SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK, IAS PART 6----------------------------------------------------------------------- xMICHAEL MULGREW,
et ano.
,Petitioners,-against-BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOLDISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
et ano.
,Respondents.
VERIFIED ANSWER
Index No. 600002/2012(Lobis, J.)----------------------------------------------------------------------- xRespondents, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (now known as the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”)) and DennisM. Walcott, as Chancellor of the DOE, by their attorney, Michael A. Cardozo, CorporationCounsel of the City of New York, as and for their Verified Answer to the Verified Petitionherein, respectfully allege as follows:1.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “1” of the Verified Petition,except admit that Petitioners purport to proceed as set forth therein, that collective bargainingagreements (“CBAs”) exist between the DOE and the United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”)and the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators (“CSA”), and respectfully refer theCourt to those collective bargaining agreements, copies of which are annexed hereto as Exhibits1 and 2, for complete and accurate statements of the provisions referred to in Paragraph “1” of the Verified Petition.2.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “2” of the Verified Petition,except admit that on April 26, 2012, the Panel for Educational Policy (“PEP”) authorized theDOE to close 24 struggling schools that the DOE will replace with new schools, subject to theapproval of the State Education Department (“SED”), the excessing of teaching staff at the
2closing schools and the hiring of teaching staff at new schools will be conducted in accordancewith the applicable provisions of the UFT CBA, the hiring process detailed in Article 18D of theUFT CBA will be utilized, and respectfully refer the Court to the UFT CBA, a copy of which isannexed hereto as Exhibit 1, for a complete and accurate statement of Article 18D and the otherprovisions referred to in paragraph “2” of the Verified Petition.3.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “3” of the Verified Petition,except admit that the excessing of supervisory staff at the closing schools and the appointing of supervisory staff to new schools will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the CSACBA, and respectfully refer the Court to the CSA CBA, a copy of which is annexed hereto asExhibit 2, for a complete and accurate statement of the provisions referred to in paragraph “3” of the Verified Petition.4.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “4” of the Verified Petition.5.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “5” of the Verified Petition,except admit that Petitioners purport to proceed as set forth therein, including by seekingarbitration of administrative grievances filed against the DOE by the UFT and the CSA, allegingthat the DOE’s closure of 24 struggling schools would violate Petitioners’ respective CBAs.6.
Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to theallegations set forth in paragraph “6” of the Verified Petition, except admit that the UFT is therecognized bargaining agent for all nonsupervisory pedagogical personnel and classroomparaprofessionals employed by the DOE.7.
Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to theallegations set forth in paragraph “7” of the Verified Petition, except admit that the CSA is therecognized bargaining agent for all supervisory pedagogical personnel employed by the DOE.
38.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “8” of the Verified Petition,except admit that the DOE has offices located at 52 Chambers Street, New York, New York, thatthe DOE exists under the New York Education Law, and respectfully refer the Court toEducation Law § 2590-g for a description of the powers and duties of the DOE.9.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “9” of the Verified Petition,except admit that Respondent Dennis M. Walcott is the Chancellor of the DOE, and respectfullyrefer the Court to New York Education Law §§ 2554 and 2590-h for a statement of the powersand duties of the Chancellor.10.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “10” of the Verified Petition.11.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “11” of the Verified Petition.12.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “12” of the Verified Petition,except admit that each of the 24 closing schools are designated by the SED as “persistentlylowest achieving” (“PLA”).13.
Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “13” of the Verified Petition,except admit that a number of schools were identified as PLA, the DOE chose to seek SchoolImprovement Grant (“SIG”) funding for 33 of those schools by implementing “Transformation”and “Restart” as authorized by § 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, this implementation was contingent on, among other things, the DOE and the UFTagreeing on a new teacher evaluation system by December 31, 2011, the DOE and the UFT wereunable to reach an agreement on a number of integral elements of this new teacher evaluationsystem, because of this and other reasons, the DOE determined it was no longer appropriate toimplement “Transformation” and “Restart” at those 33 PLA schools, and that the UFT filed an
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Department of Education Legal Response – UFT/CSA Lawsuit
1.2K
Reads
0
Readcasts
3.4K
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
