present at the meeting when
DOE Officer/Principal Pedraja handed
Educator Perez the action plan, (230: 2-5).
&
she testified that the only ones present at this meeting
were
Officer/Principal Pedraja, Educator Perez, & herself,
(230: 6-10).
Actually, administrative secretary, Sherry Lucas,
was also present.
More importantly, according to the UFT
District Representative, Mayra Cruz,
DOE Officers did not follow proper protocol when
meeting and giving Educator Perez
the action plan in the absence of UFT representation.
This is, yet, another example of
disparate treatment by DOE Officers when
dealing specifically with Educator Perez.
Rationale Behind Having to Observe
Specifically Selected Educators:
Notice that DOE
Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that
she was assigned some responsibilities by
Officer/Principal Pedraja, concerning this action plan;
such as assigning Educator Perez, (assigned to teach 1st
grade),
to do inter-classroom observations of
specific 3rd & 4th grade Educators,
(230: 11- 20).
Yet,
Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that
she has no idea why
Officer/Principal Pedraja
was specific about these particular Educators,
(236: 4-10).
Actually, these specific 3rd & 4th grade Educators are
known to have close ties with the DOE Officers.
On November 08, 2012, eleven (11) days prior
to Officer/Principal Pedraja’s
formal observation of November 19, 2012,
one of these specifically chosen Educators
maliciously sent an untruthful email to
administration titled, Hallway Etiquette, making bogus
allegations against Educator Perez.
The following is the
complaint made by one of
these specifically chosen Educators
&
Educator Perez’ response
to the Amistad Community about said complaint,
prior to him knowing who was the accuser.
Does Mr. Crown Speak Spanish or Not Testimony:
Mr. Crown
accompanied DOE Officer/Principal during the
observation of this Spanish lesson.
Officer/Principal Hernandez was not truthful about whether
or
not she knew if Mr. Crown speaks Spanish.
At first Officer/Principal Hernandez firmly testified, “No,
he does
not.”, but then recants to, “Well, I - - let me rephrase. I
am not
sure that he does.”, (241: 10-23).
Actually, she knows that he does not speak Spanish
because, during the post observation meeting, I
specifically asked Mr. Crown if he speaks or understands
Spanish. Mr. Crown looked at her and responded, “No”.
I asked Mr. Crown this question in an attempt to get his
feedback right after Officer/Principal Hernandez
asserted that I did not ask students any questions.
"Yoga Interruption"
He Should Have Known v. He Did Not Know Testimony:
DOE
Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that this
mathematics lesson was interrupted by a yoga class and that
Educator Perez should
have known that she was coming to
observe him and thus ask the yoga instructor to come at a
different time, (245: 19-25 & 246: 2-3).
Yet,
DOE Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that
Educator Perez was
not aware of the time
that she would have been coming in,
(245: 4-7).
Despite incessant reporting to higher DOE & UFT
Officers of the malicious intent & inconsistencies
which saturate these three (3) observations,
DOE Officer/Principal Perdraja was allowed to give
Educator Perez an unsatisfactory rating
at the end of school year 2012-2013.
From the day DOE Officer/Principal Miriam Pedraja handed
Educator Perez the forewarned unsatisfactory rating,
(Wednesday, June 26, 2013),
to the day the unsatisfactory rating appeal hearing was
held,
before Chancellor’s Committee Chairperson, Ms. Toby Ratz
&
UFT Advisor, Albert Sarasohn, (October 21, 2013):
Approximately 117 days lapsed.
Despite numerous inquiries made by Educator Perez to
DOE, UFT, & NYSUT Officers,
regarding the deliverance of a verdict;
from the day the unsatisfactory rating appeal hearing was
held,
(October 21, 2013),
to the day that the verdict to this hearing was provided to
Educator Perez, (November 24, 2014),
Approximately 400 days lapsed.
Total time lapsed:
517 days
After Educator Perez learned of the verdict,
he rightfully and repeatedly requested for UFT Officials to
appeal this decision on the grounds of foul play.
He was informed by UFT District Representative, Mayra Cruz,
that the paper work for this hearing-appeal was already
submitted and that it should be scheduled soon.
DOE Officials failed to schedule such appeal hearing.
DOE & UFT Officials repeatedly & deliberately failed
to
ensure justice in our Public Schools;
for our Dual Language, (Spanish/English),
Educators, Children, Families, and Communities.
DOE Officers/Principals needed to create two (2)
Unsatisfactory
Observation Reports in order to
justify creating and delegating an Action Plan.
DOE Officials needed to create one (1) Impractical Action
Plan
and two (2) Unsatisfactory Observation Reports
Saturated with Deception in order to
justify an End-Of-The-Year Unsatisfactory Rating.
What the Observation Reports and the Action Plan actually
contained was never an issue because no one in the DOE
is reading them or no one will admit to have read them.
To learn more
about the abuse of power in our schools,
that effectively sets everyone up to fail, please visit my
blogs
listed below. Best always!
Sincerely, Luis Angel Perez,
Middle School Science & Mathematics,
First Grade, Fourth Grade Educator & Advocate
http://writing4light.blogspot.com/
Love to Learn
