BOARD OUT TO LUNCH
IGNORE$ OWN PROBE
By DAVID ANDREATTA Education Reporter, NY POST

July 14, 2006 -- A Queens middle-school principal under investigation for allegedly helping himself to the school-lunch fund was chosen yesterday to lead the school in the city's expanded Empowerment Zone - and to receive an extra $100,000 in unrestricted funds.

The city Department of Education's selection of Shango Blake of IS 109 in Queens Village defies its stated policy of not accepting into the zone any principal being probed.

Coincidentally, that policy was reiterated yesterday by Eric Nadelstern, the zone's chief executive officer, at a meeting of the Chancellor's Parent Advisory Council.

"The only schools that weren't accepted were those where the principal was under investigation," Nadelstern said of the 331 schools tabbed from the 350 that had applied.

The Blake investigation made Post headlines in February. A spokeswoman for Richard Condon, commissioner of special investigations for the city's schools, confirmed yesterday that it was still active.
Despite that, IS 109, also known as Jean Nuzzi Intermediate, is on the list of new empowerment schools released this month. The probe began in January after the Office of School Food and Nutrition Services accused Blake of misappropriating varying amounts.

Zone principals get greater authority over their schools' budgets, about $100,000 in newly unrestricted funds and $150,000 in new discretionary funds in exchange for meeting specific goals.
Blake was recognized in 2003 by Schools Chancellor Joel Klein for improving school safety by implementing a dress code and a volunteer program that had parents patrolling the school's hallways.

Blake did not return a call to the school for comment and could not be reached at home.
He joined IS 109 in 2003 after a three-year stint as assistant principal of Gorton HS in Yonkers, where the Board of Education denied him tenure over protests from the superintendent, parents and students.

Supporters call him a hard-working father figure who has guided struggling students onto the path to college. But he's clashed with some IS 109 staff and parents, who have officially complained of intimidation and corporal punishment. No such charge has been substantiated.
david.andreatta@nypost.com

Some Boro Schools To Gain Self-Rule
By ELLEN THOMPSON

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein are waiting on RSVPs to see which city schools will become an Empowerment School by the fall. So far, 38 in Queens may make the plunge.

On April 29 the Chancellor sent out an open invitation to principals interested in turning their schools into Empowerment Schools, where in return for authority and the tools principals need to run their schools, principals would be held accountable for their students’ progress.

At the 331 schools expected to become Empowerment Schools, principals will receive greater discretion over budgets, educational programming, teacher development, school scheduling and hiring, the Department of Education said. In exchange for greater flexibility and control, principals will sign performance agreements that lay out principals’ new powers, resources, and responsibilities.

In addition, the DOE said individual schools will receive about $100,000 in newly unrestricted funds and about $150,000 in new, discretionary funds made possible by streamlining the central and regional DOE bureaucracy and redirecting financial resources back to the schools.

Since Klein took control of the schools, principals have had limited discretion regarding curriculum and other day-to-day factors. This program will give autonomy back to the principals – along with personal responsibility.

More than 350 schools applied by the May 17 deadline, including 38 schools from Queens. The principals whose schools were selected have until June 19 to consult with their school communities before deciding whether to sign “Performance Agreements,” which lay out principals’ new freedoms and responsibilities, the DOE said.

Principal Shango Blake at the Jean Nuzzi Intermediate School in Jamaica is one of many principals across the borough currently consulting with his school community on the flexibility the school could have.

“Principals are being given the opportunity to be empowered to make decisions and to do what they think is in the best interest of their school and the school community,” said Blake, whose school instituted the uniform policy and the Parents Empowering Students Today Program. “I know that there is an accountability piece from that and I know that there are those who have concerns about that, but I have no problem being held accountable as long as I have the freedom to make the decisions that I think are in the best interest in the children.”

QNS. PRINCIPAL EYED
NYPOST.com, February 13, 2006

Sometimes it's not just the school bully who steals children's lunch money.
The Office of Special Investigations for city schools is probing allegations that Shango Blake, principal of IS 109 in Queens Village, used funds targeted for the school lunch program for his personal gain, The Post has learned.

An official with the Department of Education's Office of School Food and Nutrition Services lodged the complaint early last month, the sources said.
The brief complaint said the office had detailed information about Blake misappropriating "various dollar amounts" but did not reveal specifics.

The probe follows a recent Education Department investigation into a laundry list of accusations against Blake filed by a group of unidentified parents of students at his school.
Among those complaints were charges of corporal punishment and misuse of art-program funds. None of the allegations was substantiated.

A spokeswoman for the commissioner of special investigations for city schools, Richard Condon, confirmed that the latest complaint against Blake had been filed, but he declined to comment further.

Education Department spokeswoman Marge Feinberg said: "We do not comment on unsubstantiated allegations. If Commissioner Condon is investigating, we await his final report."
Repeated phone calls to IS 109, also known as the Jean Nuzzi Intermediate School, were not returned, and an attempt to reach Blake through his former attorney was unsuccessful.

In 2003, Blake's first year at IS 109, the principal was recognized by Schools Chancellor Joel Klein for dramatically improving safety at the school by initiating a dress code and a volunteer program in which parents patrolled hallways.
He also motivated students to produce a CD of their own hip-hop songs, and the recording raised about $2,500 for new sports teams and extracurricular activities.
But sources said tension between Blake and parents over his leadership style has been building over the last couple of years.
david.andreatta@nypost.com

Appeal of JOAN DITURI and SHANGO BLAKE from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Yonkers and Joe L. Farmer, Superintendent, regarding denial of tenure.

Decision No. 14,882
(May 30, 2003)

Bruce K. Bryant, Esq., attorney for petitioner Dituri

Barbara A. Jaccoma, Esq., attorney for petitioner Blake

Donoghue, Thomas, Auslander & Drohan, attorneys for respondent, Lawrence W. Thomas and James P. Drohan, Esqs., of counsel

MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioners appeal the July 24, 2002 vote by the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Yonkers (“respondent board”) to deny them tenure. The appeal must be sustained in part.

On or about July 31, 1999, respondent board appointed petitioner Blake to serve a three-year probationary term as assistant principal. On or about August 1, 1999, respondent board appointed petitioner Dituri to serve a three-year probationary term as principal. The superintendent recommended that petitioners and 11 other administrators be granted tenure at the end of their probationary terms. At respondent board’s June 19, 2002 meeting, it voted to reject the superintendent’s recommendation as to all 13 probationary administrators. By letters dated June 25, 2002, each petitioner wrote to respondent board requesting a written statement explaining the reasons for its action. By letters dated June 28, 2002, respondent board informed petitioners that its advisory vote was based on its view that each of them had failed to function effectively in the schools to which they had been assigned.

By letters dated July 15, 2002, each petitioner replied to the June 28 letters. Each objected, alleging that “the letter(s) lacked the required specificity and, therefore, precluded specific responses.” Both petitioners provided information about their performance evaluations and the improvements they had made to their schools and stated that in doing so they were not waiving their objections to “the inadequacy of (the board’s) ‘letter(s) of reason.’”

By letters dated July 25, 2002, respondent board advised petitioners that it had voted on July 24, 2002 to terminate their services effective August 24, 2002. This appeal ensued.

Although petitioners name the superintendent as a respondent, they raise no claims against him. Petitioners contend that respondent board lacked the legal authority to reverse the superintendent’s recommendation to grant them tenure. They also allege that one vote was improperly cast and that, discounting that vote, a majority of the board did not vote to deny them tenure. Petitioners claim that respondent board’s June 28, 2002 statements of reasons were not sufficient. Accordingly, they seek to have respondent board’s vote denying them tenure set aside and to be be returned to their positions with back pay and benefits.

Respondent board asserts that it was legally authorized to reject the superintendent’s recommendation to grant petitioners tenure. It contends that members’ votes were cast properly and that petitioners did not receive the required number of favorable votes to be granted tenure. Finally, it alleges that the written reasons it provided to petitioners following the June 19, 2002 vote complied fully with its legal obligations.

Petitioners argue that Education Law §2573(5) authorized the superintendent to grant them tenure and that respondent board exceeded its powers when it voted to reject the superintendent’s recommendation to grant petitioners tenure. Section 2573(5) provides, in pertinent part:

At the expiration of the probationary term of any persons appointed for such term, the superintendent of schools shall make a written report to the board of education recommending for permanent appointment those persons who have been found competent, efficient and satisfactory. Such persons...shall hold their respective positions during good behavior and efficient and competent service...

Petitioners contend that §2573(5) provides no role for a school board in the process of granting or denying tenure at the end of an employee’s probationary term. They assert that once an employee has satisfactorily completed his or her probationary term, and the superintendent has recommended that employee for tenure, the board is powerless to reject that recommendation.

Petitioners’ argument fails to give effect to Education Law §3031(b), which provides, in pertinent part:

Where a board of education...votes to reject the recommendation of a superintendent of schools...to grant tenure to any teacher, administrator and supervisor employed on probation, such vote shall be considered advisory and at least thirty days prior to the board meeting at which such recommendation is to be finally considered, the board shall notify said teacher, administrator and supervisor of its intention to deny tenure and the date of the board meeting at which it will take final action.(emphasis added)

In Anderson v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Yonkers (46 AD2d 360, 363, aff’d. 38 NY2d 897) the court applied Education Law §3031 to the Yonkers city school district and stated that the enactment of §3031 did not alter the well established doctrine that “...a board of education could, in the face of a positive recommendation by its superintendent of schools, deny tenure to a probationary [employee]...”. Accordingly, petitioners’ argument that Education Law §2573(5) alone governs the granting or denial of tenure at the end of an employee’s probationary period is without merit.

Petitioners next assert that respondent board’s denial of tenure should be set aside because it did not receive valid votes by a majority of the trustees. Specifically, they claim that one of respondent board’s trustees is philosophically opposed to tenure, that he has consistently voted against granting tenure to any teachers or administrators, and that he voted against granting tenure in the instant case based on his philosophical views rather than on petitioners’ merits. They claim that voting in this manner represents an abrogation of the trustee’s legal obligation to evaluate each candidate for tenure on his or her merits and that his vote must therefore be set aside. Petitioners conclude that if the trustee’s vote is set aside, then the vote for accepting the superintendent’s recommendation to grant tenure would be three in favor and three against and that, accordingly, a majority of the trustees never voted to deny tenure. Petitioner’s argument is irrelevant because, under its own policy, respondent board could only grant tenure by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members. Excluding one negative vote would not, therefore, alter the result.

Petitioners’ final allegation is that respondent board’s written explanation of the reasons it intended to deny them tenure was insufficient to meet the statutory obligations of §3031(b). Specifically, in its letter to Ms. Dituri dated June 28, 2002, respondent board wrote: “In response to your letter dated June 25, 2002, please be advised that the Board of Education voted to deny you tenure as a school principal because of concerns that you have failed to function effectively as a principal in the school to which you have been assigned.” Similarly, by letter dated June 28, 2002, respondent board wrote to petitioner Blake as follows: “In response to your letter dated June 25, 2002, please be advised that the Board of Education voted to deny you tenure as an administrator based upon its perception that you have failed to function effectively in the school in which you have been assigned.” No further explanations were provided.

Education Law §3031(b) provides in pertinent part:

“...Such teacher, administrator and supervisor may, not later than twenty-one days prior to such meeting, request in writing that he be furnished with a written statement giving the board’s reasons for such intended action and within seven days thereafter such written statement should be furnished. Such teacher, administrator and supervisor may file a written response to such statement with the district clerk not later than seven days prior to the date of the board meeting.”

When a probationary employee requests a statement of reasons why he or she is not being granted tenure, the reasons supplied must be sufficiently specific to afford the employee an opportunity to make an intelligent and meaningful response to the stated reasons (see, Matter of Farrell v. Bd. of Educ. of Carmel CSD No. 2, 64 AD2d 703; Matter of Rathbone v. Bd. of Educ. of Hamilton CSD, 47 AD2d 172; Appeal of Ruff, 33 Ed Dept Rep 648, Decision No. 13,181; Matter of Gray, 14 id. 370, Decision No. 9,022). Respondent board’s argument that Education Law §3031 does not require a board of education to provide a statement of reasons that are as specific as the statements superintendents are required to provide is not supported by the statute. The requirement that an employee be furnished with the reasons he or she is not being granted tenure is the same in both Education Law §3031(a)(procedures to be followed when a superintendent has recommended against granting tenure) and §3031(b)(procedures to be followed when a board of education votes to reject the recommendation of a superintendent to grant tenure).

Based upon my review of the record, I find that the statements of reasons provided to petitioners were insufficient to allow them to prepare meaningful responses (Appeal of Ruff, supra; Matter of Gray, supra; Matter of Farrell, supra; Matter of Rathbone, supra).

Because petitioners’ services were terminated at the end of their probationary periods, back pay is not available to them (Appeal of Ruff, supra). Rather, the relief granted must remedy the actual harm petitioners have suffered (Appeal of Gold, 34 Ed Dept Rep 372; Decision No. 13,347). Here, respondent board’s failure to comply with §3031 injured petitioners by depriving them of an opportunity to make intelligent and meaningful responses to the stated reasons. Accordingly, the matter shall be remitted to respondent board with the following direction:

1. Respondent board shall resubmit to each petitioner a statement of reasons for its decision to deny tenure. Such statements shall be sufficiently specific to afford petitioners an opportunity to make intelligent and meaningful responses to the stated reasons.

2. Respondent board is directed to inform petitioners of the date of the board meeting at which it will reconsider its July 24, 2002 vote to terminate petitioners, such board meeting to be no later than 60 days from the date of this decision.

3. Each petitioner shall be allowed to submit a response to such statements not later than seven days prior to the date of the board meeting. Respondent board shall consider any such responses submitted by petitioners and shall, at its board meeting, affirm or alter its July 24, 2002 vote to terminate petitioners.

4. Any responses supplied by petitioners will be included in any employment records maintained by respondent board relating to their employment as probationary administrators.

Petitioners’ remaining requests for relief are denied and the petition is otherwise dismissed.

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties proceed expeditiously in accordance with this decision.

END OF FILE