In the Matter of Roseann Kilduff, Respondent,v.Rochester City School District, et al., Appellants.

Brief

N.Y.October 16, 2014

To be Argued by: CARA M. BRIGGS (Time Requested: 15 Minutes) APL-2013-00296 Appellate Division Docket No. CA 12-02040 Monroe County Clerk’s Index No. 2012-0584 Court of Appeals of the State of New York ROSEANN KILDUFF, Petitioner-Respondent, - against - ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, and DR. BOLGEN VARGAS, in his capacity as acting Superintendent of the Rochester City School District, Respondents-Appellants. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS EDWIN LOPEZ-SOTO, GENERAL COUNSEL ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Cara M. Briggs, Esq., of Counsel Attorneys for Respondents-Appellants 131 West Broad Street, 2 nd Floor Rochester, New York 14614 Tel.: (585) 262-8412 Fax: (585) 262-8625 Dated: December 19, 2013 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Authorities .................................................................................................. ii Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................. 1 Question Presented ..................................................................................................... 1 Procedural History ..................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................... 3 Argument.................................................................................................................... 5 POINT I THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE STATUTE DOES NOT SUPPORT KILDUFF’S OR THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S INTERPRETATION ......................................... 5 POINT II THE APPELLATE DIVISION FAILED TO CONSIDER THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF EDUCATION LAW §3020(1) ................................................................ 13 POINT III THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES AN INTENT TO ALLOW ALTERNATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES TO SURVIVE UNTIL THOSE PROCEDURES ARE RENEGOTIATED .................................................... 14 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 17 Addendum 1 Bill Jacket: State of New York Assembly Bill #11762-A ..................... A-001 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer, 7 N.Y.3d 653, 660 (2006) ......................... 5, 8, 14 Prof’l Staff Cong.-City Univ. of New York v. New York State Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 7 N.Y.3d 458, 467 (2006) .................................. 13 Long v. State, 7 N.Y.3d 269, 273 (2006) ............................................................... 5, 8 Matter of Long v. Adirondack Park Agency, 76 N.Y.2d 416, 420 (1990) ................ 5 McGaffin v. City of Cohoes, 74 N.Y. 387 (1878) ................................................... 14 Statutes and Regulations CPLR §5602(a)(1)(i) .................................................................................................. 1 Education Law §3020(1) ................................................................. 1, 3, 5-7, 9-14, 16 Education Law §3020-a ...................................................................... 2-4, 7, 9, 14-15 McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, §231 ......................................... 11 Publications Bill Jacket: State of New York Assembly Bill #11762-A ................................. 14, 15 1 JURISDICTION The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to the rules of this Court, and pursuant to New York CPLR §5602(a)(1)(i) because the action originated in Monroe County Supreme Court, and this appeal is from a unanimous order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which finally determined the action and is not appealable as of right. QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW BY THIS COURT Does New York State Education Law Section 3020(1), when read as a whole and when read in the context of its legislative history, permit continued use of an alternative process of grievance and arbitration for certain disciplinary matters involving teachers, when the alternative disciplinary procedures were collectively bargained for between the Rochester City School District and the Rochester Teachers Association prior to September 1, 1994, and have remained unaltered by renegotiation? PROCEDURAL HISTORY This motion arises out of a CPLR Article 78 petition filed by Roseann Kilduff (hereinafter “Kilduff”) in Monroe County Supreme Court, in which Kilduff sought to annul discipline, in the form of a thirty-day suspension, imposed against 2 her by the Rochester City School District (the “District”). In the Article 78 petition, Kilduff claimed that the District’s denial of her request to use the 3020a process, rather than the grievance process, to determine her discipline constituted an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, and constituted an abuse of discretion. Justice Frazee found that Kilduff’s exclusive remedy was under the alternate disciplinary procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), and that Kilduff was not entitled to a hearing under New York Education Law §3020-a. Kilduff appealed Justice Frazee’s denial of the petition to the Fourth Department Appellate Division, which issued a memorandum and order reversing Justice Frazee’s decision. The District now appeals the Fourth Department’s decision. Kilduff then filed a subsequent Article 78 petition (Monroe County Sup. Ct. Index No. 12-8116) with the same allegations as the instant case relating to additional instances of discipline imposed on Kilduff by the District. Justice Frazee again found that Kilduff’s exclusive remedy was under the alternate disciplinary procedure contained in the CBA and denied Kilduff’s petition. Kilduff appealed this second, nearly identical decision by Justice Frazee to the Fourth Department Appellate Division (Fourth Department Index No. CA-13- 3 1974). That appeal is currently pending and will be affected by the Court’s decision in this appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS Kilduff is employed as a tenured school social worker by the District. (R. 30, 36). Kilduff is represented by the Rochester Teachers Association (“RTA”), which has had a longstanding CBA with the District, which has been regularly renegotiated and renewed. Prior to September 1, 1994, the District and the RTA negotiated a provision of the CBA, which is now Section 38, pertaining to discipline and discharge of tenured teachers. The discipline section provides that the New York State Education Law §3020-a process is reserved for discharge cases for tenured teachers, and that all other discipline cases must proceed through the grievance and arbitration process. (R. 31-35, 91-118). This alternate disciplinary procedure has remained unchanged. On September 1, 1994, Section 3020(1) of the New York State Education Law was amended to provide that either the disciplinary procedures set forth for tenured teachers in Section 3020-a of the Education Law or “alternate disciplinary procedures” contained in a CBA must be followed, unless alternate disciplinary procedures were already in place in a CBA. This exception in the statute provided that any alternate disciplinary procedures collectively bargained for on or before 4 September 1, 1994, and which remained unaltered by renegotiation, could continue to be used as the sole procedure for discipline of tenured teachers. Conversely, any alternate disciplinary procedures which became effective on or after September 1, 1994, must provide for the written election by the employee of either the procedure specified in Section 3020-a or the alternate disciplinary procedures contained in the CBA. On September 23, 2011, Kilduff was advised by letter that she was being suspended from her position as school social worker without pay for thirty days, effective September 26, 2011 to November 4, 2011. (R. 37). Kilduff requested a hearing pursuant to New York State Education Law §3020-a on the disciplinary charge which resulted in her thirty-day suspension. However, she was advised that her exclusive remedy for the discipline imposed was under the grievance and arbitration procedure provided for by the CBA. (R. 38-40). Kilduff filed a grievance, which was denied at both Level I and Level II. (R. 41). Thereafter, Kilduff filed the CPLR Article 78 petition in New York State Supreme Court that forms the basis for this appeal. (R. 51). 5 ARGUMENT The Appellate Division, in reversing the Supreme Court’s decision, has interpreted New York Education Law §3020(1) in a manner which is both inconsistent with the plain language of the statute as a whole and with the intent of the legislature in enacting Section 3020(1), thereby contravening the purpose of the legislature. Therefore, the Court should reverse the Appellate Division’s decision. POINT I THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE STATUTE DOES NOT SUPPORT KILDUFF’S OR THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S INTERPRETATION When interpreting a statute, “[t]he statutory text is the clearest indicator of legislative intent and courts should construe unambiguous language to give effect to its plain meaning.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer, 7 N.Y.3d 653, 660 (2006). Courts should “afford the statute a sensible and practical over-all construction, which is consistent with and furthers its scheme and purpose and which harmonizes all its interlocking provisions.” Matter of Long v. Adirondack Park Agency, 76 N.Y.2d 416, 420 (1990). Additionally, courts should construe statutes to avoid objectionable, unreasonable or absurd consequences. Long v. State, 7 N.Y.3d 269, 273 (2006). 6 A. Read as a Whole, Education Law §3020(1) Does Not Support the Appellate Division’s Interpretation The Appellate Division focused on the language of only a portion of a sentence in Education Law §3020(1), rather than the meaning of the statute as a whole. This resulted in a decision which frustrates the purpose of the legislature and results in an objectionable and absurd consequence by rendering null an alternate disciplinary procedure that was agreed upon by the parties as part of the collective bargaining process and was intentionally unchanged during subsequent bargaining such that the procedure would continue to remain in effect as the sole disciplinary procedure in all cases, except those involving discharge of a tenured teacher. The applicable provision of the Education Law at issue provides: 1. No person enjoying the benefits of tenure shall be disciplined or removed during a term of employment except for just cause and in accordance with the procedures specified in section three thousand twenty-a of this article or in accordance with alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement covering his or her terms and conditions of employment that was effective on or before September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four and has been unaltered by renegotiation, or in accordance with alternative disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement covering his or her terms and conditions of employment that becomes effective on or after September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four; provided, however, that any such alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement that becomes effective on or after September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four, must provide for the written election by the employee of either the procedures specified in such section three thousand twenty- a or the alternative disciplinary procedures contained in the collective 7 bargaining agreement and must result in a disposition of the disciplinary charge within the amount of time allowed therefor under such section three thousand twenty-a. N.Y. Educ. Law §3020(1) [emphasis added]. A reading of New York Education Law §3020(1) as a whole supports the conclusion that the statute was intended to permit continued use of an alternate disciplinary procedure of grievance and arbitration for certain disciplinary matters involving teachers, when the alternate disciplinary procedures were collectively bargained for prior to September 1, 1994 and have been unaltered by renegotiation. Since the CBA between the District and the RTA contains such a provision, the Appellate Division should not have reversed the well-reasoned decision of the Supreme Court that enforced the CBA provision requiring arbitration of any discipline of a teacher (except termination). The legislature revised Education Law §3020(1) in 1994 to require collective bargaining agreements which were enacted on or after September 1, 1994 to provide employees with an option of either disciplinary procedures provided for under Education Law §3020-a or the alternate disciplinary procedures contained in the CBA. In so doing, the Legislature purposefully provided a means by which to “grandfather” existing collective bargaining agreements which already contained alternate disciplinary procedures. The Legislature clearly intended to 8 allow unions and employers to retain the practices which they already created by agreement, if they chose to do so. The Appellate Division incorrectly concluded that teachers “covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that became effective on or after September 1, 1994, is entitled to elect…” either arbitration or a 3020-a hearing. (R. 128-129). In reaching that conclusion, the Appellate Division focused solely on a single sentence, rather than the meaning of the statute as a whole. The Appellate Division’s failure to analyze all of the words of the statute resulted in a decision that is incongruous to the plain meaning of the statute as a whole and is, therefore, improper. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 7 N.Y.3d at 662 (explaining that the court’s “interpretation gives meaning to all of the statutory language in the context of the statute as a whole”). Based on its decision, it is apparent that the Appellate Division concluded that any renegotiation of any portion of the CBA which occurred after 1994 required that the CBA provide the employee with a choice between the 3020-a hearing process and any alternate disciplinary procedure. However, such a conclusion is inapposite to both the language of the statute and the expressed intent of the statute’s drafters. The Appellate Division’s interpretation would render the statutory language meaningless for most CBAs after only a few years, a result which cannot be condoned by the Court. Long, 7 N.Y.3d at 273. 9 B. The Appellate Division Misinterpreted the Reason “Collective Bargaining Agreement” was Included in the Statute The modifying clause “and has been unaltered by renegotiation” following the phrase “collective bargaining agreement” does not mean that the entire collective bargaining agreement must remain unaltered. The phrase “collective bargaining agreement” was not included on its own, but rather as part of the description of what alternate disciplinary procedures would be allowed to continue past September 1, 1994. It is plain from reading the statute that the Legislature used the phrase collective bargaining agreement to describe where the alternate disciplinary procedures it was addressing could be found and to distinguish those procedures from procedures found in other policies or documents that were not collectively bargained for by the parties. The drafters were being as descriptive as possible about which alternate disciplinary procedures could be used in lieu of Section 3020-a. The use of the term collective bargaining agreement as the only applicable document that could contain the alternate disciplinary procedure being discussed is the same as saying the procedures found in Appendix A as opposed to Appendix B. The modifying phrase “remains unaltered by renegotiation” only makes sense if applied to the alternate disciplinary procedures themselves. It is clear that the subject of the exclusion created by Section 3020(1) is the alternate disciplinary procedures, not any other portion of the CBA, as the sole focus of Section 3020(1) 10 is the discipline process for tenured teachers. Thus, it would be illogical for the Legislature to draft a section allowing for the use of alternate disciplinary procedures as long as they were collectively bargained for, and then to take away the right to continue to use those procedures simply because some other, unrelated part of a fifty or one-hundred page CBA was altered in some way. C. If the Legislature Meant Section 3020(1) to Include All CBAs Renegotiated In Any Way After September 1, 1994, It Would Have Drafted the Statute to Say That If, in fact, the legislature had intended that any CBA that was renegotiated in any way after September 1, 1994 was required to provide the employee with a choice between the 3020-a hearing process and any alternate disciplinary procedure, it would have been drafted more simply, as follows: …Any alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement where the collective bargaining agreement is renegotiated in any way on or after September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four must provide for the written election by the employee of either the procedures specified in such section three thousand twenty- a or the alternative disciplinary procedures contained in the collective bargaining agreement and must result in a disposition of the disciplinary charge within the amount of time allowed therefor under such section three thousand twenty-a. However, the Legislature purposely elected not to draft the statute in that manner. Instead, it chose to exempt any alternate disciplinary procedures that were negotiated before September 1, 1994, and remained unchanged by the parties until the time of the discipline that forms the basis for the dispute. 11 The Court must interpret the statute so as to give “meaning and effect” to all language in a statute, and words and phrases should not be considered superfluous when it is feasible to give meaning to each. McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, §231. The Legislature intentionally included the phrase, “…has been unaltered by renegotiation, or in accordance with alternative disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement covering his or her terms and conditions of employment that becomes effective on or after September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four…,” in order to differentiate between the renegotiation of the disciplinary terms contained within an existing CBA and the enactment of a new CBA. N.Y. Educ. Law §3020(1). That distinction evinces the intent to allow districts and unions to bargain for alternate disciplinary procedures and to retain those alternative procedures which had already been agreed upon in existing CBAs. There would have been no reason for the legislature to include the additional phrases regarding alternate disciplinary procedures in the statute unless it intended to create that very distinction. The Appellate Division’s decision renders meaningless the purposeful language of the statute by holding that any renegotiation of any aspect of a pre- September 1, 1994 collective bargaining agreement triggers the requirement in Section 3020(1) that the CBA be required to provide for the written election by the employee of either the Section 3020-a hearing process or the alternate disciplinary 12 procedure in the CBA. The Appellate Division ignored the provision of Section 3020(1) providing that pre-September 1, 1994 CBAs containing alternate disciplinary procedures which have been “unaltered by renegotiation” shall remain intact. If renegotiation of any term of a pre-September 1, 1994 CBA were to trigger the requirement to include the Section 3020-a hearing option, that option would necessarily be required in every CBA renewed after September 1, 1994, including circumstances such as mere extensions of effective dates of CBAs or amendments that are unrelated to discipline. This interpretation renders meaningless the specific language that preserves the employer and union’s agreement to alternate disciplinary procedures until such time as the parties renegotiate these discipline procedures. Such an interpretation is plainly incorrect. If the union wanted to provide its members the option of either 3020-a hearings or alternative grievance and arbitration procedures, it is free to insist on that at bargaining. However, if the union and a school district negotiate alternate disciplinary procedures and continue to keep those procedures, unaltered, in successive CBAs, it was clearly the Legislature’s intent to allow the parties to continue with those procedures, so it would be improper for a court to deprive the parties of their choice and their bargain. 13 Therefore, the Court should reverse the Appellate Division’s decision and reinstate the Supreme Court’s decision. POINT II THE APPELLATE DIVISION FAILED TO CONSIDER THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF EDUCATION LAW §3020(1) A court should not remove a bargained-for benefit without clear statutory intent that the court is required to do so. The parties bargained for benefits, such as the disciplinary procedures within the CBA, in exchange for other concessions and gains in the CBA. For a court to remove the bargained-for provision post hoc while the remaining CBA provisions are still enforceable, without a clear statutory mandate, is fundamentally inequitable. Since there is no clear statutory mandate to deprive the District of the use of the alternate disciplinary procedure at issue here, the Appellate Division should not have decided as it did without undertaking a thorough review of the legislative history of the statute. See, Prof'l Staff Cong.-City Univ. of New York v. New York State Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 7 N.Y.3d 458, 467 (2006). Here, the language of the statute does not support the Appellate Division’s interpretation. Therefore, the Appellate Division should have analyzed the legislative history to determine the legislative intent before issuing a decision. 14 POINT III THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES AN INTENT TO ALLOW ALTERNATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES TO SURVIVE UNTIL THOSE PROCEDURES ARE RENEGOTIATED A review of the legislative history associated with Education Law §3020(1) provides clarity regarding the legislature’s intent in enacting this statute, and reveals that the Appellate Division decided this case incorrectly. A court’s objective in construing a statute “is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature.” DaimlerChrysler Corp., 7 N.Y.3d at 660. “An examination of surrounding circumstances” should occur when ascertaining the meaning of a statute “to the end that arbitrary and literal consequences may be avoided when it is apparent that they were not intended.” McGaffin v. City of Cohoes, 74 N.Y. 387 (1878). Unfortunately, the Appellate Division failed to consider the legislative history of Section 3020(1) before issuing its decision rewriting the intent of the statute. The legislative history in this case guides the Court to the inescapable conclusion that disciplinary procedures negotiated prior to September 1, 1994, were intended to survive until the procedures were renegotiated by the parties. The Governor’s Memorandum filed with Assembly Bill #11762-A, which was enacted to become Education Law §§3020(1) and 3020-a, noted that the Governor had appointed a Moreland Act Commission to study and make recommendations 15 pertaining to New York State’s education system. It states, “The Commission also recommended that teachers and school districts be permitted to bargain for alternative disciplinary procedures.” (A-012) 1 . The 1994 Memorandum pertaining to the Governor’s Program Bill states, “Section 1 amends section 3020 of the Education Law to provide that tenured teachers shall be disciplined only for just cause and in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 3020-a of the Education law or with alternative procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement.” (A-014) [emphasis added]. The memorandum similarly notes that, “the Commission recommended that teachers and school districts be permitted to bargain for alternative disciplinary procedures.” (A-016). The memorandum dated July 18, 1994, from the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations articulates that, “Education Law Section 3020 is amended to provide that tenured teachers may only be disciplined for just cause. This section also provides that either the disciplinary procedures set forth in 3020-a or alternate procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement must be followed. For collective bargaining agreements containing disciplinary procedures which are effective after September 1, 1994, the employee must be able to elect either the procedures contained in the agreement or those contained in 3020-a.” (A-031) [emphasis added]. It is clear, based on this memorandum, that the legislative intent 1 ”A-” references are to the Legislative history documents attached as an addendum to this brief. 16 was for disciplinary procedures which were already contained in CBAs prior to September 1, 1994, to be unaffected by renegotiation of portions of the collective bargaining agreements that did not alter those existing disciplinary procedures. It is undeniable, based on the plain meaning of the statute as a whole, as well as its legislative history, that the legislature intended to “grandfather” alternate disciplinary procedures that had already been bargained for and already existed in collective bargaining agreements when it amended Section 3020(1). The express language of the statute as a whole requires renegotiation of the alternate disciplinary procedures contained in pre-September 1, 1994 CBAs before the requirement is triggered under Section 3020(1) that the CBA provide the employee the right of electing between a 3020-a hearing or alternate disciplinary procedures. Unless the Appellate Division’s decision is reversed, the result would be that the very ability to continue to benefit from the bargain reached between school districts and unions, and protected by the Legislature, would be destroyed and the statute would be rendered meaningless. Any alternate disciplinary procedures for which districts and unions bargained and agreed upon before September 1, 1994 would be nullified, even if those procedures had served the unions and districts satisfactorily since that time. Such a result would effectively deny the districts and unions the right to retain those procedures for which they had bargained and agreed upon, and would ignore the ability of unions and district to renegotiate those portions of CBAs with which either party is dissatisfied. The Court should not allow the clear meaning of the statute and the clear intent of the Legislature to be ignored. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Respondents-Appellants respectfully request that the Court reverse the Fourth Department Appellate Division's decision and reinstate the Monroe County Supreme Court's decision. Dated: Rochester, New York December 19, 2013 EDWIN LOPEZ-SOTO, GENERAL COUNSEL Attorneys for Respondents-Appellants /j ::J£c CarfM~gS' E~q~t;el Rochester City School District 131 West Broad Street Rochester, New York 14614 Telephone: (585) 262-8280 Email: Cara.Briggs@rcsdk12.org 17 18 ADDENDUM 1 A-001 ~t~ ~! _ r. ' • " .. ",. '!ct l~e" , ~ Qf.- ."bl)ll;h,/"'o~ ~ o~ '~Ct 10n ~~1I~"2 II! ,tllt" -2 dl,\gatlG~ l~\H' at n ~r ""., I..",. Ofj,.Ul ' ~. , ....... to. 3 " .. a" aI, fQl,~"o~'lo •• ~ i ' 04, ,i (~l .1'n. o!,Qlllltittl Cv 8U9.t,llIhlld.n ~! t'n ad ran,!*' (I'~ ttle 'i ~ot .... of. "h.,. •• , and aplolt.QaHont" " ~H tll,ferll' the ... ,to), ••• C~U~ .. ~n' "" O.....,.ltr ~ bOltd ot u~. ~.~ut. ~f 't~.' oo~pl.lnt . HQ - (dba~, ••• ba" -. ¥'Ou,., .0' thin .i~ mqnth' ~ft., ~h. Goau,r.nol oe. the ~l'OOY'f' t •• , .. ,. 0, ,bt d.,., ~h.n d~"oQY.ry 81\01,114 nave oc~u~,~ "pon ~'" ••• r'l~,OI-4u' 4il O w "nOt ,of. ,{\.~ aU"'" , 1,lIoQIIIPf,.nClt- ~t ."Gon'''o, .a!!.,t wl\4l,. th .. oftar .. L~; ell "h,.t\4}1o~ ~qffI.'1t" t'ln • 0'1 ... .," •• ,ij_l""I£~~.~~~. ~!!::~f-::'!~'¥!:;':~ . ' o . .~ . _ , i.. ."f,.;(fQ Ih ;t,h •• \10."01\ ." 1 ........ t~ ,,, .... 14U,," f 0 ~O~O·. " ({,,,~.t ••• ~l ' PUstauy .. ,~ t, ..... ,.. , ... ", ... OU.,.,~ 0 provtd.4 0 i~ o.!Ot lC>"-L .~."t,.f ye lQ"drtC t"'.""'"'''' Ule" t'*'~ , i . i ... , .. ~LAM~'lor:-,~ .... . ~ . • 0, t'tt':tfcr:!.;:':!*:,!:.;~' .. n., ,. IN~"' 0 o • , , ,r '~f "", ......... " - '. A-002 A-003 he LI ,Upon r.celp~ ot a C~qU.8t r a ,jUbd l 'H.ll .• nr. t'" o f tUI .ilC~10.n . the. co ... l ft I ~n JhatL e~.dul ~ ~ nea:~nq, to be h.ld 1n the local sqn.o •. 1 t:L .e· . r C:0I1r1t 1 :!Iull. .., th l< t~an ;)' ~rkltl9 d AI hI. N oe. I r , e requast tilll re i o r. and lll_d tatei v noUfi;' the .1t-1)1ove~ o t J t o e ... lo.y r'l<~ odd of th~· .. ' and plac. thenot. and the procedur.. to ~ o b. fo i lowsd Ln ,.l.ctln~ _ h •• C109 pan,l) forthwith oatlev 'hI Attrtsaq H rrr:tjo~ r·oc~rl:: r;i:~;=~F~~~~!~·~ ~; ~~i ~~:; r' t ; ~ h:.;t~~t:n;?:~l !.~ :~ :e:::ni !bQien:;y;ih! :.,:ci:;,:n~::~ ~~ ~;;~~!!;1:i~:~:::;1 ;rt~b1!1:!:!:r~:5;:br:!Intt:t!:.!;i~: '~nb"!!~: !~ ~~:!U:::n;r U;Jp !~;!t:Qnf ::!t UI!r;::,~!QI::::iC:l !:!:rm'!l~n, R!e: 48 14!!)U1W.apYllx t.i tb. ,.19)'189 _54 m :~: .• 1R!!II. ~9 h . III $ •• r1n9 Ip.n.~ ...o,rel 0 c • (FOr the purpo,e' oe tb1 •. so • • c t I9n the ~om.I •• !on'~ of aducatlon .~11 "lntalft • lilt of h.,rint 51 panel me.bert, c~po,,~ of p~ofe"lontl pe,eonn.l w1t~out .d.lnt.~r.t'v. - 52 or .uperYl.~y r •• pon.ib!l l\y, prof ••• loaal per.oftftl1 with ... lnl.tra~ ~l tlv. or .upervilory r.spdnsibility, Ohl~1 •• hoo~ ."tnletratore, .lab.tO !J .a of l"ployln9 ~rd' .. ~ ott' • .,I ... llou. hoa p.t. oe nOta'n... lutl:llH- 5l1 -' ted by .E.~.Wl_ ' ''t&lIl''llgn~ r_pt'n.""" •• t.ieh,n, ,,"00) ,_!nlltr." 56 tou tnd IU"tvl.o~. >aad tn, •• Iot ~'" ~d •• IIHrlnJ ",,",1 ..... t. A-004 ,. ;; :: ~ ~~::l :~ , ~ ~ e l::'l!::::m'~ : :::i ~ ;:~: ,;. r.: 1 ~ :m :1;: ~ ~ ~ :~!~ , ~,; , " 31 ) . :l~ ! " .. " " 51 . lU Thl c:_1 • • 10nl' o t .6l1el t l on 11'1111 "-VI "01' t IM power M e •• • ., y rul •• In' " .... ~"lIr •• rOt H" cOllldhiCt of u - "-Ilintl , .. Ot l O11" '\,Ie" u1 .. l"aU not t l'l 1:l1r. cOIIfJUanft \~ .. Hh t .. bll ~c'l Or avld.ru'. ,. I ~U ... en h.,tln, .naU ... h,lil "'"to • h"UDt "Mt C'otIpO l" or ._tlln ....... u not ta,t' ... t, n o, ~ ... ~ A-OOS A-OOG A-007 .. , , , " , •• , . . . " " " ,. .u~ " . ' '" " " ., n " " I. " " I . , " ,. d " " ., ., .. . , ,,' .. " , , " I' ,j 'l~'!(.; J, 2.'" t. . I' " ,' " ,w ~ \.. tI .. ~'(Iflq I ~' ." ,.f.hnpr l"I .. c l ~ ... n . ,1 H~v : .,I:i I 'l l II ) u~ lcl .. . .. ~'" £ 'Pdl cr .... "". '. 'r h ) " .. I ", p r .... ~ II~ ,, ~.d.f • • : !~~ • ., ... . nt:;· •. :J1Il , t t r.t. !:!., l p r." a.CI " ... Ion4 pU. q ' .. U .!:! . ..!'l ~~;s..udt_!"S' t!lL .! W 'U .. ' t !9-S~ .'!.l-!.. t a : t l : ~.! . t l." !f~,..I..!.!:'m-'it....:.' ... r r ii" pUI I!t191 L __ U!i: J.r. !.!.~.Q P'l~f!!!,tl r ...... .l'u~t .. \L~t:i.! 'l .1!!!. I'.' r 'iUltt to .. nd ~ .. 1,,! Z!l.t. -4!'..i ~,\... r l \; '_"" ~Dt....t..i1' ... H .\- r.'_".uIe!'L..!.!!...1.2!.lL.~1 . ' S! l it " , "'14 ".' <1)1 11 rl t;, I ' . l,tl''' U l t >rI "lu I . " d •• ,,~d ~c b. r !,\oIi ~ ~ , ! Ih. flJrl1Q'~ I ,.eli pr Of"O; .': ":'~'~,'~'~':.;~i'::-'. ~:~~~: een9,U'l('L t . -Or: !!1'j " '. ,t"a1 ', "J '1. . t l c l ..;l' o· ,. ,+:, .. \t lut It .L I-II ~ II.' t " .• , ,,,0>,> •• ~ ~ I I ,,,, . c,T tn. CQ" \f'U Y, oil ,.",;lI I U' ,. IlI ... 1 .. ,....~r!.M ... "1'1 " 1";] by ~ III.O ~It. _=1\00. dllt l U: t «1 (. vlf'~ j 0 ' (; VO' f lllt l •• O':"ti 1I. ' qnq p. n . ... .... , 9 t hl . h 'qa 1. " pr .s. nt . ll". Ol~"n.flt:iu ,. , ilJ be ) 1"" ' . '1" .1";1' t 1t' h id 'lien pln. ~ .. ft.r not, " .11' t . l ... . . d fr on db~~ I n '~~Q fdlnc. wttll tn. ptUYlll0nl Qf t n l~ I .. bd lv l. lor.. provi d.d , !!: ",..., .. u~ ; l l t Itven d l~:. tiC: t o r ~lfd Hi' u q u(t. IIU l;::" pall. ' ..... ' • ., ~1 1~ou rl. llien dtl t r Ler 4r 00.14 olin .~lIn(. ~.I t o the dll 'y ea-penll * 1101, -u t ll . r"11. pI ,."'i. puuul nl to t n l ' I . c t lon • • 4 , S .. r:' i t:l tl '\ .) , . ~n.pt.r o r th. L,wI o t a u a ..... rUnq the pllo llc r •• l tn , .... and ttol .~IoC.t 'qr. 1 . .... r.t.t ~ ", to 1.,,,ln4i!. a t. pro po'ld I n tt".I\'" .. 1 bl lt ";lIl1Mt~ ".l"ln. '.'0iI1e 11 1IIKP&At.m • t , . ThJ. l et In.~ t ta ••• rt.a, on tn. t nl rtl.'ft dlr tf\. , It 1 ... 11 /'I I "'. ",",0.- • l aw .Rd .... U apply to "'an""a COMomaH .,. "~ '" '11 t .. , Of ~~i'" pu.a~,,~ to •• ~tlOft )D30·. 01 t ... tdYClt loa l aw Oft ~r . ,tar 'YG~ "," prOVI de4. "OWlV.'. tnat taetlon ttl r" 0' ,_1, ....... L ta ••• '~ rlK' of' 'M ... ". 1 tu, I e .. a .. .,t ot tM 1a" 0' "U "'II'"" tria p"- ':~_ ....... «:.c~ .... A-008 " i , • A-009 ; IIi l ~ ! • Ii ; ; C . . . . .... 1 . l 2 0 ~ ~ ... l! .... ~ " ,» .. . ~ ..... . .a O ..... ""'" -.. . .. ....... t • .. .r:: ... • :s .. - c a e 1 " :s .... . ~ ..... O - ~ o .-o I « - I' -¥Ij;l . -.- i I ii ... -e c :" :-c e -olioS l i l l · ~ ~ ~ 4 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + + ~ ~ ~ ~ + + ~ ~ · !le 1 : I ~ ""'II~ ".J .f r -.. f--.t~"-'- ~'fIf;,,-.. ........ -.....: 6 <\> _ . _ . ......... ·_~41A:.~~"A· · O ,',w eV i --:...---------------=--.=,-=-.;,... . ... ::=--::----- • - • ' I I ; .'~ ~ .. "····"·~1 . • ' U If _ nlll .\II'tl" It. NO JU911'':U",''. _Lot.,. loti. '''.J ~4'" ,In , ", - ~. 1',-~~1.'1.,.'.',~ .• ,) ,a"lrO ••••••• ,.~., •• • _,"h"t. ~~'~A , OP N.'~ •• tT' V y ,. pi }' y " i' ~'$ " \' " J \' y y y }' Y , lOll y )' y r. )' \' \' Y y I y \' y y J y y ). "'''4' I'J t' ,'" .... ,..".. ,f, \ ... ".« J ,1 " ... .,1,., "'" leN ' , "',.~u fl " tU"t .I. J., f .... f" '.t .... l T II11U.,11 'r ~ hrh,' (ill ,rllell II , t .... • ~I! , , .. ,ft. W \ "".,., II \ r:·~'" , t" u •• t ,tr! ••• 'It. .. ..~ ,tJR rllT" .c • y '." It ~. etA/II"". c ..... ,rII,. MJ ell"" t ~ ~tAlcr't 'hrh'lA"n JK t (:h,1I !i_I ... I Y ~fltnl"'lh M " c.:"n'd J l' t'IIU' "II " ti'411t Ito) I t: · .... ",·r. ~ Ilfl.,fI",,1I lUll I'" 11 ,; y ,I Tor ... 4 r utl~llM ,. B1A:C~11 Ir ,. r"~' \' t at:.. -.,Ir.,'.'" Ii l' t At, ~ .,r,11 H1) ,,-u a J J ~ hld .. _ J y """,. . ,,,, rflll'lI 1)1 , YEAI: ..... ,IIU y~Y ••. N"Y.MO.N~.~ •• T IL.~.~rU' •• '01 LID. , a· .. • ~1 .. .,-. ,. N,,*II H. 1 Q~.' IIf: )' 8 NI" c~ r )" ~~! :llc4.. I ....... ~ "'in", •. , l' I' .... '. f1 toa · )_ .. " ' .... , ) "'*f'Sr'" !I \ ,., •• J J 1',., ." , 'II ...... " . t "_,."#) •• c:'~ 1 JI •• I' I I ,,~ ""., ~ ~TM , 6 .... ; \ •• r " , .. ... ' , ... f .. t,al" .... \ , ••• 1' •• \ .t,,= . .;as " 1':-1'" ~ t' 1 " .... ., \ rIP·' , .J .. aa )' I Ih ... \ '1f.·~ , r ,~ \ T·c· \ ,e ... " •• Il. l=:' ,," ,. ,-\' .mlt. H ", J W., •• ,. ~'$ r" ':il" t Ju. ."r _ tI". 't"r ~ W.. • • Nt. .. •••• ... "",..! 0 leATIN ~lhl'.llIltclUtt' ".:.j~~!~!!'!!!.: ..... ant .... ..-.- ........ A-011 " , I 1 I 1 1. 'I 'I .' A-012 II' yuu n:qUIR! Itll)' 51~~IY. · . '():..j., p ~~ OWl .. P. 0J0k , t1I~rtnIft sa ..... lWwalton CoIn""" .. . ,J. A- 013 1, . l' ." . AQT io -A ~d ttl;ll '~~~~ . • ~,~cm li ... ·• 4."lt "ellfittoQ to ,Jt~f!)rft\"tpg: 'the prQceaurea lo~ the QonduQr of . ll.adngtr on 4i'9.~'J~th.~~ charg •• -!Jl\~~ tenur:.!t4: ·~~OJ!t!dlt1?'tiOt "f' employe.. and,.:;~~o. ~"p'"e.·l1!ect:~~ S • of. a <;!hapter ;p~!;~n~ tI.~~"s gjl 1.9f4 amendi.ng tlh~,.p"uillc. q .•• .!~)'! la and the educ~t:i:0ll ;\-,'&W': r .,jJ!iting to smoking aa propoaed in . legislative bill ~umber. A.7139E/S.5021C, relating thereto To re~:i8,! .t P Iil exiet~ng ~rocedure" for heari,ngs 'pn ~J. s c:!plinary ·e.ha;~ges brought against tenured school diacrict e mp:..oyees i n o:fi:1~r to r~solve the charges eXEed:i-tlously, prOllect he rl ght9 of emp'loyees dlnd reduce the cost of such hearings 0 ,~mp1,pyees , schoCii districts and the State. " < Sec t ion 1, al1lends sect lo on 302 0 o.f the Education Law provi de c~at tenured teachers shall disciplined oq~y f6r just caUH~ and 1n aqq9~daroc with che prooedur~. set forth in .ection l020-a of the .. Eq4~atofon law or with alternative procedures contained i n a"'J:l$ile'¢'t;.:I!~e bargaining agreement. Sec1:tion. 2r '~m~nJ1s. section )020 - a of the mducatiOn· Law. Subdi vision 2 -is amenaed to require: a schObl district that brings Ii al.&cipl{n~nj o!tc.t/o,n. against a tenured employee to Ii1pec:ify the maximum penal t.1i ,t>hat woilld b. imposed if the employe. does not reqUelfto a hear,.j!ng or, that wo~ld b' sought if a hearing is ' . requested. Tt{ilC,.,ct·ion requires all oharg,.. to ba beard by .. s1ngle hearing: .ot~f.~9'.f except where the charge!, c:oneerh ped.logical inooffipetenpa or pedagogical ju4gmant ip whioh c ••• the employee may ·i'squ~n a three maml5.r heating pinel. , ~ ~ . . Subdivi8~bn ~ !~ ,m.~~ad ~o provide that hearing ofticer • • hal) be .ele¢I;.~4(, .W' ~K. P.rtie. fi'om'! u.., prcw1clecl br the American Ar>Jil;:rae:. ~o~ "~ .. • eciatieD-' ("bleaiadon"). He_r ftg .p,Uiae.re wO..,u1,41tJ .• · 'P.~ t',ha CI!~at1\.ll.1 fe~ JNlid to ubi~rator. under th& 1I~.~f~'~ of· ~JS. ~.oo1aUon. , With~q ' lj day. af the •• 1ec~iOft of • hearlnt oftlG.~t • p~. h'ar~ng pont.~.n.. 14 De be14 ., Wblch the he.rl olfiott A-014 ' c.,., C:ubdi.vi*ioJl S' i ,' lllilel1ded 0 provide that th'a decision of the neari ng 9f.fJce-r. :L f5. fil184 and may be appeale9. eolely in acqoJ'dance iii ~ IS etion ~U of the Civil Pract.ice Laws an~ Rule •. , S . 00 ~ ~f tn, hill repeals sec4ion 5 of a chapter of the wa c ! _!l 94 amrwding t'he pUblif -hea1t.~ law alrd t.he education law i .lat!rtg 9 8moR1n~ aa proposed i n l egislative bill numbers A . ~1~ 917S. S 2iC • Y , on ~he thirtieth day after it charges brought on or after A-01S ~i1..tricte .na · ~~ .. '!'~h~· ~.~~_ndaticn. · ! ..... a .~ .nhanc~g ~ducal iQnU p~~~.iimai\~~~I'1~ coat -eff etlfi.ven.... Th* COIIIIIlll.1j:1n ?oprved ~e8tr~mailYi..~r9'1" .Qyel! 300 '1hn .... ~ end h."r,d r.p.~t" "'criticisms of" .~~¥:?ur~re(i1~·Rr2c ;:.durea (or brlpglng d1aciplina ry .. charges~ agaiflJ;!t> .t::,,~u!,ed t~!.v ~r.. 'J'h_ C0J!IIII1eaion concluded t.hat t hl prot:eea t~s,!1j,~;: ~rJlt.~·Jl',ing8 th at ~~. far too expel)a1ve and !time c0l2P'umi~1:h ' .. ~~cttpr9c.ediJ \g, have 'been. ellUmate" to ooe t il) excess of $8Q~;.9:09 ... ·4lnl3'Hn. many . .i..n8~.m:ea, t "Ake over one ye ar to • resolve. J. ' 0> , . . - ~ The COIJI~j.~;ion:..c9~oluded that fhe dhcipl inary prooedures-- mlisI!:- be revilJed to·~p.l!:lange .d ue proceslil protection for ten ured .~ .. ~._~ .. _ F&~cherlil $gainst tQ eih.~ad fo~ distriots to have an eMpedient and ~o.t - e"ffectivt; t:ool~,",f~t >ltiaj:n3;a"inl.ng d180iplinary .. tan dards. The C'l:mmisBH>n recomm~.nCJe:~ .. jt·h@,t'. . discipll.nary proc:eedings be c onducted ~~ore a sing l ~ he\~J~'~ .. of·f:fce-r mutu ally selected by. the employee and the emp oy::.ngboard. ·f,rom a lut of erbitrators •. The h earing othcer mus'tfbe: ampower:j!~l.:t5. imp0t!le a broad range of pena lties, includin9 mandatQ~Y .l't~llil~q'j)a~ action ::0 improve II r,eacher' 8 . ,Performance, and th~tA'Et!;J!"i on should be final. Itl addi::io n, the COmmiS81.0n recommended. c·hat teachers and school districts be perm i_t ted to barga'.in-:'t9r al ternat l ve discl.plinary p rocedures. ... ~1 , \ , I Th lS bill i ihpi'~~en~~'(Cliese recommendation s. Tenured t>eachers wGiuld be,af'tQrge~ a dditional due process protect ion by r.eq\l i ring that th:e'y oe :informed of whae penalty the employing board wi ll seek (fo. :!!mp-R~se, if a hearing i s requested by th e ,~ployee arid whi:1t_·'PEJnelltly,wi ll be sought if a hearing ls not requested, by aut'h9jfi-~;tl'lg}th e hearing officer to grsnt di scovery .request1l and l~y ~:&p'andJ'.l:I:?f. the r '8nge of 'penalties. ,that can be impoaeci t o Jnc1\.!~I~\~~m~9-;fal ac tion by the employ~e. In addi tion, the liKe ll;~od of fr1;yol'ous charges "" " .. I B1' auau a. 11XLL8 Dtzo04llCle4 by. CD ~~.. on t~ •• .1. .... "4 R.U11Z-a LaW: BcluaatioD 8.~iDII.' 2S1G-j, lall, 30ao-. , Dlyi.108 of tbe Bu4,.. raao...,aatioa DR th. aboy. ~illl approva:--L.. V.t:o.~ .0 O!I~.ation: __ Wa .eaaamIll1atioDI_ ,. SUbject and hepc .. : To i_prove ~he ft~.inis~.tign o •• lemen~. middle, and secondary edQcation in NeW York state by raforming the disciplinary bearing. for tenured .. ployaes. Eft.ative 30 ~ay. 4fter enactment, this bill. in~roduced at the GovernQr's request (Program ai11 1260), would amend :he .dueation Law ~o~ • • • • • • • ~sure that t.nu~Qd teacber_ WDuld undergo di.clpllna~ procellCHnq~ (lnly for legitblate cau.l" •• ; Req~i~. ~hat ~ ~~hoal alatrici b~i"9ing an action .9.1n.~ a tenured ~plo~ee lnfo~. that employa. ot the m.xi~. panalt1 •• he/ahe cculd 1'Ilaeive both with or ,.,ithout the hlulrinljJ; Subatitute ~ ~lngle bearing officer for 'tha previous panel of three, 1n most case., with the baaring officer to be se~ected fro. a liat provided I by tha American Arbitration A •• oclation and to be paid the fee authorized by that assoalation; Cadity procedure* 4n~ shor~.n time-frADes to keap ~loyee. fully info~ad of dlscipll~.~ actions and to expedite the haerinljJei pa~.it summary dismissal of a t.acber who.a license ha. bean reVOked; . a~oad.n ~he range ofjpenaltiea which a hearing officer/panal is authorized to impose, and provide that the d.c~Sion. ot disciplinary h •• ring officers/panels .. re ina1 and aubject to appeal ol\ly utlder ~cial circuwatanas . , 3. l.oqiwladya HistWV: , There have been several abt8lllPta in th. past to atreul1ne the disciplinary process far renured teachers. To date, however, no bill 000011 A-018 4. : Prace4ur.. "'t:.:~;~ .. ~~~b:~"=~lnp haY. -.n fraquamly , ~it1C1zed •• l.Jl.II;j;l.g'~ •• l1nl~ to the state, 10Gal Rb oa~ boudtl and df.cted Ne" York stat. sp.c:ia1 co_ 1a.~~ an Bcluat..1onal ftaotlc.. (1.13) aonourr-ed Jl1'rjft th... critici". and di.alplinarr pJ:'0Ca8. to~ taPlU'ed teaahus be on incor-porat.ll lIOs t of • the recQlmlllna.t1cins of ,It 1IXp4Id1t.a. ::.h. had", pXOOCISII. Ud streamlin.. MkiDg the dlsciplil1ary Foe ••• • ore ~f.at1ve and coat-ef "tnta1nin, tenured t .. c heJ:'~. ri~h~ to due praa •••• r", .. u·.a::u.n~ loaal school board. to ,.e1l1buJ: •• The prgvl.ion of ~~a bill the state Education Dapar -frivolous- would result In the coats of any charg.. de..-d unnecessary hearin9s. ,. Pol!lbl.· 0b1agtiona: While this bill oondanses ~hG tr.e~fram. asaociated wi~h diacipl1 nary h~inga frca start to fini.h ( peoitYin~ no .o~a than two p~ .. h • • rln9 conferenc .. , and no aore than 6 day. between the p~.- and fina l bearing), it could be argued ~h t a~oh flni~e and li.i~.4 tt.. periods ~y Pa seen .s eatablishing unreasonable expactationa for the hearin9a. ' 6. Otber stet. Aawncl •• IntaI.'t'4~ T~. State Ed~cation o.paIt~Qnt 7. Qtl)tir IQurllS;ed Grpups: The "ew · Yo~k state School Boar~ Association ~upports this bil l. New York State United Teachers ~ould be Int.~.&ted in this bill . , . 8. Mew; I!!ISIl1~AUonS: : CQrrentlY,' the State Education !apartment 1a responsible ~or the cost. at admlniat.r1ng the h •• rinqa, ~hile tha lo~l Bchool bo.~ds are raaponai~la fo~ payinq the sala:1 •• of ampl~ ... suapendad during n.-rings: under the ter •• of t is'la;ialation, this division o f fiscal r .. pon.ibil~ty would r~ in the s •••• Thl. bill shOUld reduce the sta!e'. RXP8ndit~. relating to disclplina~ h •• ~ing. bacause Of a raduct~on 1n numbers of bearings. hearin9 days and panel ~embard'l ~. bill would require school . to reiabur.e the State B duoatian Department for the costs anI bearing- the C8ua e. of vhioh were d .... d "frivo provia an ~n~lal1y date re unaaaa-s~y cha~ .. and al.o that ~he stat. recaup i ts .coft. if such charge. Bra mad •• A-019 . ~. . , . . ~ -. ':." -.; .. ) .•... . , ., ~. ~.' ,.' : .. '{{. :',,',.' :'\":~ A-020 " '.' ". ~ 1i ",I,' ", ". . :~ . ~ . . "t.";, '1'" .':- . ..,I . . "".,. . .. , . .' , ~.: ! .~. l'-- .. ; ~ f· ~:I~ ~ " .. ' .: .. r .1-.1., ·lr~. J.'" I , . ",~ ... lea A.U762·A J)eaJi MI • .1(001' •• _ ; ..... & .... & ol ...... " b •• no po,-b!olt cOlic.nJi .. the .~~"'" .. ~e.' PJ'Op,D .. 1: J!"f.~1J fop .... t '.pact upo" '0' .~.. 01 1 •• a.U· .fela 1111 ha .. jj~dlchPD. 'i"ce""~,, »~1/.1·~ ~,-~~oea ...... A-021 .. '. CoqnaoJ t,,) klt.~V A. AheO! r" A.l ,H62 .... A RI1COMMa,jNOAT1OPh Dlu.PPfovcal R~ASON POR R~CUMM~ND~~lONI " Th i ll bill ~mend8 var l-Q"e provia Ions o f the Edj1cation Law tltlAl:lng to prooed\lrea j n h •• bngo on disolplinary chdges agaios t tenured sc:hoo~ dl'st r1 c t. employees. Js:ducat I on La~ 82590- j (1)( 0 ) 1 s .. ",ended . to !IIake d}sclpl1!lArY chaJ:gell l*ga}!ls l lenured employee s of o9111111uni tfy Bohqo'l iHstr1a1:s ill New 'io1"k City subject to the sam e 3 yea~ stalule of limilaLions that applies to all other dlslriets. t~uaaLlon Law '3013 Ls amended La est~bl'sh " "just ca~.e" standa rd f2f dleclpJ ine Of tanured te1'ahers and t.o r equire that t8nutlt~ t,.chers ~ be diSCiplined only In aqaord4noll w1t,tl IIlducat1.0l) Law 830~O-a or all alternatifJ di"$cipl I nary proae.dur ~ that . .l.a qont:alned i n a ooileolive bargflining agrlte~ent. AnV IHlo l) agreenlJnt that beco mes efEectl~e on or 4!ter 8eptem~8r }, 1994 mU8\ provJde the em ploy •• wilh ~he right t o elecl either, the procedures undef .l02~-. oy the ppntracLu81 procedul'es. La!lguage is adde d ~p 83012 l .O prohlb it t.he 8"Bpenslon or dismissal of _ heacher for vro~ a c lon of Pu~llo He alth I.aw, Artl.cle J-E, whlC I'\",1i"tOh}bl t & pliloking in sQh;)ol build ing •• .. . . ,. Education Law i 3030- a is amended to : . } . a. requi~e cha~ the oh~rges spec ify lh m.xl~um penaLly to be l ~posed ~r b. ~ulhoriz. the euap,nalon of • teaoher wit.hout pay p~nding ~ hear 1 09' where the alll,loyse hoi. bee" ao~y.lot.u:l of! a felony lnvpl~lng o~lmln.l aa1. or po •• eeelon of dt~g., d~U9 preouraor. o r par .. phernaUa 017 th' phYlliga,l _.or sexual .bu.. of .. minor or ~~~J - . o. p'rovi~. ,pc the aonduG\ Qf haulri, • . pefore • hea,ing officar, exc.pt th.t • t.lo~ar .. ~ OhOO~. a thr •• pan.l · w~.n th~' obatge. ' inVo1ve p.d.~oQt~.l lna9apetenoe or involving P.d.~o9icll jud,.ant, A-022 A-023 o. r~Yir' t~t b •• rl~g. · that ~111 t.~ • .ott, than ad. di, be .~edul.d Qft Gon.eOMt1v. day. ,nd ~.t ~tpone..nt. be ~'''L'' C)nly rQ~ Wluae. I p. ,rov.dtf th.-to the W?toy.e .Ja, not. .,. l'"ulred to t •• Uf, wiLho~t ~ .-plo, .. '. QQn •• nt, t' q. , provide ecas All ...... Ut." h .. , llllJ to '~". w1tbln 1 day. w~.r. A t .. ~h.r·8 protl'llonal 11a.~ • ha. be.n r .. ~ed, t· . rtlquhe ttl' b.arlng ofUcer r pa"el t.o rlt".' .. dec:l.10n w\lh~1l JII d.y. or: t.be olo.e of the h .d"., a. f",,1fe. t.hat e.,.r, deol.l " or tt\. hear in,' offiae, or j)anel •• flndlnV8 of bert 'I'd aoner ulona of la .. on ..... Lh.r ~ ... cbOtg •• are l .rlvolou. a. clen"ed 1n ,La IllD3"., L. tIIquhe tbat: t.he hearing orne.r, In deter •• nl,. tbe penalty, caulder at. t;he nquen c t.h ..... 10' .. tfte eato\. to whiah the ... ploy!nt board .. de at ort. t.owud qorrec:Unv the bellavlor Qf tbe IliptOJOO whSc;n nlU ~cO ~n the _rget. '.tUGU'" such IIII.nl al 'l.laUon, a peer intervention prQqraa Of an .-ploy.e ... l.tanoe pl.n, u. authorhe tb. h •• Tint office or INn.l to reqllue rellltldiaJ .~lion ~ncludln9 , 1.ave. oe • nc., contlnuing edut.tlop, coun •• ling, a~d •• dlcal t~.atmentJ V •• IIthpd"l. the heat1n9 offloe or lMne1 to award auorney's t •• & And aoats wb~r. any of lh. char •• are frivolousl v. r~ll'. that where -an • plQyee DonYlcn:ed of c.rtaln feloJli .. involving 4rup or phy.! 1 01' sexu.l .bu •• M. Sllob conviction reversed on appeal, th.. loyee 18 .ntitled to back ~y frOil the- date of .uspitlUlion wlthTt pay to , th. at. of the decision, x. 8lt.!nate the Ca"1 •• 10n.r'~ ' .uthOl'lty to r.view 53020-. hearing oltieer or panel dec1.ion., r. li.lt ' judl~1.1 1'.~l.w of '3J~O-4 hearing off1cer or panel deal. on.' to' tbe proaeduxe for t.vi.~ of an arbitrator'. dect.lon undlfr cpr.R .7511, which doe. not 1 nc~u"e an, review of c.b. ad t. of tne d.clsion,. , a. r.qui~. l...alate l~l ... n .tion of the a.cls10n of the hearing officer or pinel. . Pl~lly •. the bill t.~e •• frect 30 day. arc.r it .hall hava becoee a law, and applle. to b •• ~ing on charg •• fl1ed an or after such date. 1 A-024 ,. t • . '. I. '''' ! , r I 'Ib.f' i. no daubt ~~t t~ 'd.t~ .,rooed4ar .. for hNI J em d.lHl,U"'t, cmar,u "~ ... t"'II~" C .... r. 'IInder Idueatl .... ......, 13030-..... .,..l, 1n .... or r.for.. ... ... 1 .... are ... tao le ... t.h, f Ami til. ~OI to l10II001 dL.tt leea · ruultlM 111'011 PIOtrelOt4t' ., .. ,1"'1. rmtta ..... 1. "r. IInaOClllptMtl, .. l .... 1. . 1.1.~J.on 1. nelda. ' ' ..... It. use J30,0·a h •• ~ h,.. wIIn. 9r ...... 1"' the orltlaal funol~ 01 auab ~.rl~ •• ~ '~l .. rv ... ". ~ wJUqb " ~ • ...,r"·",lOfH who .." .... 1" _i.conduat CII. be (".y", ft. the 91., rOOll, ' 10 tu, th. illt''''''1 of Mtkaol Cl'hlldrtn, par.au, Qlh r Hll4Ml ,.,.o""el ,lid tbe ~bUc ar e PfQ,L eat eel. . '''hI. t-H' WCllll" rt, 4IW •• btl •• 'SUO-. ,roc.re. witb. 1M" IIy.l;,. of • .,10", .r. ,.Uou tl\lt ""..ld , .... It 1ft _a_Ited procedur •• "nd .018' 00' I,vlnge. The bl11 .. ~ .... It, l.,ortant .:" .. n", 1n ,3020-, pt IIr •• ttiat. .hould ex .. ". t.he proca •• ~.lp, LIM put.l,. foem ' L". lI ...... And belp •• uro that Lhe h',lI'ln, •• r. fa". *~ 1" tJIe bLll provlN. Cor _ ala,1I Juiadnt offic.r rat~., than a t 1''' ~r pln.l 1~ At l ... t .o.e ~I ~equJr ••• pr.-hearlnt "'.r.~e t~ tOCV' l •• u ••• 4Rcl .. .atlon. And r,.olvo di.put •• 0 r 'iacover" provide. for the pr.,.ratlon at bl Ua ,Qt p.rUc:ul.r ,"0 £oc:us .u.. t •• u •• , hel,. ... ..,e tile i_5Nlr .. laUty of the.1 1. h .. rl", off'nt or ~".l Obtalrner8Oft fr~ Lbe e.plo,e.' I Y .wpolnt. by IMl&lllCJ lftdlvlcSu.la who · "'0"0 .. ,1"" .. bV alJ'~t.. 01' r. ee.ent.Uv •• of "h •• Choo1 dhLrlcrt "lttli,. the prooedin, two ,.ar. lae21vlble to aetv .... h.-ring officer: t'lqul r.. that h,.uin.. be .ah .. u1ed an c:on..eaut,lvo ~r' Vlan. a110wlnt po.tpon .... nt. for "u •• , provide. for r ...... bl. ~naalion of t.he .tlnt · offlcer. with t.h. CU8tOllolr-y r ... notvlthat..ndint prOY1.~n. of • blldtot. bill or o~het lAW' ptOWld .. fot .xpedited 11 •• r1l". ,lee. t •• cber:'. ~"Uf1Wlt. or 11 ..... haa been revoked. ..wid1 • Uohter a.adUn.. fol' the ~r'-""l'lA9 pl'OCIedur_, _utttori ... ~ •• u.~ntllon of tuclMrs tdtbout pal' ....... Ure ' t.e.caher ha. t.e.n onv'crtiHI' of cert .. 1n 'o1.0II1e. reX-ted to Q~ntrou." .1III.t.anoea d tlMt pb,81co1 Of .'.\lal .ba .. of chUdJ> •• , ex,. ... a the peMHJ proY .10'" to include ' .... 1.1 "."1''' SUCIb .. CloqUnulno IduaaUoll. cClUn •• UlI9 .nd _1e.l ' t" .. ~"t, .. ad el1.1nat .. th. ', .anth .tatuto·of ll.itatlon. on char ..... ,.In.t t.aah,r. 1n ~"ltv .'bool districts. . The State ld&lc.t10~ OepartMnt. .at reo~nd th.\ tile biU be di.approved, ho"'IVer, ,u,, 'wnatn of .lt' provillou w111 t .. ult. 1ft the 41111n1 ... " prot Uon ot ahUdren. plrlnt. ,nd the pubU e fra. tlacher .1acondwot !hi proetdDr .... tabll.b" bf this bill f.v~ the .-p1ov.. to ,1Ida • elite.. that 1t ifni ...... vary dlf~~CI~lt for a ~l I.trlot to 41 .. 1 .. a tenu." t •• ~r. eve. when tJuat te,olChet b.. • .. 111 .. rlau •• , ..... "t. aUalnaUng the ' .. loa.r e• a~thor1t, to r.vlew ,3020-a panol deal.lana and ,11. ,tLDI judlalal rev1 ... to Artlo1. 75 o~ the e'La wUl ... a praat cal .. ttDI' ..... that the .r .. hr.to .. •• deciaion will btl fin.' and .1rtuaU, Il"&".vi .... bl.. 'l'bar. b no I • I . ':OOOOta J I A-025 • ._ ... ... '""'. ·~r== .. ·-=·=·=====·· ,=.="""====---=--...,....----------~----~.--.-- .p. A teacher .t~u twO first the h.d ~lth albl,b heal f-'luJ.d.ng aUt" ..... peR. 1 ty of ,,,."naign ..• "L ........ .. ..... t.rs. 'rlill COIiII1 .... gq., .. " Mlty to 41"U~1. r ~1 M... 1101 6. 29 • 0,..,) I .. A t •• ahet tOIl~ two a1d4l:. achool ataa_nU on the b~ttoo.~ __ laW. th* •• 1.t. put hi •• ~ .founcJ r ... l. ~'lIditnt.. ~~ tM baGka iUl4 neaka of f ... l.'.tua.ata; · ~t hi. bant on tbe ...... t ..... r ...... : ... tal ... to ... l •• I r J A-026 ,. .. . t. ), .. t· t i' .'. C- .' ;- r: ~ . ~ . '., .:.. ~: ., ~ ·CSD, BIt. Dept • • ttt4ent). in • C~ •• ioner _. DD.I .... ,W l.nient peJlf.lt:l •• M.,. C01lallU .... 18 BII. 11 OOQQ~ ' .. . , 0w. ·· A-027 The bill require. the 1071q board to disclo.e ita •• ld _ _ to ~h. aployee WhUe i 1119 no carrnpoft4ing burd... Oil ,the etap19Y". ' JIoreover, the b 1 nCl1llc.. tbat I!ricSance DOt procSu cecJ at tbe p~.-b .. d4' ClOater nae '- e.ciludecS, .1tJ1aut .alciat uy •• caption fot Mlfly-4itlCOft ed wi~., ... 11. tile bill p~ote ct. the .-.ploy .. fEe-. i..-t.uty of t.M bead... ol!fic:al', ISO cOlilpuable ptDteat10n 1. a~r...- tbe adloQl cU.triat. '!ben 1 a no prohlblt::1oll .ga11U1\: ~ .~ an of aa' ... bitr.tor: who 1. e.pl.o ,ecI by ~ aJS agent of the 101M oript_tioe repr ... nUag tbIt t •• cher, unl ••• the iftdivi mal , ......... a •• ee4iator or fact fin&tr 1D' th_ dlstricrt.- ! 7 A-028 . " ~ ~ 't 'I 1 • A-029 A-030 .' . .' I . . '. 'f' M: . ... ........ - IRNOR'GOFACII_u.t..owa ASlA ~ _4"-..01001 ......... ....,.,...·IIJa .~I:.!y lS.. 1 l:*1I .. ~l~~':l .. !'~ P~J:'oi'ill'in! uqf .1. " .. ~. i :':,.," j.:.: :"!1~ :~'ncl the' Edw-d,,·,n ~U· "'Jrh r:~"'~t te' tbe pr t ' ....... l·.:.'1 ; ' 1 ','n '.,·r :.t' :i/".,-jP~l: .. d·l· hr',uJn,;t4' I'll ,·h.rlllt$ ':I::- t l.::: 6 ,.r. : .. :- ~ .. ",. .... 1 .t ·':.'"".l .~lttr r.:,-: ,}mpl.",, )·., .. :t. -:-..... :, . ,f ....... t 1 ·,· l:. i"'~c'J ,"In ri •• • : ••. ·_·,.,.., • .J~ti"n:e ~.t' I!b" . ~. 'Jt!I! l .... ·.·~ . • :: .:. ' r:,.i.,,-•• : ,"In., ~ .:"t·t I u.:tllrt'e, 1',:4 ~ •• jl..$ .:and Pr.t,,-t J t:1!IJ (.-'~j,':': .;:, wr.t.·b I'tJJ ,'Pl-vi.n ti'd i'Il' ~:.·t~".l·n('.l ':'-u~'JII" jl1 Jf.t}' 1993 . 1'C6t lJlff r.)· .h··· ... i ,.~ b)' r lJ,' .·.·AII:II!':rl"Z1 It'~'" n ll1hl}' ."r:tJe.J o~ th,," .'I~J·~II: l.r .•. · ••• ilu .. III.:C"nl"~!I"...:I 1n ,m't·glQp bA. S ... ·tlcm JQ2Q And ;.J:!L· ·.f !:"t • ..... ·!I ... r .U:r..-1pl j ;:~, "Bpe'~' i.l Ul' \·"n('.rnl11f/ til. ]Ugh ,:C:'S! : ': 3 :11'., r - ::.,1 'i~J .' h,' le-!lo,lf h ('t. r: mr; !,,' :=DllJPl1!C. ~ .. b.nrJ.rt.J • ";.1.: .• : :"n:-I;.I1, .. '~_",~.!.r.'l.Ln.tl~· .·!1.UI'.;Io!S oI ga.ill$C tei2ured . e".i .. ::.·r' T:" :.··.t.1 Lj' .f rtll"'o!-pIIr$":. i l!l.lrllbl pant!l. me lIe«rinq !, .. r. ... J '.' . l,..,;.,~.:. )' b,· 4J.Pr..ul.NI tl en" ,:o_11'.sioner o~ Bdilc'iltior. .'t ,'Ul," Al.' r .' oJ .: U Arf;.·lot "8 pz,·,·HdJ.n!1- :ria. h-.. rj~ .-,'PUO'.' .. ,: ... '11' .~ • .t ::f z'-::"')· .. n,d I::.al' 41 ... '11 • n rUl. lo·eclr.s .. &h'C4c.iqn LIM s.ct1oc JOZO. '1 .. cllIN !nded to prOlfJ.de ~ .. ~ tlinur.cf tffliChl!'r$ l' onIy bt! (fj ~pl1ned t'QJr ju.st· cause.: m.:t. 4dCt1on .1$0 protd _ t:lJ.e e.1e1Je.r th e cU$ciplinary .P~~ .. liet Eorth in 302()-. or alternat . .. j)rOC 8dUr._ CODC.dlJftl1 1n .. ~~''''':dv. bai'gA~n1l1f ag c. ausi LoUowecf . For coliecUv. ' ~.aJfI1ng aqr ....... nt.s .:onuI ng procedure. wIJ.1;ch ... ,e.t'L~\"e dtt";k Swpt.,u,.r 1# 1 lIWst be .b}e t!'ltller th_ prOt; ell tbe 'agre...at. or coatci:i1Wd in . : Any proc_ilr .. nBlalc*::4.'~~II"t c:OlILona to tb.e ibd.tlI seedon.30;Z(I· .... • A-031 - -- ~ .... or or L' ~~ • .r.. ' va i.lllfll!r sec't:l:oll ,3 or 3020-4 aipMded , 'to ~~r. t:~.f: the beu J on, lIon~gqrTJ.c:d cDn ducted by 4 ungle be4lring . orfi:ce~, ff'h!1 .. will be del .rr~ a p.b-.u .ot labor .rb.ittat:o a I m.a!nta·jned by the Anleri tr.t: i~A. lsaodat1an. 77li6 ... f:t.it.n· ·.l~o cont~£ns .trict tjons fqr the condu~t or til. he.:r.:h1g~ · A pr~-biJ • .ring lJIu"'t m. held W'..itb.1n 15 dI /I -pf selection or ~e _rb1tra ~~ conferellce , tne ~blt.r. o~ j8 ' au~ori%ed to 1asue 5~en.., ~nd con$.1 ~ appl..ioaUOrut ror tar.tus and illZ'orJllation. .r the enrpl'oyee r II, prcrus:!.onaJ bas heen revo1ced, the l1ear.tn " oUJ.r:ez ~~;,authorjzea to ~&. 'l!!IIIPloyee at the l're-b.e .1n g. :rh,., f.:l~l h4clr.1ng lIIu.st be 'ldth:ill 30 to 60 days dter tb. • I cc;onference and .i.' li~ted' to one d ay in mOoSt inllt.nces. 22Jel ~~!!!~.~or may pOatpo~. ~ rinal ' haaring d4Y only ror good ~ i , ' i !' $u.bdi.viajon 1/ Qf 302 ..... , .•• aJIII!'nded, l'equ1retJ the deoJ.1Q z:t b .. i.s.sueci lIithin .10 dill'S ter the f;(nal bearing. 1'he decJ,a on; , must ·CQnt.ill findings of 'cts , concl!lsiOnAI and the penalty 0.". j I!lpolJed. Jthara t:.'le oiIIIPlc 'e. i.$ found ~at gu:ll ty. aDd the ~ g~. . rlfo'! ~emed fri.·jclcus, elIe . eatin g o~f1'r;"r must order tll,,· Oll~ t ': r~il!lbu.rS" th .. ourrpJ.:>l'"'' d E ctucat:iol( Pi!p4LrtJIJent: for all 0 ' -, ••.• JII~ of' th.~ir .:osts. Stl vis.1on 5 o~ ·B020-a, . all OUIlended, 'I I 1 .... .lm.1t.!l ~pp •• .! :.-ithin 10 . ~y$ or ch i! l'e~eipt of dec:iel!,n i .,"?LR 7'12.. CPLlt 7511 can j~5 the llroullda tor vacat1nct and , ~"''''1fy:i.ng an, arbitr.tor'.s rWUd . .:, . . 5ect:J.on 4 of t/lJ.s rePeals .. .a'eCt.101l of c'I 1994 -~-4nt co the .. !'ublJ.c H.t.lth Lolli Nu~t 1.(Jp':.t.aJ, .rel.~ad to _(1It.lLDliIr·~· This, 4IIl8n~t, i:llrtelltlt a dti~oll'-CJy the Go vunpr, , .jSi A. ?13'EIS~S0'21C.~ , '. . , . ' S~~Uc~ 5 d,f thl. prQcedures. take :etlect to c1&arg."., .t;;Ll~ on or ~j.s b1ll" :a.lao ,tlr;r:olileo,o.J1Y i~ f!1ti.:i'iJl:JI d.i.ci~l~il".t)i "r'Ovj.s4.~J1SJ ·fh .. ~ ...... I .: . lo':. ,, " . ""'""",,.' A-032 , , ' , .. ,.' ::. : A-033 A-034 A-035 A-036 A-037 A-038 A-039 A-040 A-041 - to GOVERNOR'S PROGRAM BILL Purpose: 199. HIlKORANDUH AN ACT to amend the education law, in relation to reforming the procedures for the conduct of hearings on disciplinary charges against tenured school district employees To revise the existing procedures for hearings on disciplinary charges brought against tenured school district employees in order to resolve the charges expeditiously, protect the rights of employees and reduce ' the cost of such hearings to employees, school districts and the state. Summary of Provisions: Section 1 amends section )020 of the Education Law to provide that tenured teachers shall be disciplined only for just cause and in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 3020-a of the Education law or with alternative procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement. Section 2 amends section )020-a of the Education Law. Subdivision 2 is amended to require a school district that brings a disciplinary action against a tenured employee to specify the maximum penalty that would be imposed if the employee does not request a hearing or that would be sought if a hearing is requested. Subdivision 3 is amended to provide that all disciplinary hearings shall be heard by a single hearing officer selected by the parties from a list provided by the American Arbitration Association ("Association"). Hearing officers would be paid the customary fee paid to arbitrators under the auspices of the Association. Within 15 days of the selection of a hearing officer, a pre- hearing conference would be held at which the hearing ' officer would be authorized to dispose of preliminary matters and motions, issue subpoenas, consider and grant discovery requests and summarily dismiss the employee where the employing board proves the employee's professional licence has been revoked. A final hearing would be held thirty to sixty days after the pre- hearing conference and would be limited, in most cases, to one day. The hearing officer would be permitted to grant a request to postpone a final hearing only for good cause. A-042 . , . .,. ,. .. -2- • Subdivision 4 is amended to require the hearing officer to issue a written decision within thirty days after the final hearing, setting forth findings of facts, conclusions and what penalty, if any, shall be imposed by the employing board. The range of available penalties would include remedial actions, reprimands, fines, suspensions and dismissal. In the event the employee is acquitted and the hearing officer determines that all or some of the charges brought against the employee were frivolous, the hearing officer would be required to order the employing board to reimburse the employee and the Department of Education all or a portion of the costs each incurred as a result of the proceeding. Subdivision 5 is amended to provide that the decision of the hearing officer is final and may be appealed solely in accordance with section 7511 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules. Subdivision 6, pertaining to hearing panels, is repealed because discipline hearings' under this section will no longer be heard by panels. The bill takes effect on the thirtieth day after it is enacted and shall apply to charges brought on or after its effective date. Exist.ing Law: Under existing law, disciplinary charges against tenured teachers are heard by three member hearing panels. No provisions currently exist for a pre-hearing conference or for the summary dismissal of a teacher who has had his or her licence revoked. Exist.ing law does not limit t.he number of days a hearing may last and does not. limit the parties' abilit.y to post.pone hearings. Hearing panels are presently not authorized to order an employee to undergo remedial action and their decisions are appealable to the Commissioner of Educat.ion. There are presently no provisions of law that discourage t.he filing of frivolous charges against a teacher by an employing board. Statement in Support: The New York State Special Commission on Educational structure, Policies and Practices ("Commission") was appointed by Governor Mario M. Cuomo in May, 1993, to investigate lithe expenditures, management and affairs ll of New York's school districts and to make recommendations aimed at enhancing educational performance and .cost-effectiveness. The Commission received testimony from over 300 witnesses and heard repeated criticisms of the current procedures for bringing disciplinary charges against tenured teachers. The Commission concluded that the process results in hearings that. are far too expensive and A-n4~ / -3- time consuming. Such proceedings have been estimated to cost in excess of $80,000, and in many instances, take over one year to resolve. Tha commission concluded that the disciplinary procedures must be revised to balance due process protection for tenured teachers against the need for districts to have an expedient and coat-effective tool for maintaining disciplinary standards. The commission recommended that disciplinary proceedings be conducted before a single hearing officer mutually selected by the employee and the employing board from a list of arbitrators. The hearing officer must be empowered to impose a broad range of penalties, in~luding mandatory remedial action to improve a teacher's performance, and the decision should be final. In addition, the Commission recommended that teachers and school districts be permitted to bargain for alternative disciplinary procedures. This bill implements these recommendations. Tenured teachers would be afforded additional due process protection by requiring that they be informed of what penalty the employing board will seek to impose if a hearing is requested by the employee and what penalty will be sought if a hearing is not requested, by authorizing the hearing officer to grant discovery requests and by expanding the range of penalties that can be imposed to include remedial action by the employee. In addition, the likelihood of frivolous charges being filed against an employee are reduced because the employing board would be required to pay the costs incurred by the employee and the Department of Education as a result of such charges. Proceedings would be more efficient and cost effective because charges would be heard by a single hearing officer. Finally, by requiring the proceedings to adhere to a series of deadlines and by permitting the hearing officer to allow a postponement of a hearing only for good .cause, charges would be resolved in a timely fashion. Budget implication: Replacing hearing panels with a single hearing officer and reducing the number of hearing days will result in an undetermined amount of savings to the State. A - n4.4