A Challenge for the UFT and NYSUT

After my July 23 blog post, a legal eagle fanboi reached out to a member of The Crack Team with a solution to the plight of those waiting years to have a hearing for their U ratings. As Mr. Brooke said the word "plastics" to Benjamin in The Graduate, this legal eagle fanboi came up with words—five words in fact—that can change history. 

Article 78, Motion to Compel

Wait, isn't Article 78 only for when you exhaust all remedies through a collective bargaining agreement? Well, no. The Crack Team did some research, and this is what was found. 

Let's look at what Article 78 is first. I have highlighted what is relevant for a motion to compel. 

1. Appeal a final administrative ruling (by a state agency or government officer) based on insufficient evidence (called Certiorari to Review);
2. Appeal a final administrative ruling (by a state agency or government officer) based on incorrect law or unreasonable nature (called Review of Mandamus);
3. Stop a state agency or government officer from acting (called a Writ of Prohibition); or
4. Force a state agency or government officer to act (called a Writ of Mandamus).

Let's start with #4, "Writ of Mandamus."

A writ of mandamus is a legal process in New York that can force a government agency or official to perform a duty required by law. For example, a writ of mandamus can be used to compel a local or state agency to perform a duty.

and...

To prevail with a writ of mandamus, counsel must establish that judicial intervention is necessary because no other adequate remedy is available. This means that the client must have first attempted to resolve the case at the agency level.

Now for all those waiting for an appeal hearing, an APPR hearing, or any other hearing in which there is no action, doesn't this not seem like a course of action the UFT should be involved in? Two teachers I wrote about on July 23 seem to have some cause, or at the very least, will have cause. 

But how many teachers are out there holding out hope against hope that their hearings will be held sometime this decade? 

Now let's have a look at #3, "Writ of Phohibition."

A writ of prohibition is a judicial order that can be used to force a government agency or official to stop doing something they shouldn't. In New York, it's also known as an Article 78 proceeding. Writs of prohibition can be used for a variety of purposes, including... Stopping an agency, court, or judge from acting outside the scope of their authority

So when a teacher is rated using the S/U instead of Advance or anything else that is not collectively bargained, would not a Writ of Prohibition seem to be in order? 

But I know what the UFT will say. Well, one of two things. One, "We aren't compelled to represent you any further," and two, "We can't do it." What if we lose?" Let's examine those two statements. 

In the past, individual teachers have been represented by the law offices of Robert Reilly. But this can be the Rosa Parks moment I have written about in the past. The UFT and NYSUT have so much cash at hand. What is there to lose?

Which brings us to...

What we always hear from the UFT is, "We might lose" or "We don't think we're going to win." I have always had a problem with those statements. Does anyone think Team USA was thinking, "What if we lose?" in 1980 against the Soviet Union? Were the Mets thinking that in 1969? The Jets in 1969? Villanova over Georgetown in 1985? None of these teams were thinking, "What if we lose?" or "We can't win." They were thinking, "We will win," "No one can stop us, and "when we win.

It's time the UFT takes a crowbar to the wallet where it is holding the millions of dollars in union dues from the rank and file two times a month and starts investing in the US, the teachers, the staff, and the communities of New York City. It is time to grab the proverbial bull by his goodies and to be proactive. 

What has being reactive gotten us? 

The Crack Team will be sitting by the phones awaiting any questions from the UFT or NYSUT.