Justice Wins Out "For many bore false witness against Him, " And you shall know the truth, In his closing statement, Mr. Conrad Lower, my UFT lawyer said, and it says it all : But let's turn to the final piece of evidence, which is the A-420, which is supposed to be the report of a corporal punishment, which is of course, supposed to be filed five days after the event, and which was not submitted until January of 1999, almost a year after the event. And what does Mrs. Walters say about Mr. S., about this fellow who that year had been in such disciplinary troubles, who that year, if you will refer to Respondent's Exhibit 17, his academic record, you will see his total average was 62, which was a failing grade. What does Mrs. Walters say about this student in the A-420 ? " Student's academic performance is average. He has had no disciplinary problems since attending this school." This was not a mistake. This was a year after the event. This was a year Mr. Fofana was removed from the class. This was when they were trying to draft these charges, and Mrs. Walters puts in a self-serving statement that is belied by the evidence. This was a failing student. This was a disciplinary problem student. This is a failure of the administration, it's a failure of this student, it's a failure of the teaching staff in that school, it's a disgrace. It's probably the greatest disgrace that this student was allowed to come up with these stories and watch a math teacher be ejected from the classroom to come in here and have the Board of Education put him on as a witness, to retell those lies. It's almost obscene. It's almost obscene, and it is disgraceful to have done that to that student. AWARD1. Specification I: The Respondent was excessively absent from work during the 1998-1999 school year. The penalty shall be a written reprimand. 2. Specification II: The Respondent was excessively late to work during the 1998-1999 school year. The penalty shall be a written reprimand. - 21 - 3. Specification III: Subsections 1.,2., and 3., are dismissed. The Board has proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Respondent is guilty of subsection 4. The proven charge does not constitute just cause for discipline. 4. Specification IV: The Board has not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Respondent is guilty. 5. Specification V: The Board has not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Respondent is guilty. 6. Specification VI: The Board has not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Respondent is guilty. 
|