From a decision by the director

CASE NO. U-21634

In the Matter of

DAVID K. ROEMER,

Charging Party,

-and-

UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Respondent.


DAVID K. ROEMER, pro se

EXCEPTIONS TO DECISION OF DIRECTOR

1) In the first paragraph of the decision, the Director states that I elected to object to the determination that my charges were deficient, rather than to amend or correct those deficiencies. This is not true. I was advised in a letter dated April 19, 2000 that I had until May 10, 2000 to amend my charges. I mailed an amendment to my complaint on May 4, 2000 in the morning. I did not receive notification of the certified letter containing the Decision of the Director until the afternoon of May 4, 2000, and did not pick-up the letter until May 5, 2000.


2) In the third paragraph of the decision, the Director states "he pleads no facts which would establish that the UFT was under any obligation to do so or that its refusal to do so was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith". The charges clearly describe unlawful and fraudulent activity by the New York City Board of Education and the United Federation of Teachers. Page 2 of item 5, 4th paragraph, states: "This was done in order to trump-up a fraudulent case against me". Page 3 of item 5, 3rd paragraph, states: "the charges against me were fraudulent". The amended complaint says:

Sometime between January 16, 1996 and February 29, 1996 Howard Solomon, an employee of the United Federation of Teachers, had conversations with John Ferrandino, Superintendent of Brooklyn High School. In these conversations, Mr. Solomon and Mr. Ferrandino conspired to unlawfully prevent me from carrying out my duties as a high school teacher, and conspired to generate a fraudulent government document. I was unlawfully removed from the classroom on February 29, 1996, and the document, titled STIPULATION OF CHARGES, was communicated to the New York City Board of Education on November 1, 1996.

3) In the third paragraph the Director says, "The bare refusal to reimburse Roemer for legal expenses incurred.". The Director is referring to Alleged Violation No. 7, which cites a letter from Thomas Pappas. There is nothing "bare" about this letter. The letter was sent in response to allegations I was making against the UFT. The way I expressed it in the amended complaint is:

On January 9, 2000, Thomas Pappas, Secretary and Chief of Staff of the United Federation of Teachers, sent me a letter falsely and maliciously denying accusations I made against him and other employees and agents of the United Federation of Teachers in connection with the unlawful acts described above. Mr. Pappas's letter was sent in response to letters and documents I delivered to the Executive Board of the United Federation of Teachers. Mr. Pappas's letter was contrived to cover-up the unlawful acts and improper practices of the United Federation of Teachers.

4) I respectfully request to make an oral argument before the Board. I did my best to tell the story of what happened in my pleadings, and in letters I sent to Kenneth J. Toomey dated April 22 and April 24. I would like to explain in person, so that I can answer any questions.


5) I am objecting to the director's decision to dismiss the charge.

 

STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.:

COUNTY OF KINGS )


DAVID K. ROEMER, being duly sworn deposes and says, that he is the charging party in the above pleadings, and that he has read the above amendment, and is familiar with the facts alleged therein, which facts he knows to be true, except as to those matters alleged on information and belief, which matters he believes to be true.

___________________________

Signature

Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 5th day of May 2000.