The Movement NewsletterII December2010

New York City Employee Disciplinary Action - Expert Consulting Services, LLC

The Movement

Newsletter

December 2010

Volume 1 Issue 2

The Movement looks into the practices by which the NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings conducts its administrative (SHAM) hearings for City employees. in direct violation with the procedural requirements set in Civil Service Law. As with any other city agency OATH is also bound by the law (local, state, and federal).

OATH-OATH-OATH SHAM-SHAM SHAME!!!

In this issue, the Movement looks into the PRACTICES used by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (or as it is more commonly called, “OATH”), and in its conduct of employee disciplinary proceedings (also called “Hearings”). And we stress the word “PRACTICES” in this story because how OATH conducts employee disciplinary proceedings -and that is

Which is why we are calling the hearings conducted by OATH SHAM HEARINGS. Because they have the appearance of being lawful but the truth is, they aren't.

Disciplinary proceedings required by Civil Service Law section 75 have legally mandated procedural steps that must be done by the head of an agency in order to make the proceeding legal. Of those steps, jurisdiction is critical to the proceeding. And in the absence of lawful jurisdiction, the Hearing Officers’ findings and conclusions are considered null and void.

Courts have consistently overturned agency decisions when it was shown to them that the Hearing Officer was without lawful jurisdiction.

This “jurisdiction” requirement is properly obtained by the Hearing Officer when he/ she is properly designated by the head of an agency in writing, and specifically, for the employee being charged.

In the Matter of Stein v.

County of Rockland, 259 A.D.2d 552: the Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department said, “without a written designation, the [Hearing Officer] has no power to conduct the hearing and, consequently , his or her report is a nullity.”

In the Matter of Perez v. N.Y. ST. Dep’t. of Labor, 244

A.D.2d 844: the Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department said, “Petitioner, noting that the record is devoid of a written designation appointing the Hearing Officer who presided over this matter, asserts that respondents lacked jurisdiction to maintain the initial disciplinary proceeding against him and, hence, there is no basis upon which to [send this case back]. In our view, petitioner’s argument has merit” (Said the Court). The Court went further and ruled in favor of the City Worker and said, “Accordingly, the petition is

 Bloomberg Administration despotic or no?  Department of Correction City of New York

 Public Advocate and City Council have review/ oversight authority over City agencies - so where is Bill de Blasio and Christine Quinn??

OATH’s Administrative Law Judges do not, will not, and cannot, by present law, ever receive a written designation from any city agency head to conduct a disciplinary proceeding that is prescribed by section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Don’t believe the Movement?

See NYC Charter Chapter 45-A, section 1048.

COURTS: City Worker cannot be FIRED without Due Process The Supreme Court has said by its many decisions on proper jurisdiction that a permanent civil service employee cannot be removed from their position in the absence of due process.

Special points of interest:

granted to the extent of restoring petitioner to his former position, together with back pay and benefits.”

Inside this issue:

Bloomberg Administration - despotic or no?

2

We would like nothing more than to list each and every Supreme Court case to show to you the importance of jurisdiction; and in its absence, how that your agency cannot remove you; however, that’s just not possible here.

Multiple Departments in City Government…

2

OATH ALJ’s violate City Charter 5-year term limit

3

ALJ’s take a BLOOD OATH

3

So, this story begs the question: will you stand up for yourself and challenge any formal disciplinary proceeding brought against you, and simply ask -where is the required written designation?

Meet OATH’s ALJ Faye Lewis– A career ALJ

3

NYC Public Advocate & City Council

3

What is this Movement??

4

Page 2

The Movement Newsletter

Bloomberg Administration - despotic or no? opportunity to communicate to the Chief Executive Officer of the City of New York (Mayor), who happens to be a Magistrate by operation-oflaw, and during the course of your communication with him, his office, and the various complaint mechanism in place to receive information on corruption in City Government, you were told that the City’s PRATICES outweigh the legal requirements of Local Law, State Law, and the fundamental precepts of due process of law?

“The Movement is of the opinion, and the facts support our rationale, that ALJ’s assigned to OATH fix disciplinary proceedings by rendering craftily prepared decisions that have a form of correctness but are procedurally and fatally defective.”

Would that concern you as a citizen Despot : a person who of this City? Even more, what if you wields power oppressively; were a City employee, relying on a tyrant (definition adopted from thefreedictionry.com). the city’s integrity in fairness in the retention of your employment, would you be concerned about your What would you say if you had the

job security and the benefits associated with that job security?

Question: What are you prepared to do to ensure that you receive fairness. “Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did and it never will.” Frederick Douglas.

The Bloomberg Administration has been made aware that its Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (“OATH”) is conducting illegally, the disciplinary proceeding prescribed by Civil Service Law section 75; and that in the course of that illegal act, OATH is violating the constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment right of thousands of City employees. In short, City employees are being fired or removed illegally

… ...Despotic Administration or no? - - continued - under the Bloomberg Administration in record numbers. And what’s amazingly sad is that they’ve been made to believe that they don’t have a chance in keeping their jobs once the termination machinery has been turned on them.

It is clear to the Movement that the Bloomberg Administration loathes and despises City Workers and their innate employment benefits. This is why the Mayor permits OATH Administrative Law Judges

to remain active at OATH pass the five-year term limit prescribed by the New York City Charter.

Under the City Charter Chapter 45A, section 1049, it reads in part, “Each administrative law judge shall be appointed for a term of five years.” The Bloomberg Administration is fully aware of this Local Law mandate, however, it still allows these ALJ’s to sit and conduct employee disciplinary hearings; perhaps, in exchange for their own

continued employment.

The Movement is of the opinion, and the facts support our rationale, that ALJ’s assigned to OATH fix disciplinary proceedings by rendering craftily prepared decisions that have a form of correctness but are procedurally and fatally defective.

In coming articles we will produce our written communications with the Bloomberg Administration; and let YOU decide the question.

Multiple Departments in City Government… however-There are multiple Departments and/or Agencies in New York City Government, however, the Movement will set its focus on the NYC Department of Correction; and use this Department as a model-agency as we expose the truth about OATH and the Bloomberg Administration.

Civil Service workers affected by OATH’s unlawful decisions by way of Report and Recommendations issued after a hearing, by Administrative Law Judges who have no

legal authority to preside over their cases work in many of the City’s Departments. However, these employees are clearly unaware that the OATH ALJ’s do not have legal jurisdiction over their matter.

After years of study and research, the Movement has learned that of the many City Agencies, the NYC Department of Correction employees suffer the most through OATH’s illegal activity in unlawfully conducting NYS Civil Service Law

Correction Officers; and even DOC Captains -Suffer the most!! section 75 disciplinary proceedings.

Page 3

Volume 1 Issue 2

OATH ALJ’s violate City Charter 5-year term limit Order.

Many Civil Service employees, and even other individuals within the general public, are unaware that the Administrative Law Judges (also called, ALJ’s) assigned at OATH can only operate lawfully there at OATH for five (5) years.

This five-year term is a NYC Charter mandate; and there is no exception to this mandate, as the NYC City Charter is a Local Law and cannot be abridged.

Consider if you would the extreme measures that Mayor Bloomberg had to take (and the money he had to spend) so that he could be a three-term mayor. He effectively had to change the law in order to run again for mayor.

Well, OATH ALJ’s do not have that luxury (or cash flow); and the law is still the same today: see NYC Charter Chapter 45-A, section 1049 (1).

OATH ALJ’s brazenly defy local and state laws, and even the State and Federal Constitution, by their arbitrary and illegal report and recommendations. It’s as if they’ve committed themselves to a type of Blood Oath with the Bloomberg Administration; and have no apparent concern for the legal consequences they place upon themselves or, to the detriment of others by their gross misdeeds.

The City Charter cannot be violated by an ALJ no more than an agency rule by an employee, or a local

ordinance by the general public.

It is clear to the Movement; and should be to others, that the Bloomberg Administration only keeps Administrative Law Judges employed at OATH in excess of their terms is because they render the decisions necessary to unlawfully remove Civil Service workers; and to arbitrarily control the general public as a whole, through OATH Judges illegal and pledge by blood oppressive to Bloomberg. tactics.

Meet OATH’s Administrative Law Judge FAYE LEWIS. “Faye Lewis was appointed to the position of an Administrative Law Judge at OATH in 1991.”

See http:// www.nyc.gov/html/oath/html/ judges.html.

The Movement has learned that she is responsible for approxi-

mately eight-hundred (800) plus decisions during her tenure. And with the most recent being, Police Dep‟t. v. Webster, OATH Index No. 960/11; dated Nov. 1, 2010. That would make ALJ Lewis in her 19th year as an active Administrative Law Judge at OATH. Only problem with that is, the NYC Charter, which is the legislative AUTHORITY that enables OATH to

operate, mandates that all ALJ’s assigned to OATH serve “a term” of five years: Chart. Chap. 45-A. Question: If ALJ Lewis can by law only function in her role as an ALJ for five years, and she has made decisions beyond her authorized term limit, can she today lawfully obtain jurisdiction over any persons matter? She simply has no legal authority to try cases. None. Period.

NYC Public Advocate & Council have oversight authority.

Under the NYC Charter, the Public Advocate and the Council have the oversight authority over all city agencies.

Charter Chapter 2, section 29 (a) (2): “Power of investigation and oversight. a. The council, acting as a committee of the whole … shall review on a regular and continuous basis the activities of the agencies of the city, including their … performance and management efficiency.”

How is it that OATH, a City Agency, can daily operate in direct violation

of the very legislation that enacted it as an agency under the Charter (Chap. 45-A)?

And how, but for collusion, can the Public Advocate’s Office and the City Council not be aware that the ALJ’s assigned to OATH have exceeded their 5-year term limit; and are thereby, without the legal authority to conduct hearings?

If a mere one-percent of the City’s workforce knew and acted on this information concerning OATH’s illegal conduct of employee disciplinary proceedings (prescribed for by

section 75 of the Civil Service Law), and took action by simply filing complaints with the City’s Public Advocate and Council’s office, then there would be a mass change in the way that their agencies treat them. “The limits of tyrants are Seal of the City prescribed of New York by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” FD.

OATH ALJ’s brazenly defy local and state laws, and even the State and Federal Constitution by their arbitrary and illegal Report and Recommendations.

It’s as if they’ve committed themselves to a ...

Blood Oath with the Bloomberg Administration.

New York City Employee Disciplinary Action Expert Consulting Services, LLC South Ozone Park, New York

Phone: 347-286-8142 Fax: 718-835-3067 E-mail: wayneatatum@gmail.com

waynetatumandthe movement.blogspot. com

Our Company was created out of a heart profoundly concerned with the unfair treatment of Public Workers employed in the City of New York. And which unfair treatment is in fact being perpetrated utterly „by the City of New York.

We offer and provide representation for city workers in disciplinary proceedings before the City‟s central tribunal: the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (“OATH”). OATH hears employee disciplinary cases for most of the city‟s agency‟s, and then forwards a report and recommendation to the Head of the agency the employee works for; the Head then acts by imposing the recommended penalty on the employee.

Our Company, New York City Employee Disciplinary Action—Expert Consulting Services, LLC will defend you in your Civil Service position against any attack by your employer to discipline or remove you from that position. We have exceptional experience and knowledge in all of the required processes regarding disciplinary action taken against a civil servant.

For us, loosing is not an option! We will fight diligently for you until the end!!

Moving Toward Necessary Change!

Call us! Consultation on your documented disciplinary matter is free on a scheduled basis. # 347-286-8142

Wayne & Angela Tatum, Sr. Founder and Co-Founder NYCE DA Expert Consulting Services, LLC

NYCE DA ECS

What is this MOVEMENT all about?

In a word, Enlightenment.

A famous man once said, “I for one believe that if you give people a thorough underJUSTICE! That is standing the underlying of what Cause of Action, confronts JUSTICE!!! them and the basic causes that produce it, they’ll create their own program, and when the people create a program, you get action.” (X). The Movement seeks to do just that –give people, in this case, (all) Civil Service employees, and other persons who will take a listen to and act on the information we provide -that thorough understanding of what confronts them and the basic causes that produce it.

You ask, what is it that “confronts” the Civil Service employee and even

the general public to such a degree that someone would create a company who’s core purpose is to enlighten concerned persons, and offer to provide them with exceptional representation before the City’s Central Administrative Tribunal?

Well, what confronts the Civil Service worker and the General Public as a whole, is the substantial risk of losing anything of substantial value to them; e.g., employment, and the benefits associated with that employment, revocation of their taxicab license, vendors license, etc., should they be required to appear before the NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, where they will be subjected to the unlawful proceedings and denial of State and Federal Constitution due process of law rights, by Administrative Law Judges employed there illegally.

It is no secret that the Administrative Law Judges employed at OATH are held to a five-year term limit.

When the New York City Charter Revision Commission submitted its

“Report” on the proposal to include OATH as a Charter Agency back in 1988, the Commission spoke specifically about the five-year term limit placed on ALJ’s employed at OATH; and said, “the tenure protection accorded to administrative law judges is intended to enhance their impartiality and the respect accorded to their decisions or recommendations.” See Report of the Charter Revision Commission, Vol. 2 at p. 104 (April 1989).

Since that time there has been no change to the five-year term limit.

But because no one knows or has been able to properly articulate this truth, it has gone virtually undetected by the Civil Service workers and the General Public at large.

We want to provoke you to think and act on this truth. If the public workers and the general public knew that OATH Administrative Law Judges did not posses the legal authority or, JURISDICTION over their administrative cases when they’ve exceeded their five-year term limit, then many people would have a better quality of life/worklife.