We have a crisis of administrative attacks on teachers in Berkeley. Specifically our teachers are being falsely accused of unprofessional conduct and unsatisfactory performance based on false pretenses. In addition classified employees are being targeted with trumped up statements of charges of misconduct also leading to termination.
Regarding the certificated statutes of the ed code, we feel that a crime has been committed before the district implements ca ed code 44938 and 44939c to terminate our employment. (California ed code 44938 is derived from Ca ed Code 44660 performance evaluation. Ca Ed Code 44939c requires improper conduct with student or criminal act)
District law firms specifically Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud &Romo, compile the statement of charges with administration. These charges in turn are filled with false, misleading and or fraud filled statements and or charges. These charges in turn are the basis for the termination and disciplining of employees under false pretenses. Needless to say the district law firms in question appear to be conducting a racketeering scheme as the are making financial gain from the trumped up charges. This in turn drains the resources of the school district unnecessarily. There are currently no ed code protections in the BFT or BCCE contract that address this issue in codified fashion.
Quoting Penal Code 132:
”132. Every person who upon any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or
investigation whatever, authorized or permitted by law, offers in
evidence, as genuine or true, any book, paper, document, record, or
other instrument in writing, knowing the same to have been forged or
fraudulently altered or ante-dated, is guilty of felony.”
Also quoting California Penal Code 134: "
134. Every person guilty of preparing any false or ante-dated book,
paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with
intent to produce it, or allow it to be produced for any fraudulent
or deceitful purpose, as genuine or true, upon any trial, proceeding,
or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of felony."
This is a serious problem that is not only an epidemic in Berkeley but teachers are complaining about this state wide. I have appellate court case law to confirm my assertions. Here is the following case: People vs Clark. [Crim. No. 30122. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two. July 28, 1977.]
There also appears to be a material breach of the ed code. The following section makes the relevant point: California Ed Code 44112 (1),(2). The relevant statute states the following:
(1) The activity violates a state or federal law or regulation,
including, but not limited to, corruption, malfeasance, bribery,
theft of government property, fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion,
conversion, malicious prosecution, misuse of government property, or
willful omission to perform duty.
(2) The activity is economically wasteful or involves gross
misconduct, incompetency, or inefficiency.
In addition the Berkeley Unified School District is also violating California Ed Code 44113:
44113. (a) An employee may not directly or indirectly use or
attempt to use the official authority or influence of the employee
for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding,
or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command any person
for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to
disclose to an official agent matters within the scope of this
(b) For the purpose of subdivision (a), "use of official authority
or influence" includes promising to confer or conferring any
benefit; affecting or threatening to affect any reprisal; or taking,
directing others to take, recommending, processing, or approving any
personnel action, including, but not limited to appointment,
promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation, suspension,
or other disciplinary action.
(c) For the purpose of subdivision (a), "official agent" includes
a school administrator, member of the governing board of a school
district or county board of education, county superintendent of
schools, or the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
(d) An employee who violates subdivision (a) may be liable in an
action for civil damages brought against the employee by the offended
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize an
individual to disclose information otherwise prohibited by or under law.
Dozens of Berkeley employees have asked me what can be done to remedy this situation. As I commingle the above referenced ed codes with the penal codes it does appear that employees should file complaints with the local police to preserve their rights and to protect against felonious assertions by district administrators and lawyers. I do believe that California Ed Codes 44110-44114 were implemented to protect employees from trumped up and false assertions
In sum, there is basically a racketeering scheme being carried out by law firms that represent school districts. The lawyers compile false charges. In turn the false charges are used to terrorize and terminate employees. The personnel actions are then rubber stamped by school boards who incorrectly assume the charges in fact are true and have merit. The cycle continues, as these same law firms acquire financial gain under false pretenses. To maintain the practice of law lawyers must maintain ethical standards. Here it is clear that these standards have been broken.
It is the ease at which teachers are placed on leave, charged and terminated that is at issue. If the NUC/NUP is not challenged and the author of the document not challenged the teachers are in effect accepting the allegations as true. The financial motive for lawyers and administrators to do the following dubious acts are clear. If we don’t attack the lawyers in a penal way the crimes against public education will continue.
Social Science Credential
Special Education Credential