Cobble Hill letter to klein - Special Commissioner of Investigation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Hon. J. I. Klein -20- June 26, 2007 Even before appearing at OSI for the second interview, Cohen got a sense that there could be a problem. According to Cohen, the UFT representative said that Cohen and Yamali were in big trouble and that they were not tenured. At OSI, Cohen was the last witness of the day behind Swords and Yamali, and waited about four hours for his turn to meet with Scarcella. Cohen said: “That’s when his interrogation began.” Cohen reported that, when he denied the cheating allegations, “[Scarcella] was not pleased.” Scarcella went on a “horrible” tirade of repeatedly slamming on the table, standing up, going over to Cohen, and threatening him. When Cohen denied the allegations, Scarcella would respond: “Don’t go there.” Rather than offering immunity from disciplinary action, Cohen said that Scarcella advised him: “If [you] do not ‘tell me what I want to hear, I will pull you out right now,’” a reference to removing him from his position with the DOE – as had happened to Capra. 71 According to Cohen, he “panicked.” Scarcella switched to questions about scoring and Cohen and Scarcella repeatedly disagreed about what was standard procedure and what was cheating. Cohen testified at SCI that he told Scarcella that standard grading procedure was “if the score after the two readers read it, and it went in a pile, was between a specific grade, according to the rubric, you’re to go back and re-check the scores.” Scarcella countered: “‘No! That is not the standard procedure, that is cheating.’ By his definition.” Cohen said: “How many times am I going to argue back and forth with Mr. Scarcella when he’s slamming on the table telling me ‘No! That’s cheating, that’s cheating, that’s cheating!?’” Cohen added that there “was no winning with Mr. Scarcella,” he “succumbed to [Scarcella’s] pressure” and admitted cheating. However, he testified that, in reality, he had not done so. Cohen reported that Scarcella “coerced, bullied, and threatened [him] into believing that [he] had done something wrong.” Cohen asserted that he “would have told Mr. Scarcella anything to get out of the room and be away from his threats.” Cohen disputed Scarcella’s closing report which indicated that Cohen admitted cheating after being given immunity from disciplinary action. 72 According to Cohen, Scarcella did not tell him that no disciplinary action would be taken against him, and that the information to the contrary contained in Scarcella’s report was “false.” Cohen said that, instead, Scarcella threatened him: “if you don’t tell me what I want to hear, I will pull you.” In Cohen’s view, it was apparent that Nobile and Scarcella were “in bed together” and the proof was in Scarcella’s closing report which displayed Nobile’s writing style. 71 At the George proceeding, George testified that, during his June 30, 2004, interview at OSI, Scarcella told him that it would be his last day as principal. See the transcript at page 2397. 72 Scarcella wrote: “This investigator informed Mr. Cohen that no disciplinary action would be taken against him with regard to his statement [at OSI].”
Hon. J. I. Klein -21- June 26, 2007 He added that certain words and phrases were “verbatim, I’m sure from Mr. Nobile’s mouth to the paper that Mr. Scarcella filed.” He termed it was “Nobilesque” in nature. As a result, Cohen concluded: “Mr. Nobile wrote the whole thing; there was no impartial investigation done; just a witch hunt.” Under subpoena, Cohen was a witness for the DOE at the Lennel George disciplinary proceeding. He was questioned under oath on direct examination by the OLS attorney representing the DOE and was cross-examined by George’s counsel. Cohen’s hearing testimony was consistent with his statement to George and his testimony at SCI. Hector Colon, May 2006 During his May 5, 2004, visit to the school, Scarcella spoke with Teacher Hector Colon. According to Scarcella’s Cobble Hill report, Colon “said that he was present during all correction sessions and nothing improper occurred.” 73 Colon also told Scarcella that “he thought cheating [was] a ‘pretty outrageous charge.’” At the insistence of his attorney, before meeting with Colon, this office confirmed that the “administrative immunity” conferred by OSI was still in effect. No other witness who testified at SCI made that request. Colon did not receive criminal immunity. He answered all questions posed to him by SCI investigators. During the interview conducted under oath in the presence of his attorney at the SCI office, Hector Colon admitted that he cheated in scoring Regents exams. He repeatedly testified that Capra gave him a pile of exams and told him to “take care of them” or “take care of it” with no further instructions. Colon conceded that Capra never told him to cheat, never told him to find points that were not there, and never told him to get the students to pass. Despite the absence of such an instruction from Capra, Colon concluded that she meant that he needed to give points to pass the students and he did just that. In his testimony at SCI, Colon claimed that he was not aware of any exams that were read a third time. However, the Scarcella report indicated that Colon said that the scorers “seldom read the paper a third time.” 74 73 Scarcella’s reference to Colon’s statements made at the school is contained in one of the George sections of Scarcella’s closing report. 74 In his testimony at the George proceeding, Colon acknowledged that he always re-read the exams before he made any changes in the score. Moreover, he did not see any teachers change scores without re-reading the exams. See transcript at pages 1074 and 1075.
Page 1 and 2: June 26, 2007 Hon. Joel I. Klein Ch
Page 3 and 4: Hon. J. I. Klein -3- June 26, 2007
Page 19: Hon. J. I. Klein -19- June 26, 2007
Page 67: Hon. J. I. Klein -67- June 26, 2007

Cobble Hill letter to klein - Special Commissioner of Investigation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?