110405 Law doesn't prevent disclosure of facts in teacher settlement case

To the Editor:

I, too, received a copy of the settlement agreement between the board of education and, Fox Lane High: School teacher Doug Rich. Your article ('Teacher settlement remains mystery," Oct. 28) mistakenly leaves one the impression that law prevents any further disclosure of facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Embarrassment is insufficient grounds to continue concealing teacher misconduct and the board's response to it.

Your Oct. 28 reporting omits two relevant facts: 1) the decision to keep the misconduct charges confidential was the product of a closet agreement based on the two parties' mutual self-interest, not law. 2) The $9,000 fine was agreed to in exchange for not being brought up on misconduct charges under education law 3020-a.

If this matter were to be brought to court under an Article 78 proceeding seeking disclosure of the charges against Mr. Rich, I believe it would prevail based on the following arguments made in other successful legal, challenges:

1. As a matter of public policy, the board of education and the teachers union cannot privately bargain away the public's right to know of teacher misconduct. Employee discipline is, indeed, clearly relevant to the work of a school district.
2. The $9,000 fine is an express admission of guilt.
3. Charges of misconduct and disposition of such charges by an employer do not constitute protected employee history.
4. Under 3020-a, confidentiality is maintained only while a proceeding is pending. Education law, in other words, does not exempt disclosure of negotiated settlement of misconduct charges.
5. Courts have previously found no distinction between findings of guilt after a hearing and admission to guilt insofar as protection from disclosure was concerned.