SOUTH BRONX SCHOOL: What Would Campbell Brown Do If Husband Dan Senor Were Falsely Accused of Fiddling Collies?

Monday, October 14, 2013

What Would Campbell Brown Do If Husband Dan Senor Were Falsely Accused of Fiddling Collies?

So Campbell Brown, the "Bayou Shicksa", is at it again. She is still whining about teachers that have gone through the normal due process route in which they are afforded representation by the UFT, and to her perceived horror, were not fired.

Now I won't, nor can I, comment on the cases she cited in her Post column, and neither should she.
Like the Bayou Shicksa, I do not have all the facts, I don't have the transcripts, I don't have the context, and I do not have the paperwork of the investigations. So why is it that the Bayou Shicksa feels she can comment?

I wonder how the Bayou Shicksa would feel if someone she is close to is accused of something and wishes to have the protection of the United States Constitution afforded them?

Hmmm, who can we think of? Perhaps her husband Dan Senor? The same Dan Senor who was involved with atrocities in Iraq and never investigated or prosecuted?

Let's say Dan works for a dog training school that is run by the city. Basically, Dan trains dogs. Dan, since he is a public service worker, is a member of the union and afforded all the rights that come with union membership, like DUE PROCESS and the RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

One day a collie, let's say for arguments sake the collie's name is Lassie, accuses Dan of being inappropriate with her. Lassie accuses Dan of petting her in a manner which made her feel uncomfortable, said naughty things, and looked at her funny. Lassie tells her Timmy and Timmy reports it to the guy in charge.

Dan is immediately removed from the training center and sent to the doghouse (pun intended). At this point an investigator comes to the training center and interviews Lassie and all the other doggies.  In fact according to the Bayou Schicksa, Dan has nothing to fear because all investigators do a pretty thorough investigation. But not the one sent in to investigate Dan.

This investigator has a chip on his shoulder and worse, he caught his wife shacking up with his best friend the night before. On the way into work that morning he was stuck for 90 minutes at the toll plaza to the Queen-Midtown Tunnel and is stewed when his daughter calls him and tells him she is dropping out of Harvard and moving to Vegas to be a cocktail waitress.

The other doggies didn't really see what happened, and Lassie can't really explain too much other than she was upset and felt bad. There is a lot of ambiguity and not all the doggies saw what happened, that is except Lassie's best friend who backed up everything Lassie claimed, verbatim.

The investigator goes to talk to the guy in charge and gets his opinion on Dan. Since Dan and the guy in charge never got along, the investigator hears unkind things about Dan. The investigator decides then and there that Dan must be a bad guy and recommends that he be terminated post haste.

So Dan stews in the doghouse for a few years until his hearing. At the hearing the arbitrator hears both sides. The accused and the DOE witnesses are not specific, their story changes, they can't place times or dates of the incident, but THEY BELIEVE Dan was inappropriate.

Dan testifies and denies anything every happened. He shares that Lassie is a poor and disruptive student in class and that just the night before the accusation he had called Timmy to discuss her failing grades and lack of comportment. What is an arbitrator to do?

Most of the time the arbitrator splits the baby. Dan got a fine, a month suspension and had to complete a workshop class. Dan was also forced into the ATR system of the do training schools.

But using the Bayou Schicksa's logic, to hell with what the arbitrator had to say, Dan should be summarily fired by the chancellor. Is that how our system works?

The Bayou Schicksa should ask herself, if these cases are so cut and dry, why not present these cases to the DA's for prosecution? Oh, because of that pesky thing called reasonable doubt.

But the Bayou Schicksa harkens back to a day when one man had the power to decide one's fate. Such as Stalin, or the Shah, or Kim Jong-il, or Mao, or Castro. Good to see what the Bayou Schicksa truly thinks of the American justice system and the Bill of Rights.

I'll say this again. My wife was molested by a family friend when she was about 4 years old. He used to have her sit on his lap when he had an erection and had her grind it. She went years with a fuzzy memory of this until abut 6 or so years ago remembered the details.

I truly wanted to push his face into something concrete. But we decided to confront him. We called his daughter and found out he had passed away. He would have been in his 80's. But, if he was still alive, we would have prosecuted (if allowed). We would not stop him for one moment to have an advocate, an attorney, a jury, or a judge.

There is not one teacher, or UFT officer, that wants pedophiles or perverts working with students. But the accused are afforded right. Deal with it. 

That is our system. If the Bayou Schicksa can think of a better system I, and the nation, are all ears.

Oh one more thing. Is it a coincidence that DFER and Whitney Tilson buddy Joe Williams is on the board of the Bayou Schicks's organization, Parents Transparency Project?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I am not an uninformed individual, but once again I must thank you for keepibg me informed. When I took a look at that 'Parents Tranparency Project', its purpose is barely hidden in the trappings.

The mission statement goes like this:

"The Parents´ Transparency Project is a watchdog group whose mission is to bring transparency to the rules, deals, and contracts negotiated between our state and local governments and the teachers´ unions. We want to help parents better understand the fine print of every law, policy, practice, and procedure that affects their children´s education so they can better serve as advocates for safe and effective schools. PTP favors no party, candidate or incumbent..."

Sentence One: Why the Teachers' unions. Shouldn't we protect children against all predators? Why are they only attacking due process for teachers?

Sentence Two: The web site has none of the fine print about anything. There are a bunch of news articles mostly about their organization, but nothing insightful about anything.

Sentence Three: They spent $100,000against four mayoral candidates, so when they tell people that they favor no candidate, they are lying, probably to collect more contributions under false pretenses.

To their credit they do have one parent of a public school student on their board. Of course a majority of parents could be a threat, exposing this organization for the sham that it is.