CM Dinowitz on Mariela Graham personnel decision

I'm interested to know about the decision to keep Mariela Graham on and to promote her.

Because the SCI recommended her immediate termination due to lapses in judgment.

And my understanding is she was given a two-week suspension under the previous administration.

That's correct.

And I'm also, once again, I apologize, Chancellor, but I'm just going to say that is a fact connected to an active, I don't know if there's an active investigation, but I do read the press carefully.

What I will say is it is not uncommon.

It is my office that receives SCI reports, works up what, not only

only the report, but the evidence that the investigative file that comes along with the report, and then makes a recommendation about proper disciplinary action.

So it was your office that recommended not to go by the recommendation of SCI?

Not going to comment on what happened in this case.

What I will say is that it is not uncommon.

I'm asking about a closed investigation, or my understanding is it's a closed investigation.

The recommendation was made.

This is outside of any current investigation that may be going on.

I'm asking about a personnel decision.

It's important for the city and this committee to understand that when there is what is a legal activity, right, that we understand why the decisions at the DOE were made that were

in conflict or in contrast to what the recommendations by SCI were.

So it's about trust and accountability.

Thank you.

Certainly, Chair.

I totally understand that.

The challenge that I face at the moment as counsel is that there is active and,

to my mind, somewhat wild speculation going on in the press about whether the closed investigation may be reopened, whether the investigating agency properly fulfilled its obligations.

With all of that open, I hope very much that at some point in the future we'll be able to return and get into more detail about this situation, but I think it is just too dynamic right now with too many moving.

pieces for me to counsel my client to be as open as I know he would like to be and as I know you would wish him to be.

Okay, just to be clear, I'm not the press.

I'm not asking about press stories.

I'm asking about a closed investigation that is public.

This was from their public website.

I didn't acquire some secret documentation.

Of course.

This is on their website.

Anyone can go to their website and download this.

They list a number of things which I'm going to go through.

But it is a question, I think, of judgment and accountability, and I think the committee deserves to understand

that if the SCI makes recommendations, what the thought process is or what it isn't, it seems in this case, for not abiding by those recommendations and why this person gets a promotion when it was recommended they be terminated.

I think we deserve to understand those thought processes.

I agree.

I do not disagree.

But what I'm saying is the matters that you are describing as closed

are being discussed in the press as possibly not closed or possibly something that law enforcement is being encouraged to reopen.

But you're a lawyer.

It's closed.

It's closed.

Yes, but my job is not just to look back, but to look forward and assess risk and have a duty of care.

So looking forward then, looking forward, does the DEA make any commitment that if a...

Employee of the DOE engages in impropriety,

breaks the law but doesn't go to jail, can they commit that there will be accountability for that person?

Like these are our tax dollars, these are our children.

Certainly.

So let's look forward.

Chair Dinowitz, very important distinction.

SCI's finding, SCI did not find that anyone broke the law.

In this report.

SCI's finding was that there was a violation of New York City Public Schools policy.

That is not, breaking the law suggests illegal activity that could be criminally chargeable.

That is not anywhere.

In or near this report.

Thank you for the clarification.

So in the case that someone violates policy, which resulted in an adult being in a classroom with children that shouldn't have been there, that this adult

Presented serious lapses in judgment, SCI did recommend termination.

Looking forward, how seriously does the DOE take the recommendations of SCI, or are they just recommendations that DOE will not abide by?

We always take SCI's recommendations seriously.

We also have an obligation to have fidelity to the idiosyncrasies of any given case.

And so while I can't sit here and discuss the evidence that we reviewed that was developed by SCI in support of their report,

I can tell you that my team and I, I personally, signed off on the disciplinary decision that was made in this case.

And that was your, you signed off and that was your recommendation as well, or you just approved it legally?

I'm not going to discuss internal deliberations.

I'm willing to share the outcome, and that's what it was.

Okay.

I will say it's a very lawyer answer, and I understand, but it's very disappointing.

And I don't want to belabor this one employee, but this is indicative of problems that do exist.

I believe they're more systemic than any SCI investigation will let on, because any teacher...

Any professional who works in a school understands a lot of the nonsense that they've seen some principals spend money on.

And I've been sent on professional developments.

Where thousands of dollars were spent under that 25.

$5,000 cap, which deserved a lot more scrutiny than would ever be done under the $25,000 cap.

Given that, given that I understand you don't take SCI's recommendation for individual employees, they did make recommendations for improving the systems.

And that is not under litigation right now.

That's not under investigation.

So I'd like to talk about each of those.