Wednesday, May 6, 2009

OSI HEARING: Should old acquaintance be forgot

A week ago today I had a hearing at the Office of Special Investigations. The Special Investigator was none other than Hayden Sands, the same guy that had rubber stamped Principal P.'s accusations against my colleague, Adila.

Back in 2006 I had written him a letter offering to serve as a witness in the case. He upheld the principal's version of the story without ever getting back to me. As far as I was concerned, he had shown bias against Adila, so I couldn't expect him to be fair toward me. I asked the union for another investigator, but they told me they don't get to pick the hearing officer.

Should I pretend that I never wrote him the letter? Now it was I who was biased against him. Would I be able to hide how much I distrusted him? Probably not.

As soon as we sat down, I said, "I made prior contact with you about another case. I want to bring this letter to your attention before we start."

He read the letter, and then said, "This was back in 2006. Were you a witness to this?"

"I was a witness to the fact that the bathrooms were locked for the first and last ten minutes of the period", I replied.

He didn't know what to say, and I didn't push it. I had another letter for him to read, which will appear in my next post.

3 comments:

Chaz said...

Both OSI & SCI conduct unfair and biased investigations. The truth is not important.

Long Island Educator said...

Untamed Teacher:

This odd coincidence might actually help you down the road with your arbitrator (assuming this goes 3020a).

The suspense is killing me about the next letter.

Hang in there.

My blog is now open and there may be some stuff in there (if you backtrack to the beginning and ignore the pathetic charges) to let you know what lies ahead. It is not all bad believe me.

Long Island Educator said...

Part of establishing 'just cause' prior to 3020a charges is to conduct a full and fair investigation. Part of any 'full and fair' investigation is to interview all available and material witnesses. This is explains his question to you concerning whether or not you were a witness to issues in a previous case. A witness, it turns out, he somehow 'neglected' to interview. Wouldn't it be nice if he appears at his hearing and your NYSUT attorney points out his past incompetence. Your contemporaneous notes of your interview with him will be helpful in discrediting him.