Thus Speaks LAUSD, Part II

Letter Dated February 28, 2013. Full LAUSD letterhead. John E. Deasy, Ph.D., the microwave popcorn version of doctorates. (Microwave popcorn takes six minutes. John Deasy's Ph.D. took six months.)

Re. Mr. Sergio Garcia vs. LAUSD

Dear Mr. Williams.

“Wait. Didn’t you say Mr. Garcia?”

“Yes I did.”

“Well who is this to, Mr. Garcia or Mr. Williams?”

“I don’t know.”

“You don’t know?”

“Uhhh, no I don’t. I think it's to Mr. Williams, though. That's what it says.”

"But it's about Mr. Garcia."

"I think so. Yes."

“Really? You think so? OK, go on.”

Thank you for meeting with me at Educational Service Center East on February 27, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. regarding John Doty’s appeal…

"Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. John Doty? Who the heck is John Doty? I thought this was to Sergio Garcia, I mean Mr. Williams, I mean, well, what the hell do I mean? What the hell do YOU mean?"

“I don’t know.”

“Wait a minute. You don’t know?”

“No I don’t.”

“Not a clue?”

“Nope.”

“Huh. You know I find this really hard to…oh forget it. Just go on.”

During the appeal, Mr. Garcia stated….

“Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Mr. Garcia? Did you just say Mr. Garcia? Where the hell is John Doty? What have you done with him? You didn’t hurt him or anything I hope. And poor Mr. Williams. I hate to think what's happened to him. What have you done with him? Come on. Just WHO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT here?”

“No idea.”

“No idea? What is this, LAUSD's imitation of Abbott and Costello? Who’s on Sergio, what’s on Williams, and John Doty’s on third? So this letter to Mr. Williams references Mr. Garcia, but concerns the appeal of a Notice of Unsatisfactory Act issued to Mr. Doty while supposedly quoting Mr. Garcia during Mr. Garcia's appeal of HIS Notice of Unsatisfactory Act?

"Yes."

"Are you attributing the words of Mr. Garcia to John Doty, the words of John Doty to Mr. Garcia, or the words of Mr. Garcia to Mr. Garcia at John Doty's appeal meeting? Or are you attributing the words of Mr. Garcia to John Doty, the words of John Doty to Mr. Garcia, or the words of Mr. Garcia to Mr. Garcia during Mr. Garcia's appeal meeting? Which is it?"

"I don't know."

"Not a clue?"

"No."

"Six different possibilities?"

"It would seem so, yes."

How many paragraphs are left?”

 

“One.”

“One? Who is it to? No wait, let me guess. It’s to, uhhhh... Oh hell, just tell me. No, forget it. Never mind who it's to. I don’t even want to know. What is the final paragraph in regards to?”

“It passes judgment.”

“It passes judgment?”

“Yes.”

“But you don’t know upon whom.”

“Yes I do! Of course I do!”

“You do? How is that possible? You’ve got a letter regarding a Mr. Garcia, to a Mr. Williams, summarizing details with regards to Mr. Dody's meeting while quoting (possibly) Mr. Garcia  while either at Mr. Doty's or Mr. Garcia's appeal meeting and now you are going to pass judgment on one of them?”

“Yes.”

“And you know who you are passing judgment upon.”

“Yes I do. Of course I do.”

“How?”

“I don’t know.”

"You don't know?"

“Not really. No."

“But you pass judgment anyway?”

“Yes.”

“Why? Why on Earth would you do that?”

“Because it doesn’t matter.”

“It doesn’t matter? How can you say it doesn’t matter? These are three professional educators who have dedicated their lives to serving and educating children! How can you say it doesn’t matter?”

“Because we are firing everybody. The name, or in this case names on the paper really don’t make any difference.”

“And you say that in the last paragraph?”

“Oh no, of course not.”

“What do you say?”

“We say we are firing Mr. Garcia.”

“But not Mr. Williams?”

“No.”

“You’re not firing Mr. Williams?”

“Oh no, certainly we are firing Mr. Williams. We’re just not firing him with this official district document.”

"What about Mr. Doty?" 

"Him too."

"Him too what?"

"We are firing him too. The last paragraph is always the same. The names above? Who the letters are addressed to? Details? Who said what? The merits? The facts? None of that matters. What matters is the last paragraph. You're fired."

“Who the hell are you anyway?”

“Me? I’m Dr. Jose Cantu, Ed.D. I’m the Operations Coordinator for ESC East.”

“Excuse me, did I hear you say Dr.?”

“Yes. Ed.D.”

"Ed.D. You mean as in, 'Dr.' James Noble, Ed.D."

"Exactly."

“Ed.D. What does that stand for?”

“How the hell should I know? Hey look, bud. It’s not like I’ve got all day here. I’m an important man. I’ve got things to do. I’ve got teachers to fire.”

“But you don’t know who.”

“Of course I know who!”

“You do?”

“Of course I know! I’m firing all of them! I just don’t know who I am firing or why I am firing them at any particular moment in time. There’s no need to worry, though. It all comes out the same in the end.”

Thus Speaks LAUSD, Part I

Notice of 15-day "Ususpension" Without Pay, Which Forms the Basis of a Teacher's Dismissal from LAUSD. Approved by Dr. James Noble, Director of Operations, ESC South

“A Notice of Ususpension,” Dr. Noble?

"Yes, why? 

"Well, do you really think you should be firing someone because of a Notice of Ususpension?"

“Yes. Why? Wait. What the hell are you talking about? What are you bothering me for, anyway? I’m a busy man. I have many important things to do.”

“Really? Like what?”

“I’ve got this letter to send out. We’re having a teacher’s Administrative Review April 25.”

“You mean his Skelly Hearing?”

“Well, yes and no.”

“What do you mean, ‘Yes or no?'”

“Well, we call it an Administrative Review, but if you insist we will call it a Skelly. It doesn’t really matter.”

“It doesn’t? Why not? And isn't it supposed to be a Skelly Hearing?

"No."

"Why not?"

“Well for one thing we don’t do Skelly Hearings and for another….”

“Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. What do you mean, You don’t do Skelly Hearings? Why not? No, wait. Forget that. What did you mean by, and for another thing?”

“Well for another thing, when you get to the OAH, LAUSD’s lawyers won’t even let you use the WORD hearing.”

“They won’t?”

“No.”

“Well why the hell not?”

“Well THAT’s a stupid question! Because we don’t do Skelly Hearings.”

“Really? Well then what do you do?”

“We fire people. Asministrative Review. Skelly. Whatever. I’m going to listen to this guy who was long-ago fired yap and yawn April 25 and then tell him he’s fired.”

"You are going to tell a guy who's already been fired that he is going to be fired?"

"Yes."

"How does that work?"

"Oh, we fire everyone the day we remove them from their school. But we have to obey the protocols."

"You mean Due Process?" 

"Of course I don't mean Due Process! We don't do Due Process. We do protocols. We must follow all the protocols, except for..."

"Except for what?"

"Except for the protocols we don't follow."

"And by protocols, you mean going through the motions of Due Process, of conducting charades?"

"Of course not! What kind of dog-and-pony show do you think we're running here? But basically yes."

“And when are you telling him this, his next protocol?"

“What? When am I firing him, when am I going to tell him I'm pretending I just decided I'm going to fire him and am now telling him, or when am I telling him of the meeting?”

“When are you telling him about this next meeting? Wait a minute. What the...? You lost me. What when what…”

“Oh stop bothering me. The bottom line is we’re firing him. What’s the difference?”

“Well it does kind of make a difference, at least to the teacher. Which does this letter do?”

“It tells him when we are going to ignore him. I told you. His Administrative Review. His Skelly Hearing that is not a hearing.”

“And when is that?”

“April 25, 2013.”

“And you are writing this on what date?”

"April 17. I want him to have plenty of notice regarding when we will ignore him.”

“What if he can’t make the non-hearing hearing on April 25?”

“Oh, well, that’s easy. I will condescend to allow him to respond in writing.”

“Even if he can’t make the meeting?”

“Yes”

“What if his UTLA Representative can’t make the meeting?”

“The teacher can respond in writing. But he must respond in writing prior to the meeting.”

“You mean if he or his UTLA Representative can't make the meeting, he has to notify you in writing prior to the meeting? When does he have to notify you by, as you say, prior to the meeting?”

"He doesn't have to notify me prior to the meeting."

"He doesn't?"

“No.”

“Wait a minute. But didn't you just say...? I don't get it. If he or his representative can't make the meeting he notifies you 24 hours prior?”

“No.”

“Well when does he have to notify you by?”

“No. You get the wrong idea. He doesn’t have to notify me if he is not able to attend the meeting. The meeting is the meeting. He just has to respond to the meeting, if he wishes, in writing. I told you. He has to respond in writing.”

“Even if he wasn’t at the meeting.”

“Yes.”

“Well, when does he need to turn in his written response to the April 25, 2013 meeting he cannot attend?”

“Six months ago, October 29, 2012.”

“You mean to tell me you are writing a letter on April 17, 2013 regarding a meeting to be held on April 25, 2013 and if he can’t make the meeting he must submit his response six months prior to the meeting?”

“Yes. Why? Is there a problem?”

Letter written by "Dr." James Noble, Ed.D., ESC South's Director of Operations

Detail: Noble's 4/17/13 letter announcing 4/25/13 Skelly Meeting requiring teacher's written response six months prior to the 2013 meeting, "no later than" 10/29/12