Sharmeela Farooqi Spokesman for MQM ???
In A Talk Show of Dunya News (KHARI BAAT) with Mubashir Lucman, Sharmeela Farooqi Reacts like She is
not representing PPP. her answer was against PPP’s Sitting Minister Sharjeel Memon.

Sharmeela Farooqi Spokesman for MQM ??? khari Baat, Dunya news Talkshow, Mubashir Lucman, Zulfiqar Mirza, Sharjeel Memon, London, Imdad Pitafi Membership, Information Ministery, Disciplinary Action PPP MQM, Rabita Committee, CEC Meeting Altaf Hussain, President Zardari

We have written more than a handful of articles eversince the crisis broke out in the open in  2010. Amongst which we will like you to click to have more of insights on how the party has survived the insubordination till now. These are earlier articles going back as far back as  January 2010.

• 1.http://audie61.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/mawans-leeway-above-all/
• 2.http://audie61.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/spdpprs-merger-good-but-have-we-forgotten/
• 3. http://audie61.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/disciplinary-action-war-of-words-viral-infections/
• 4.http://audie61.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/spdp-separatists/
• 5.http://audie61.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/fireworks-or-advices-sought/
• 6.http://audie61.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/fireworks-or-advices-sought/

There have been also many calls by all the top leaders in the Prime Minister to Deputy PM to the Chief Minister and many others in BN SG and Sarawak BN SG to their own President but still the 5 remains defiant to stay away.

We pick up this to remind them of the very first statement that Mawan said in a PC in which audie61 were present.

,”I am an accomodating person but there are of course limits to what and how much one can take. I am no different and I do FEEL for them as they have been misled and misinformed.

There must be a LEEWAY for them to move and I am providing that path for them and I have forgiven,hope and accepted the fact that they are using their own individual initiatives. Politics is about agreement and not about disagreement and we have to be ABOVE IT ALL and sometimes we have to “SWALLOW OUR PRIDE AND EGO“.I have already mentioned in the Press Conference that I will bear no grudges and as such all incumbents will not be replaced in the coming elections.

Did MAWAN DROP ANY OF THEM at the last elections?

No, he did not and during that time the party set up the disciplinary committee too on 28th February 2010.

As a matter of fact the Supreme Council has to thanked them Separatists 5 for ensuring SPDP will have all the bureaus in place. Thats why we are revamping and making sure this episode is not repeated an we have put in place an independant group to oversee the DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE. They are the following and they will be taking the neceessary actions if and when necessary against Party members who crossed the line.

• Francis Wong
• Dr Syafig Abdullah
• Dr.Roland Mattu
• Vincent Tan
• Puan Theresa Udam

Our privilege source told us after the Ulu Teru function last weekend and all the debacle of security threats and sabotage the time is ripe to take the necessary action. The disciplinary committee have already met up and they would look no further than one of them going all out to derail the Presidents visit.

We covered it here:- http://audie61.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/spdp-updates-function-in-ulu-teru/

Apparently the disciplinary committee has to thank some one for making their work easier and this direct insubordination with police reports thrown in and other “EXCITING GOODIES PACKAGED IN FOR A WILD WEEKEND IN MIRI” { find out more……hmmmm}

The Disciplinary committee has still to follow the RULE OF LAW which is the party constitution. The reading public would like to be thrown some light into the procedures of the SPDP constitution. We simplify for easy understanding of the processes

Article 24 which is first step taken by the supreme Council has been adhered to.

• 24 -1 disciplinary board established from time to time as and when necessary
• 24-2 The composition 5 members appointed by the Supreme Council and not Supreme Council members.
• 24-3  they can choose any of the 5 listed censure,suspend,expe,lbar or take any other necessary action in the constitution and make recommendation to the Supreme council.
• 24-4  They will hold inquiry a) given notice b) given right to explain c) option to defend
• 24-5  Decision by a vote of simple majority
•  24-6 Deliberations to be tabled at Supreme Council on recommendations/findings from disciplinary committee.

The Supreme Council will be tasked to take the necessary actions and it is not the President who sets the judgement. Lets be very CLEAR ON THIS MATTER and President William Mawan has been very tolerant and he knows the rule of the Law of the party constitution.

The SC will deliberate and they will

a)  expel without hesitation

b)  deliberate further with considerations of disciplinary actions such as

• 1) censure
• 2)suspend the membership
• 3)any other disciplinary actions which they see fit.

The SC after going through their deliberations within the confines of the SUprem Council meeting will act and inform the Disciplinary committee to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the member who has violated the party rules. They musts state the exact and specific nature of the charge preferred against the member.

The Constitution also clearly states,”Any decision of the Supreme Council under the article 24 shall be arrived at by 2/3 majority of the votes of the Supreme Council present and attending and such decision of the Supreme Council shall be final and shall not be appealed from and questioned in any Tribunal or Court of Law.

The court of law defines as any court established under the provision of the Fedral Constitution and includes the Sessions Courts and Magistrates established under the Provisions of Subordinate Courts act 1948.

Just for the information of the Separatists 5 this might happen when they try to bring the party to court:-

“The judge might just rule that under the relevant provision of the societies act ‘no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or determine any suit,appliocation,question or proceeding on any ground regarding the validity of a decision of a political party or any matter relating to the affairs of the party.”

SPDP needs to clear this little irritant/misunderstanding and the CM Taib has already spelt it out clearly,”I must tell you one thing,SPDP is still a very united party on the ground.But probably there is some rivalry at the leadership level.People have got to learn to adjust“  

No one is guilty yet and this article which we wrote says it all:-http://audie61.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/spdp-separatists-5-guilty/ and this we extract too”

NO one is wrong justs yet until the SC meets again. 

audie61 called DSG Paul Igai this morning to find out when the next SC meeting and he said we are working to accomodate everyone. We see it very clearly that in the party SPDP that even when the last rites are to be delivered and sentencing that goes with it there is still room for FORGIVENESS and REPENTANCE.

THIS SHOWS POLITICAL MATURITY of the HIGHEST ORDER .

In Ball v. Steadfast-BLK, LLC, 196 Cal.App.4th 694 (June 14, 2011), David E. Ball, a  sole proprietor, held a contractor’s license issued by the California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”) under the fictitious name “Clark Heating and Air Conditioning.” However, Mr. Ball entered into two contracts under the name “Clark Air Conditioning & Heating.” When Mr. Ball was not paid, he recorded a mechanic’s lien for the work performed and filed a lawsuit to foreclose on the mechanic’s lien.  Steadfast-BLK, LLC challenged Mr. Ball’s complaint on the ground that Mr. Ball was never licensed to do business in the name of “Clark Air Conditioning & Heating,” and that his complaint was therefore precluded as a matter of law under California Business and Professions Code section 7031, which bars all actions that seek compensation for work in which a contractor’s license is required. The trial court agreed and dismissed Mr. Ball’s complaint.

The California Court of Appeals for the Third District, however, disagreed. The Court explained that a “dba” is not a separate legal entity. “[A] [dba] business name is a fiction,” explained the Court, “and so too is any implication that the [dba] business is a legal entity separate from its owner.” Therefore, the Court held, whether Mr. Ball did business as “Clark Air Conditioning & Heating” or “Clark Heating and Air Conditioning” was irrelevant, because Mr. Ball’s contractors license was held in his individual name as a sole proprietor and, irrespective of what fictitious business name he did business under, Mr. Ball was himself a licensed contractor and was not precluded by Business and Professions Code section 7031 from seeking recovery for the work he performed.

The Court did not let Mr. Ball completely off the hook however. Business and Professions Code section 7083 provides that a licensee’s failure to “notify the [CSLB] registrar  . . . within 90 days of any . . . changes in business address, personnel, business name, qualifying individual bond exemption . . . or exemption to qualify multiple licenses . . . constitute cause for disciplinary action.” Similarly, Business and Professions Code section 7117 provides that “[a]cting in the capacity of a contractor under any license issued hereunder except . . . in the name of the licensee as set forth upon the license . . . constitutes a cause for disciplinary action.”  Mr. Ball, therefore, was subject to disciplinary action.

For contractors, the case highlights the importance of keeping your CSLB records up to date, and although little thought may be given at the time, to ensure that you submit your bids, enter into your contracts, issue your 20-day preliminary notices, and record your mechanic’s liens under the same name you have registered with the CSLB.

WELL it finally happened. The Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party’s (SPDP) Supreme Council has decided it will censure the party’s so-called Gang of Eight.

They are senior vice-president Datuk Peter Nansian Ngusie; vice-presidents Sylvester Entri Muran, Datuk Dr Tiki Lafe and Rosey Yunus; information chief Paulus Gumbang; and supreme council members Peter Gani, George Garai and Eda Igar.

Apparently seven of them have not attended a single supreme council meeting since 2009!

Datuk Peter Nansian attended one meeting last February.

What a pickle. Five of those censured are elected representatives – two are Assistant Ministers!

Tasik Biru assemblyman Nansian is Assistant Minister for Environment and Public Health, Assistant Minister of Assistant Minister of Public Utilities (Water Supply) Entri is Marudi assemblyman, Dr Tiki is Mas Gading Member of Parliament, Gumbang is Batu Danau assemblyman and Rosey is Bekenu assemblywoman.

Party President Tan Sri William Mawan Ikom said he would wait for the party’s disciplinary committee report before bringing the matter up with State and Central BN.

The committee chaired by Prof Dr Shafiq Abdullah has 30 days to come up with its findings.

Tan Sri Mawan said the party has provisions in its constitution for action to be taken against any office bearers who fail to attend any supreme council meeting three times in a row.

He also said that he and the Supreme Council had basically run out of patience with the Gang of Eight.

I won’t bother to speculate about the reasons for the ‘Gang’s’ actions.

What I will say is parliamentary elections are just round the corner.

The opposition is just itching for opportunities.

Having divisions within BN parties will just strengthen them.

Surely no one in BN wants that to happen?

The report from Bernama:

Five SPDP Supreme Council Members To Face Disciplinary Action

KUCHING, Sept 13 (Bernama) — Five Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (SPDP) Supreme Council members will face a disciplinary action for allegedly failing to adhere to party’s rules.

They are senior vice-president Datuk Peter Nansian who is also Tasik Biru assemblyman, Marudi assemblyman Sylvester Entri Muran, Bekenu assemblyman Rosey Yunus, Danau assemblyman Paulus Palu Gumbang and Member of Parliament for Mas Gading Datuk Dr Tiki Lafe.

“Other Supreme Council members and I have been patience enough for the past two years and it is up to the disciplinary committee to determine the punishment for them,” SPDP president Datuk Seri William Mawan Ikom told reporters after chairing the party’s supreme council meeting here today.

Mawan, who is also State Minister of Social Development and Urbanisation, said he was awaiting a report from the disciplinary committee chaired by Prof Dr Shafiq Abdullah before pursuing the matter with the state and central Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders.

On SPDP’s preparations for the next general election, Mawan said three incumbents, namely MP for Baram Datuk Jacob Dungau Sangan (deputy international trade and industry minister), MP for Saratok Jelaing Mersat (deputy transport minister) and MP for Bintulu Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing would defend their seats.

On Mas Gading parliamentary seat, Mawan said Tiki had yet to inform him whether he wanted to defend the seat.

From The Sun:

SPDP refers Gang of 8 to disciplinary committee

By Sulok Tawie

KUCHING (Sept 13, 2011): Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (SPDP) has referred the Gang of Eight to the disciplinary committee for their continued absence from the party’s supreme council meeting.

Of the eight senior party leaders, seven failed to attend a single supreme council meeting since 2009; senior vice president Datuk Peter Nansian attended one meeting last February.

The seven are appointed vice-president Sylvester Entrie Muran, and supreme council members Datuk Dr Tiki Lafe, Paulus Gumbang, Rosey Yunus, Peter Gani, George Garai and Eda Igar.

Entrie is an assistant minister of public utilities and state assemblyman for Marudi, Dr Tiki is the Mas Gading member of parliament, Gumbang is the assemblymen for Batu Danau and Rosey, the state assemblyman for Bekenu.

Speaking to reporters after chairing the supreme council meeting yesterday, SPDP president Tan Sri William Mawan Ikom said the disciplinary committee had been given 30 days to complete its investigation into why the eight had been absent from the meetings.

Mawan, who is also the Social Development and Urbanisation Minister, said the committee will report its findings to the supreme council.

“Based on the findings, the supreme council will decide the type of actions to be taken against them,” he said.

“We have provisions in the party’s constitution that states that action can be taken against any office bearers who fail to attend any supreme council meeting three times in a row,” he said.

The disciplinary committee is chaired by former Universiti of Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) lecturer, Professor Dr Shafiq Abdullah.

The members of the committee are Datuk Francis Wong, Vincent Tan, Theresa Udam and Wendy Trang.

We have all heard the horror stories – career-limiting photographs and postings that last forever. Employees facing disciplinary action, losing jobs or being screened out in interviews because of social media information. People being sued for defamation. Workplace bullying following employees home.

Here are some thoughts on defensive social media management.

1. Be clear about who each social media forum is for. For instance for me, Facebook is for friends, LinkedIn is for current and former work colleagues and Twitter is for anyone. I am very clear about this to avoid giving offense. I do not have work-related people on my Facebook site. It is too easy for an innocent comment to be misconstrued to relate to a specific work-related activity. On the other hand, I know people who do have work colleagues on their Facebook site. That’s fine too, but once you have made the decision you need to post appropriately. Remember who is there.

2. Make sure your privacy settings are high. This is basic common sense, but it never ceases to amaze the number of people who have low or no privacy settings. It’s a big world out there people, not everyone has good intentions!

3. Be aware that no matter what your privacy settings, information gets out. A friend does a screen grab of a funny picture or posting you have put up, shares a comment you have posted, you comment on a friend’s site only to find that some of their friends know you as well.

4. Be careful which Facebook groups you join – despite your privacy settings your comments on someone else’s, or a group’s, page might show up on a google search. Just “liking” a page sometimes shows up.

5. Alcohol and social media do not mix if you want a career!

6. Be careful about what you find humourous, including the postings you repost. Just because it wasn’t your writing or your opinion, having it against your name for reposting may look bad.

7. Google yourself from time to time and see what pops up. Mine generally covers work related activities (quotes in media, reports presented, documents authored and conference presentations, etc) and some recreational activities including notice boards I have left comments on. I did once find an obituary in my name – I have an unusual double barrelled surname so this was slightly alarming. Turns out to be an 82 year old woman who died in Texas. I believe in coincidence!

8. Do you have a common (ie: popular) name? Is there some way you can differentiate yourself from others with similar names – particularly if they are in unsavoury businesses or making ill-advised comments you do not want associated with yourself. You need to be either clearly identified as to which comments are you (if your strategy is to make your profile stand out online), or be anonymous in the crowd of people with the same name.

9. If you find defamatory comments about yourself, request that the user remove them. If that doesn’t work, request that the site owner removes them. And remember, libel is libel, even if it happens in cyber-space.

If you like this posting, you might also like Career Networking Sites
Like this posting? Why not subscribe to the blog (click the Sign me up button on the right of the page.)

So do write-ups actually improve job performance?  Maybe temporarily because employees fear they
will lose their job, but are the effects long-term? 

The bottom line is that if one of my employees is failing, I’m failing as their manager.  It is my job
to take the time and effort to understand the problem, whether it be lack of training, personal issues, etc., and then coach the employee to improve their performance.  We all make mistakes, we all have areas we can improve upon so let’s talk about them and figure out a plan of action.

To me, writing up an employee is like saying, “I’ve given up on you, and now I’m managing you out of here.”  Is that really the message we want to send to our employees?

Please contribute your thoughts to this discussion.  Are disciplinary write-ups an effective tool for poor job performance or a way for managers to avoid the real issues?

photo credit

A few days ago the term “whitewash” came back to me when I read an article in a local Southern California newspaper. On, Saturday July 2, 2011, the Orange County Register published an article written by Courtney Perkes, on Page 15, of the Local section, next to the Obituaries, under the Health caption, titled, “Doctor disciplined for lack of supervision”.

Ms. Perkes states that, “An Anaheim doctor has agreed to five years of California Medical Board probation for allowing an assistant to treat patients without supervision.”  Although I do not believe that Ms. Perkes is wrong in making that statement, I do feel it is a “whitewashing” of the total picture.  The California Medical Board Decision  states the following on page 4 of the Stipulated Settlement & Disciplinary Order (09-2008-18891),

” IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate No. G47346 issued to Respondent Janet L. Schreiber, M.D. is revoked.” 

The Medical Board Disciplinary Order  further states, “However the revocation is stayed and Respondent is placed on probation for five (5) years from the effective date of this Decision on the following terms and conditions.”

The Medical Board revoked Dr. Schreiber’s license.  Ms. Perkes does not include this information in the article.  The Board  agreed to stay the revocation provided that Dr. Schreiber comply with the terms and conditions of a five year probation.   The terms were detailed in the Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order (09-2008-188991).

Dr. Schreiber has actually agreed to conditions required to stay the revocation of her license.  On page 8, of the Stipulated Settlement & Disciplinary Order (09-2008-188991), item #13, captioned, Violation of Probation, contains the statement, “If the Respondent violates probation in any respect, the Board, after giving Respondent notice and the opportunity to be heard, may revoke probation and carry out the disciplinary order that was stayed.”

I have read the seven (7) page Accusation against Dr. Schreiber and the eleven (11) page Decision.  There are six (6) pages of conditions that Dr. Schreiber must perform and abide by to complete her probation. Included is the requirement that she complete a boundaries course equivalent to the Professional Boundaries Program, Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine (“Program”).

Ms. Perkes entire article consists of seven complete sentences. Two of those sentences are quotes from Dr. Schreiber’s attorney, Courtney Pilchman, Esq..  Ms. Perkes closes her article with the following remarks about Dr. Schreiber and gives credit for the remarks to Ms. Pilchman;  “She’s been practicing 30 years without incident,” “She’s a very, very good doctor.”

In my opinion “without incident”  has a very broad connotation that extends far beyond the scope of the article.  It appears to me that Ms. Pilchman is making a statement as though it were fact. Unless Ms. Pilchman was employed at the medical practice throughout those 30 years she has no first hand knowledge as to what did or did not occur. I believe that a more accurate and unbiased remark would be, that “Dr. Schreiber has practiced for years without charges being filed against her with the Medical Board.”

I also take exception to the comment attributed to Ms. Pilchman, that Dr. Schreiber is a “very, very good doctor”.  The Medical Board doesn’t revoke the licenses of “very, very good” doctors.  The Medical Board does not revoke a license without a thorough investigation, without cause and without giving accused physicians an opportunity to defend themselves. The Medical Board does not place physicians on probation without good cause. Dr. Schreiber’s punishment is in direct relationship to transgressions associated with her professional conduct.

The article written by Courtney Perkes is offensive to me. It appears written with bias and without adequate research. If this article was designed to be newsworthy and alert the public then the article should have included the requirement of the enrollment in the Boundaries Course.  When a doctor fails to maintain personal boundaries with patients it is a very serious problem. This case was referred to the California State Attorney Generals Office for prosecution.

The fact that Dr. Schreiber does not admit to the truth of “each and every” charge and allegation with regard to the First and Second Causes for Discipline does not make the allegations untrue.  In other legal proceedings of public record Dr. Schreiber has admitted to a sexual relationship with the patient that made the allegations. Seven sentences hardly seems like an accurate reflection of a 19 page Disciplinary Decision by a licensing Board.

I think the article “whitewashed” the stains.  This article appears to control the fallout from a more comprehensive disclosure of the Decision.  I hold the opinion that Ms. Perkes has damaged her own reputation as an investigative reporter and that of the newspaper.

The factual information in this blog is a matter of public record.  Any editorial statements in this blog are the opinions of this writer.

The self-regulating code has evolved from the earliest days of law in our land, when solo practitioners were BigLaw.  This, he says, is not conducive to real unbiased disciplinary action.   Law firm management should have broader ethics parameters.  The rules, such as they are, he says, are too scattered.  

Rarely are the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct enforced in the disciplinary process.

Professor Schneyer leans towards more proactive, management-based regulations.  This sort of reform would incorporate or bypass what attorneys refer to as Professional Self-Regulation (or PSR). (Since 1908, the state supreme courts and the bar have monitored these regulations.) Basically, these rules operate as follows:  the courts allow lawyers to operate in their states and “promulgate a code of professional conduct to regulate them”.  These codes are general enough to apply to all lawyers across-the-board.

They also promote a sense of solidarity. 

The bar puts forth the code rules and the advisory board—or the advisory ethics opinions—throw(s) light on or elucidates them.   However, there are other systems which today have shoved PSR’s authority aside.

Since 1985, courts and juries are able to impose civil or criminal penalties on attorneys.  Additionally, courts are able to call the shots regarding the lawyers who come before them and, too, there are specific federal agencies that have a say in how attorneys who represent clients within their jurisdiction do their job.  

That means that the bar no longer has as much regulatory power as it once did.   

Further usurpation of authority occurs as as more and more lawyers change jobs; law firms operate in more than one jurisdiction and lawyers strive to set up a practice in more than one state.

How, asks the professor, are lawyers to know whose ethics rules govern you directly?   

Professor Schneyer contends that PSR is still viable.  Much, very much, depends on how well and publicly the system is seen to promote “competent and ethical lawyering”. 

Law firm management can and should jump in to breathe some life into the traditional code of ethics.  For example, instances involving treating the client fairly should be addressed at the front lines.  Management, if it’s sound, can prevent these first-order of misconduct scenarios by enacting effective discipline.  (Examples would be addressing the misappropriation of clients’ funds or neglecting your client’s needs.) 

That raises a few questions, ‘though, one of which is whether a system so reactive—one that is triggered after-the-fact—can be enforced in the traditional process. Second, can a proactive regulatory process “complementing the regular disciplinary process” do the job by enabling PSR to use firm management as a dipping well to draw regulatory water from?  

The author is of the opinion that, if the state supreme courts adapt a “management-based regulation” that is indeed proactive, the answer is a resounding “yes”.   To read more, go here: http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/53-2/53arizlrev577.pdf

-EM

Unless you’ve been exiled to the Gulag for the last month, you probably know that Weiner, a Democratic New York congressman, was forced to resign from his post after the outcry over lewd photographs he sent to women from his Twitter account.  He left his office in disgrace and is apparently entering rehab.  (Maybe I’ll write about the wisdom of that move in a different post.)

The thing is, Weiner was a generally well-liked Congressman and was reportedly a leading candidate to run for mayor of New York in 2013.    He had many supporters and, until the “Weinergate” scandal broke, was seen as a very capable politican.  One might argue, in fact, that his sexual exploits had no effect on his ability to legislate, despite the vociferous (and at times rabid) barbs levied upon him by pundits and critics after the scandal became public.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I am not condoning his behavior.  I am not saying that we should ignore it because “he’s otherwise a good guy.”  In no way should we turn a blind eye to something that shows such poor taste, a profound lack of judgment, and a disregard for his relationship with his wife.

But does it require the sudden unraveling of an entire political career?  Weiner has done some bad things.  But do they make him a bad congressman?

Some of the same questions arose during the recent flurry of stories about doctors who speak for drug companies.  As ProPublica has written in its “Dollars for Docs” series, some doctors have earned tens of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of companies when they are also expected to be fair and unbiased in their assessment of patients, or in their analysis and presentation of data from clinical trials.

This is, in my opinion, a clear conflict of interest.  However, some of the articles went one step further and pointed out that many of those doctors have been disciplined by their respective Medical Boards, or have had other blemishes on their record.  Are these conflicts of interest?  No.  To me, it seems more like muckraking.  It’s further ammunition with which critics can attack Big Pharma and the “bad” doctors who carry out its dirty work.

Now I don’t mean to say that every sin or transgression should be ignored.  If one of those doctors had been disciplined for excessive or inappropriate prescribing, or for prescription fraud, or for questionable business practices, then I can see why it might be an issue worthy of concern.  But to paint all these doctors with a broad stroke and malign them even further because of past disciplinary action (and not simply on the basis of the rather obvious financial conflicts of interest), seems unfair.

The bottom line is, sometimes good people do bad things.  And unfortunately, even when those “bad things” are unrelated to the business at hand, we sometimes ruin lives and careers in our attempts to exact justice.  Whatever happened to rehabilitation and recovery?  A second chance?  Can we evaluate doctors (and politicians) by the quality of their work and their potential current conflicts, rather than something they did ten or twenty years ago?

(By the way, there are some bad—i.e., uninformed, irresponsible—doctors out there who have no disciplinary actions and no relationships with pharmaceutical companies.  Where are the journalists and patient-advocacy groups looking into their malfeasance?)

In our society, we are quick to judge—particularly those in positions of great power and responsibility.  And those judgments stick.  They become a lens through which we see a person, and those lenses rarely come off, regardless of how hard that person has worked to overcome those characterizations.  Ask any recovered alcoholic or drug addict.  Ask any ex-felon who has cleaned up his act.  Ask any “impaired professional.”  (In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those professionals, whose “impairments” stemmed from a longstanding mental illness [now in remission] and affected none of my patients or colleagues, but which have introduced significant obstacles to my employability for the last five years.)  And ask any politician who has had to surrender an office due to a personal failing like Weiner’s.

Come to think of it, ask any patient who has been given a psychiatric diagnosis and whose words and actions will be interpreted by her friends, family,  doctors, or boss as part of her “borderline personality” or “bipolar” or “psychosis.”  It’s hard to live that down.

When evaluations matter, we should strive to judge people by the criteria that count, instead of the criteria that strengthen our biases, confirm our misconceptions, and polarize us further.  If we are able to do so, we may make it easier for people to recover and emerge even stronger after making mistakes or missteps in their lives.  We also might get along with each other just a little better.

The critical issue is what was in this “scope” as an employee, for example committing a criminal assault on student would not be covered under this law.

Kevin Martin is a tenured teacher and was assigned to Aspire Preparatory School, MS 322X. While teaching Martin tried to stop a student from disrupting the class. After each request by Martin to the student to stop disrupting the class the student verbally responded with profanity. Martin told the student to go the dean.

According to Martin’s petition, “As a disciplinary measure and the course and scope of Martin’s employment, Martin then removed the aforementioned student chair from beneath the feat of student S[…], whereupon Martin lost control of the chair which fell to the floor at student S[…]‘s feet.”

The student and his mother started a civil suit against Martin and Martin requested legal representation which was denied due, in part to an OSI report which found Martin had thrown the chair.

Justice Alice Schlesinger of New York Supreme Court had no problem finding that Martin’s action was within the scope of his employment as disciplinary actions against students are clearly envisioned in the statute. The Court nonetheless after determining that the timeline was suspect (the incident occurred in 2008, the civil suit filed in 2009 and the OSI investigation and charges against Martin were done in 2010) found that there was nothing arbitrary or capricious in the denial of legal representation during the course of the disciplinary proceedings. The Court advised that Martin could commence his own civil action for attorney fees and resulting judgment in the future, if the facts warrant.

In the Matter of KEVIN MARTIN, Petitioner, -against- BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JOEL J. KLEIN, as Chancellor of the City School District of the City of New York, and the CITY OF NEW York, Respondents, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY, 2011 NY Slip Op 30983U; 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1795, April 12, 2011

The students who attend SUA bring extenuating circumstances into their educational lives. Most come from broken homes. Many were abused as children or have experienced something traumatic in the innocent stages of their lives causing them to come to school with an exceptional learning experience. I was learning from my mentor teacher that some of the traumatic experiences these students have endured have caused them to miss a significant portion of their schooling, thus causing them to fall behind. When they returned to school, rather than properly diagnosing the issue, teachers would brush aside these students as mischief makers or delinquents and fail them or kick them out of school. This process eventually led to students arriving at SUA; behind, in trouble and “hopeless”.

I have to take into consideration all of these disturbing things when I am disciplining students. Some of the behavior in class is truly unacceptable, and part of the learning process here is to understand how students are expected to behave in the real world (which is a lot less forgiving than the confines and comfort bubble of Christian educators who are here to mold them).

I had a couple of particular instances last week that have really opened my eyes and grown me into a better disciplinarian. The first involved a boy – a freshman – who had decided that class time is not a reasonable time for him to do his work. The typical protocol is to assign study hall to a student for them to finish their work. If the study hall is not adhered to and the student fails to appear, a detention follows. If a student fails to appear to their detention without a reasonable cause, they receive a suspension. The penalties continue, because students must learn to take their education seriously and follow directions. I followed this protocol short of suspending the student because I am not under the authority to do so. The underlying problem was this student’s verbal refusal to come to both study hall and detention. It is one thing to neglect going and ignore it, and an entirely different situation to refuse going. In the case of this particular student, refusing to do work in class had become a regular occurance and we needed to get back into a firm routine of guidelines and expectations.

Calling his mother was a difficult thing – I still don’ t feel that I have the authority to do such things and that my mentor teacher was better suited, but I also know that it’s my job as the official teacher at the moment to do so. How stressful! Thankfully I had the support of my mentor teacher to do it. And, in all reality, it was a necessary evil. sometimes a call home is all a student needs to snap into shape for a little while. I hope that it sees fruit in the end, and I know that the decision to call home was a wise one – the right one.

My second scenario was more of a growing experience than that of making a right choice or following protocol. As I said earlier, students come to school with baggage and previous life experiences that shape who they are now in a negative way. One of my students is a perpetually angry student, and she brings that anger and frustration into class with a confrontational personality and blatant disobedience.

Last Wednesday, on a school outing, she was defiant and confrontational. While she decided she didn’t want to follow the rules and she wanted to run off on her own, she would talk back and get mad at me if we were confused or behind on our outing. The next morning she came to class with a negative attitude and refused to work, so my mentor teacher asked her to leave class. Then, on Friday, she was the same way for me and I had to ask her to leave second period. Sixth period, I asked her to leave class, yet again, and I didn’t really give her the opportunity to discuss anything with me.  It was frustrating for both of us and we ended up discussing it at lunch today.

In this young lady’s situation, I needed to have more of a discussion with her about her behavior rather than simply ask her to leave class. While my patience was waning with her, a discussion is more appropriate during that time particularly when the situation is recurring.

It was convenient having two of my major disciplinary issues occur and be handled in the same week. It helps me realize the multiple natures of discipline and how things need to be handled sensitively, firmly and with consistency, but that every situation deserves an individualized look into itself so that we can handle it appropriately.

THREE Doncaster Tories have escaped punishment after they went against party orders over library closures.

Deputy mayor Patricia Schofield, and her fellow cabinet members Coun Jonathan Wood and Coun Cynthia Ransome, faced a party disciplinary meeting after they backed Mayor Peter Davies to support a review of libraries which would see 14 branch libraries closed.

They included branches in the Conservative heartlands of Bawtry and Sprotbrough.

The councillors had earlier been given orders from the Conservative group on Doncaster Council to oppose the review, and to instead move for a 12 month deferral over the closures.

Mayor Peter Davies later announced cash would be made available to keep libraries open for up to 12 months, shortly before the matter was due to go before the full council.

Coun Mick Jameson, chairman of the majority Labour group, said the compromise was made after his party insisted on it as a condition of its support for the mayor’s budget.

But Tory group leader Coun Allan Jones has now confirmed there will be no disciplinary action.

A party statement said: “We, the Conservative Group, have resolved the libraries issue within the council’s budget process.

“While this has been a difficult but important issue for the Conservatives, there has been no disagreement on the way forward, and approval for an extension on the issue of library closures has been given.

“The Conservative Group are working hard with our communities, to keep libraries open for the longer term.”

Meanwhile, details of the messages which were sent to the Couns Schofield, Wood and Ransome have emerged. They describe the issue which the party wanted the councillors to vote against as a three-line whip – the strongest political order a party can make. It also reveals the library which sparked the row was Sprotbrough library.

This is a demonstration of the mess that Doncaster’s local democracy is in. The decision to disproportionately cut library services has been opposed by over 15,000 residents, the Labour councillors who called the decision in to Overview and Scrutiny, unions, local and national library campaigns and even the local Conservative whip. Yet still, the Mayor’s decisions are being driven forward under the guise of a “12 month reprieve”. and the councillors responsible for allowing this to happen have escaped without reprimand. We know that communities are unable to take over their libraries, and nor should they be expected to. The Cabinet is fully aware of this, and has admitted it does not know what will be expected of communities. There is no sustainable plan and no sense of whether the library service that is left over will be legally compliant.

Councillor Ransome, the councillor responsible for the library service, who voted against her party and for the totally irresponsible and poorly-planned package of cuts, is up for re-election this year. Save Doncaster Libraries urge you to vote and vote wisely.