THE OSI's REPORT

Here is the investigative report by the Chancellor's Office of Special Investigation (OSI), dated March 22, 2006, and withheld from the accused until May 2007. I made a couple of comments at the bottom.

This report gives you a good idea about the OSI's professionalism and standards. It is hopeless ! Recently , Richard Condon, the Special Commissioner of Investigation refuted an OSI report after a lengthy counter-investigation ! " Mr. Condon's report also raised serious questions about the Education Department's investigations office."( New York Times 6/27/07.) As a result, Theresa Europe, the then director, has been demoted but offered another job ( Deputy Counsel to the Chancellor in charge of 3020-a trials!) , and Thomas Hyland, the former deputy director who signed this report, was fired.
Both agencies, OSI and SCI, have become repressive tools under the Klein/Bloomberg tenure : gathering false data to frame unwanted people.
In the above report, Background Information -- "two prior allegations substantiated" -- , is nothing else but letters put in my file by a hopeless superintendent, Joyce Copin. That does not make an allegation substantiated :

In the Herbert Brown case (AAA# 13 01312 95, 11/6/95) is instructive. Arbitrator Townley found that the reports of the Office of Appeals and Review are in the nature of an indictment "where an individual is charged based on evidence presented by individuals who are not cross-examined." >> [UFT vs Board of Ed of NYC, case # 13 390 0217 99 , Louis Foy, arbitrator]

I wrote in my closing arguments :
These charges have no merit and should be dismissed on the ground that :
- Respondent was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine his accusers
- All students interviewed by OSI's investigator Robert Colon stated that they
"did not recall " the alleged incidents (See report.)
- In an egregious display of bias, the investigator left out an evidentiary
document Respondent produced during his interview on April 19, 2005. The
investigator acknowledged, in cross-examination, that he did receive the
document (nearly 30 pages) but did not read it. Why ? Because he "took it to
be polite" (T1257, T1258).
- Paradoxically, the investigator himself found the case highly suspicious : " I
thought it was extremely curious that all these incidents happened on the
same date, within a period - a period of time, I think it's two and half , three
hours." (T1248, T 1249).

The arbitrator had no choice but dismiss the charges : they could not survive an appeal.

Note : "T" follows by a number indicates a number of the proceeding transcript.