The Business Partnership of 3020-a Arbitration

Re-posted from NYC Rubber Room Reporter

How Bad Is NYSUT as Providers of Due Process at 3020-a Arbitration?

My opinion is that the NYSUT/UFT "play along to get along" with Mike Bloomberg has caused the destruction of the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of effective, professional, caring teachers and staff of the New York City Board/Department of Education ....all members of the UFT....for at least the past 10 years. Their goal was to get tenured teachers out of public schools because Mike Bloomberg hated tenure protections and the thought that someone could not be fired in a second for no reason other than that the administrator wanted this person gone. This is good business, says Mike and Jack Walsh (pictured below).

I guess everyone knows that you do not have to use NYSUT to defend at 3020-a. Right?
You can use a private Attorney and team, use a friend/advocate as your assistant, or you can do the 3020-a yourself  "Pro se" 

NYSUT cannot tell you this, nor does NYSUT bother to tell you any of your due process rights. Thus you should find out what you need to know by seeking information on your own. A person brought to 3020-a arbitration is given paperwork with Education Law 3020-a when they are charged. Few read it. Everyone should, but teachers seldom are lawyers too, so they rely on their NYSUT Attorney to tell them what it says.

That's a mistake.

Why is it a mistake? Because your Union, the UFT, and the NYSUT lawyers contracted to protect your due process rights at 3020-a, neglect to do that. See an email from NYSUT Attorney Paul Brown to a client who fired him when she received this:

From: Paul Brown <pbrown@nysutmail.org>
To:
Sent: Wed, 2013
Subject: Re: - WITNESSES


I have an ethical obligation not to put on witnesses that I believe will be damaging to your case. I have confirmed with one of my supervisors and with several colleagues at my office that the witnesses you suggested will offer little, if any, substantive value and will open the door to many more potential problems. .....

Please call me should you have any further questions.

Paul K. Brown


New York State United Teachers


(212) 533-6300 Ext. 168"

NO WITNESSES????? That will get you fired and forever guilty of the charges filed against you. 

Below is the Education Law 3020-a (1) and (2)(a):

NY CLS Educ § 3020-a (2014)

§ 3020-a. Disciplinary procedures and penalties

1. Filing of charges. All charges against a person enjoying the benefits of tenure as provided in subdivision three of section eleven hundred two, and sections twenty-five hundred nine, twenty-five hundred seventy-three, twenty-five hundred ninety-j, three thousand twelve and three thousand fourteen of this chapter shall be in writing and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board during the period between the actual opening and closing of the school year for which the employed is normally required to serve. Except as provided in subdivision eight of section twenty-five hundred seventy-three and subdivision seven of section twenty-five hundred ninety-j of this chapter, no charges under this section shall be brought more than three years after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct, except when the charge is of misconduct constituting a crime when committed.

2. Disposition of charges.

a. Upon receipt of the charges, the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board shall immediately notify said board thereof. Within five days after receipt of charges, the employing board, in executive session, shall determine, by a vote of a majority of all the members of such board, whether probable cause exists to bring a disciplinary proceeding against an employee pursuant to this section. If such determination is affirmative, a written statement specifying [i] the charges in detail, [ii] the maximum penalty which will be imposed by the board if the employee does not request a hearing or that will be sought by the board if the employee is found guilty of the charges after a hearing and [fig 1] [iii] the employee's rights under this section, shall be immediately forwarded to the accused employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by personal delivery to the employee.

New York State School Boards Association is no fan of teachers' rights, either:

See ON BOARD from 2007

However, as NYC has no school board, NYC is not technically a member of NYSSBA. Several years ago I went to the NYSSBA annual conference as Press at the NY Sheraton Hotel, and sat at the only table with any seats, the NYC table. I sat next to Courtenaye Jackson-Chase (left). At the same table were leading names from the Office of Legal Services, such as Judy Nathan. In the program, my name and the name of the former General Counsel (before Courtenaye), Michael Best, Esq. were listed as representing New York City. I sent the post below to a listserv, nyceducationnews on October 28, 2007:


"To all:

As a paralegal and a non-Attorney, I attended an all day seminar on School Law held at the Sheraton Hotel on Thursday, October 25, 2007. The seminar was part of the New York State School Boards Association conference.

The book that all participants received describes Open Meetings Law and the requirement that all Executive Sessions of a public body be voted on in a full meeting, and minutes are taken during the subsequent Executive Session where a majority votes on probable cause.

Therefore, all the votes taken and teachers terminated by a vote of the PEP members in Executive Session over the past 5 years are contrary to the law. The NYC BOE has required all persons interested in obtaining a copy of the tape of each meeting to file a Freedom of Information request, therefore the NYC BOE has substantiated the belief that the PEP is a public body. A powerless one, as Michael Best wrote to me “The PEP has no administrative or executive functions”.

Further news distressing to anyone in the New York City school district (NYC and boroughs) who would like to have any voice at all in creating policy or deciding complaints/issues: New York City has the largest school system in the nation, but was not represented at the NYSSBA conference. The only attendees listed from NYC Area 13 were me and Michael Best, a presenter of the “Contract For Excellence” session. Two other people from NYC (who kindly sat next to me at my table) were Ms. Judy Nathan and Ms. Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, both listed as “Attorney” for the NYC BOE.

We thus have a quasi-legal system set up to prevent any opposition to a resolution/vote/consent set by the Mayor/Mr. Klein.........

We have no right to get an independent decision on any complaints we may have, as everyone making decisions on grievances/special education hearings belong to Joel and Mike

Gosh, how could we get in this position?"

David Bloomfield answered with Open Meetings Law, Sections 105 and 106

As we all now know, NYC does not have a school board/employing board and no longer has Executive Sessions at the PEP meetings. When the PEP did hold Executive Sessions, the group violated Open Meetings Law Section 105 by having the Session before the public meeting began. I used to speak at the public meeting part of the monthly PEP meeting, and ask for the reason for that, as well as a tally of each member's vote. Joel Klein would not nicely tell me to sit down, shut up and my time was up. I would say that my time was not up, but he would not give me an answer. Still don't have one.

In fact, if you look at the Notice of Determination of Probable Cause (paperwork sent to all teachers/employees charged with 3020-a), the date of the Executive Session at which probable cause was voted on, is blank. There is no date for the Executive Session listed. Superintendent Erminio Claudia

Ermina Claudia 

testified at a teacher's 3020-a that there WAS an "Executive Session", namely when she met with "legal" on the case and they "found" probable cause for the charges. I would suggest that this meeting is not what is cited in the law, Open Meetings Law, or 3020-a(2)(a). Where did she get this version?

So in all cases brought to 3020-a arbitration, probable cause is determined improperly. Without the proper determination of probable cause according to Education Law 3020-a (1) and (2)(a), arbitrators appointed to hear 3020-a cases have no subject matter jurisdiction to decide on whether there is Just Cause for any penalty.

This is what NYSUT doesn't want you to know. In fact, your NYSUT attorney may rush you into a pre-hearing and then a full hearing/resignation/retirement/fine and settlement without any time to discuss the charges against you. NYSUT states in letters to those who opt to hire a private attorney or advocate, or do the 3020-a themselves:

"...changes to the Education Law negotiated by the UFT and the Board supercede the statutory provisions. Even though you are not utilizing NYSUT legal counsel, your case must be processed pursuant to the disciplinary procedures negotiated by the UFT and the Board. You do not have the right for your case to go forward pursuant to the Educational Law as it exists without the negotiated changes contained in Article 21 (G).(scroll to p. 113)."

No mention of probable cause found as required by Education Law 3020-a. But NYSUT isn't saying that the Law isn't there, just that you cannot use it for your case.

Bulloney.

This is, in my thinking, the biggest error of NYSUT representation. Because without a probable cause determination in an Executive Session of the employing board, and a vote by a majority of members, you are left with anyone "finding" probable cause, and charging you with something that may or may not be true. The arbitrator hears only what the NYC DOE wants him/her to hear.

But arbitrators on the NYC permanent panel are paid $1400/day, and if they agree that probable cause has not been properly determined they wont get paid. So the arbitrators deny the dismissal of the case on any grounds, or there will be no payment coming their way.

Teacher discipline and termination are what the Department of Education calls "their business". It's not a business, it's a partnership. With NYSUT and the UFT.

Labels: 3020-a, arbitrators, Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, Erminio Claudia, Jack Walsh, probable cause  

Campbell Brown Destroys Her Reputation as A Journalist With Her Latest Article on the NYC 3020-a Arbitrators

Shame On You, Campbell Brown

Paul Zonderman

I am so saddened by Ms. Campbell Brown's lack of integrity as a journalist, clearly shown by the lack of facts in her article below. First, several Arbitrators mentioned, Howard Edelman and Paul Zonderman, are no longer on the UFT-DOE rotating Panel, and have not been actively involved in the 3020-a process in NYC for several years. She says that Howard Edelman is not well known. Now, that's a false statement right there. Howard is a very well known arbitrator, inside NYC and throughout the State. Paul is, as well. It is shocking that Ms. Brown bought into the DOE's shpeel (?spelling?) of how "bad" they were while on the panel, while both had their share of terminations but couldnt stand the mess of process (this comes from a source). Didnt you at least go to Google for information, Ms. Campbell?

The problem Ms. Brown has, is she did not look at cases, but simply passed on the public relations general statement that all arbitrators are not doing their jobs, namely terminating "bad" teachers and especially those who sexually abuse students.

This is where Ms. Brown fails. Sure, some arbitrators are hired to fire - like Eleanor Elovich Glanstein and her sidekicks Nancy Ryan and NYSUT Attorney Steve Friedman (Eleanor Glanstein is now no longer on the panel); Lana Flame, now no longer on the panel - and others who I will be writing about soon. But if an arbitrator shows bias and decides to take allegations of sexual abuse and make these allegations of touching, kissing, etc. into "facts" without any supporting proof, then they can, and hopefully will, be brought to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee and shown the door. This may be the reason Ms. Glanstein is no longer on the panel, as I personally know three former victims who had her at their 3020-a and filed complaints against her.

As for Arbitrator John Woods, of NS&J in Maryland, and his partner in crime ATU Attorney Michael Francis, I have never, in my 12 years of participating in 3020-a hearings, seen two people who insult, belittle and verbally abuse witnesses and people who oppose them as much as these two. I will write further about a case that Woods just decided, in the near future.

The contact information for Hearing Officer Woods is:
John Woods, Esq.
NS&J Advisory Group
5430 Lynx Lane, Suite 217
Columbia, MD 21044
Email: JWoods@nsandLcom
Tel: 202-421-1881

The attorney for the Department is Michael Francis:
Administrative Trials Unit
NYC Department of Education
49-51 Chambers Street, Room 604
New York, New York 10007
MfrancisII@schools.nyc.gov
Tel: (212) 374-2498
Fax: (212) 374-1074

Dont let the bio below sway you; John Woods is not a neutral, and in my opinion, should leave arbitration, negotiation and mediation to other people. Also in my opinion, Attorney Michael Francis should be let go. He threatens and retaliates against anyone he believes is impeding him in any way.He needs anger management big time. Threatening witnesses whose testimony he doesn't like is not proper, and makes the ATU look bad.

About the Ombuds

John L. Woods, Jr.

John L. Woods, Jr. is an experienced Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) practitioner in the areas of labor, employment, business, and securities. Prior to joining Ramapo College, John served as the Chief Mediator and head of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Division for a United States Federal Government Agency. He also served as a Supervisory Federal Investigator during his tenure with the U.S. Federal Government. John currently serves as a mediator, arbitrator, and/or conciliator for the U.S. Federal Government, the State of Maryland, the Better Business Bureau, the New York Stock Exchange, the National Association of Securities Dealers, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Commerce, and the International Chamber of Commerce.

John’s International ADR experience includes providing training and consulting services in Jamaica (W.I.), Trinidad and Tobago (W.I.), the Western Sahara, Morocco, and Spain. He is currently an adjunct professor and frequently writes and speaks on issues concerning labor, employment, organizational development, conflict management and dispute resolution.

John received a Bachelors Degree from the State University of New York at Albany, a Masters Degree from New York University, and a Juris Doctorate Degree from Howard University School of Law.
So, what Campbell Brown is urging the public to advocate for is the Department of Education's edict: an allegation must be considered a "fact" if brought to 3020-a by a Principal, AP, or someone hired by the DOE to fire somebody.

Then, it is the job of the Respondent's legal representative(s) to prove the Respondent innocent. Yes, you got that right. The way that the UFT and DOE panel is set up, a teacher or employee brought to 3020-a is guilty when he or she enters the door. The process allows this person to fight this by proving that he or she is innocent, but if the fight is not 100%, the person remains guilty, and gets punished for his or her "crime", according to the specifications.

By the way, most people know that any person who is brought to 3020-a can have anyone represent him or her, and can hire a non-attorney to assist him/her, or do the job by him/herself. At 3020-a you do not have to use an attorney.

Ms. Campbell wants the fight against the allegations to be non-existant, and have anyone brought to 3020-a remain guilty of the allegations/facts as charged. Then, there is no sense in hiring arbitrators and paying $1400/day, so just do away with 3020-a hearings and fire anyone accused of anything, the minute an "investigator" substantiates the charge. The end of tenure rights.

Shame on you, Campbell Brown!

Betsy Combier

Law Department Directory

Arbitrators protect pervert teachers
by Campbell Brown
LINK 

By Campbell Brown

October 10, 2013 | 11:06pm

Modal Trigger

United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew needs to stop claiming the union has a zero-tolerance policy for pervert teachers. Arbitrators disagree.

Photo: Warzer Jaff

Howard Edelman isn’t well known in the education community. He should be: He has unilateral authority to change how the city Department of Education spends millions of 

Edelman is an arbitrator. When DOE moves to terminate a teacher for misconduct or incompetence, he decides whether the teacher stays or goes. And, if it’s “stay,” what the penalty should be.

Like his fellow arbitrators, Edelman’s judgment is final. (The city can appeal in court, but judges are loath to overturn arbitration decisions.)

And, like too many other arbitrators, Edelman makes it a priority to find ways to keep teachers in classrooms, with little apparent consideration of the impact on schools or students.

This is most evident, and troubling, in sexual misconduct cases.

In a breakthrough 2005 agreement, the union and DOE inserted language into the teachers contract stipulating “a mandatory penalty of discharge” to any union member “found by a hearing officer to have engaged in sexual misconduct.”

The contract defined sexual misconduct as including: “sexual touching, serious or repeated verbal abuse (as defined in Chancellor’s Regulations) of a sexual nature, action that could reasonably be interpreted as soliciting a sexual relationship, possession or use of illegal child pornography” as well as action that constitutes criminal conduct.

Union leaders often call this a “zero tolerance” policy. Problem is, Howard Edelman and his colleagues won’t enforce it. They repeatedly find that some sexual conduct by teachers is permissible.

In 2008, Edelman found that a teacher who rubbed the back and neck of a student in an empty classroom while speaking in threatening sexual innuendo — “I can make you do things you don’t want to do” — should get a mere two-month fine. The teacher had twice before been cited for improper touching.

Edelman’s terse rationale: “A teacher rubbed a student’s back. He did not have sex with the student or ask the student to have sex with him.”

In 2010, Edelman found that another serial abuser should be returned to the classroom after touching the bare shoulders and neck of a student while telling her she could strip for him.

The teacher “was not really soliciting sex from but was engaging in sexual banter,” with the student, he found — even though there is no precedent or protection in the contract for “sexual banter.”

He also found a way to forgive the use of child porn, calling a teacher’s secret agreement to be sent nude photos of a student “a lapse in judgment . . . [that] does not justify upholding his termination, I am convinced.” The contract explicitly says otherwise.

Yet Edelman is no anomaly. Many other arbitrators normalize sexual behavior or invent standards to arrive at decisions that flout zero tolerance.

Paul Zonderman has leniently arbitrated many misconduct cases. In one, he found that a special-education teacher touched boys so often that his actions “at worst, suggest pedophilia.” Yet Zonderman ordered nothing more than a reprimand.

Eric Lawson found that a Manhattan 6th-grade teacher repeatedly hugged female students, touched a student’s breast and leg and made sexually suggestive remarks to several students. He described the teacher as “unrepentant, claiming to be a victim” and said he didn’t deserve to keep his job “as long as he insists upon his innocence.”

Yet Lawson sent him back to the classroom anyway, ordering a six-month suspension and mandatory therapy.

In a distasteful recent case, a Bronx high-school teacher repeatedly called a large-breasted student “watermelon girl” and told her, if he felt she was dressed inappropriately, to “put your melons away” and “cover up your melons.” He called other female students “Wonder Woman,” “Chocolate Girl,” and “Dark Chocolate,” purportedly to encourage them. There is no evidence that he used nicknames to encourage male students.

The arbitrator, John Woods, said the teacher’s “unwelcome communication of a sexual nature is prohibited. However, termination is not the appropriate penalty in this case.” In fact, prohibited sexual communications require termination under the contract. Yet Woods ordered a penalty of just a week without pay.

With these and other arbitrators minimizing the sexual behavior of accused teachers with their students, the DOE has had little success in terminating teachers accused of violating the 2005 provision. Only about a quarter of those for whom probable cause of sexual misconduct has been found have lost their jobs.

In the other cases, an arbitrator has sided with a serial molester over the isolated, terrified child he threatens. And with a profane, sexualizing bully over the child he singles out as “watermelon girl.”

The union needs to stop claiming there’s a zero-tolerance policy for teacher sexual abuse. The arbitrators disagree.

Campbell Brown is the founder of the Parents Transparency Project and a former anchor for NBC and CNN.

Not Enough Arbitrators To Get All Teachers Charged With 3020-a Terminated, Says NYC DOE

re-posted from NYC Rubber Room Reporter and Parentadvocates.org

The DOE Sues The UFT Because There Are Not Enough Arbitrators For The 3020-a Teacher Panels To get rid of Everyone Quickly

New York Sues Teachers’ Union Over Deal on Disciplinary Hearings

Parentadvocates.org
LINK

From Betsy Combier, Editor: Now it happens that the NYC Department of Education is complaining that there are not enough arbitrators on the UFT/DOE Panels to decide the 400 cases waiting to go to 3020-a proceedings, and the culprit is none other than the UFT (United Federation of Teachers). What is ridiculous about this is that the DOE has been the party which has dumped so many good teachers into the "new" rubber rooms at such a fast rate and for, in many vases, absolutely no misconduct or incompetency, that there are not enough arbitrators to hear the cases. Why? No one is in charge. Anyone may charge or find "probable cause" at any time against anyone. And the UFT has stood aside and allowed this to happen. Moreover, the UFT arranges for teachers to have their "U" ratings changed to "S" ratings, so how valid are the rating sheets handed out at the end of the year, anyway? Finally, teachers or other tenured staff brought to 3020-a ("teacher trials") can try to settle, where they buy their jobs back for a couple of thousand dollars. False claims harm people, but hardly anyone cares. I do.





NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who allegedly oversees the Department of Education and the NYC public school system


New York Sues Teachers’ Union Over Deal on Disciplinary Hearings
By AL BAKER, NY TIMES

Three years ago, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and New York City’s teachers’ union celebrated an agreement to end the use of “rubber rooms,” the much-ridiculed holding pens where teachers accused of wrongdoing or incompetence would report for years on end, doing no work but drawing full salaries. [The rubber rooms are now hidden inside schools, but still exist - Editor].

But on Friday, in a sign of just how poisoned his relationship with the union has become, Mr. Bloomberg used his radio show to announce that his administration had filed a lawsuit against the union, accusing it of shirking its part of the deal.

The 2010 agreement, which followed months of news articles that embarrassed the city and the union, closed down the rubber rooms and was to speed up the hearing process so teachers’ fates could be decided in a matter of months. But the lawsuit says the union, the United Federation of Teachers, has been dragging its feet in helping select arbitrators to hear the cases.

“They just keep delaying,” Mr. Bloomberg said to the radio program’s host, John Gambling.

“The backlog keeps getting bigger,” the mayor added. “And it just prevents having a fair hearing for teachers who should be cleared of any charges. It allows teachers who should not be in front of our kids through incompetence or inappropriate conduct to continue collecting a paycheck. The public is paying for all this.”

By the latest count, according to the lawsuit that was lodged on Friday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, there is a backlog of roughly 400 teachers awaiting disciplinary hearings, as well as 150 new cases since school began three weeks ago. Combined, that is about as many teachers as were in rubber rooms at the time of the 2010 deal. The union, meanwhile, said on Friday that the true backlog was only 52 teachers.

The rubber rooms have largely been done away with, with teachers now given administrative functions or nonclassroom duties while their cases are pending, though some have complained of make-work assignments barely better than no work at all. The part of the agreement now in dispute regards the hiring of arbitrators. To speed up the hearing process, the two sides would agree on a panel of 39 arbitrators, up from 23, but the city now says the union has been too slow to approve arbitrators’ names. In the 2011-12 school year, the two sides seated just 24 arbitrators, and last year 20, the suit said.

In a letter to the schools chancellor this month, Michael Mulgrew, president of the union, laid the blame on the city, saying the process of selecting arbitrators “would be expedited” if school officials proposed better candidates. He also said that fewer arbitrators would be needed if the city processed the cases more efficiently, and that the shortage would not be as bad had several arbitrators not left because the state had not paid them.

Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the New York State Education Department, acknowledged on Friday that the state was behind in payments, because of budgetary issues. “We have a set amount that we can spend,” Mr. Dunn said.

Going forward, Mr. Dunn said, the process for paying arbitrators will be “much smoother and better functioning than it had been.”

The relationship between the Bloomberg administration and the teachers’ unionhas taken on a more vitriolic tenor of late, with both sides describing hearing notes of personal acrimony creeping in between Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Mulgrew. The two clashed in January when their attempts to negotiate a new teacher evaluation system fell apart at the last minute. The city’s teachers have been without a labor contract since 2009, and like other labor leaders, Mr. Mulgrew appears to be hoping the next mayor is friendlier to municipal unions.

“It’s a shame the mayor is wasting public resources on this frivolous lawsuit,” Mr. Mulgrew said in a statement, “but we can all take comfort from the fact that Bloomberg will soon be only a bad memory to the people who care about schools.”

Jake Goldman, a mayoral spokesman, said: “This is not about politics. This is about who is standing up for New York City schoolchildren. We are going to keep doing, for the next 95 days, everything we can to continue to make these schools better and this is one of the ways we’re doing that.”

Kate Taylor contributed reporting.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 27, 2013

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misidentified the state for which Tom Dunn is an Education Department spokesman. It is New York, not New Jersey.

Teachers union refusing to assist with 400 misconduct cases
By Yoav Gonen
September 27, 2013 | 10:59am
LINK

UFT President Michael Mulgrew

The city’s public school system has a backlog of more than 400 teacher disciplinary cases because the teachers union is refusing to help appoint hearing officers as required, a new lawsuit brought by the city charges.

The foot-dragging by the United Federation of Teachers has led to the appointment of just 19 arbitrators to oversee teacher misconduct and incompetence cases – well shy of the minimum number of 39 agreed to back in 2010, the Manhattan court papers say.

“Year after year they keep delaying and the backlog keeps getting bigger,” Mayor Bloomberg said on his weekly WOR radio appearance Friday. “It prevents having a fair hearing for teachers who should be cleared of any charges, it allows teachers who should not be in front of our kids through incompetence or inappropriate conduct to continue collecting a paycheck (and) the public’s paying for all of this.”

The UFT and Department of Education agreed in 2010 to jointly appoint a panel of 39 arbitrators to expedite a severe backlog in disciplinary cases.

At the time, hundreds of teachers awaiting trial were paid to do nothing in detention centers throughout the city known derisively as “rubber rooms” – because teachers said they could bounce off the walls out of boredom.

Since then, however, there were only 24 arbitrators appointed in 2011-12, 20 in 2011-12 – and currently there are only 19, according to city officials.

“They’ve shown their true colors,” fumed Bloomberg. “We’ve got a small number of teachers who are not up to the job and should not be in front of kids, and they hurt the reputation of the vast majority of the teachers who are doing a spectacular job.”

UFT President Michael Mulgrew responded by saying:

“How typical of Bloomberg. The administration mismanages the disciplinary process, and in its last days tries to blame someone else for it. It’s a shame the mayor is wasting public resources on this frivolous lawsuit, but we can all take comfort from the fact that Bloomberg will soon be only a bad memory to the people who care about schools.”