EVER WONDER WHY UTLA DOES NOTHING TO PROTECT TEACHERS? WHY NOT POSE THAT QUESTION TO UTLA'S DISBARRED CARL JOSEPH
(Mensaje se repite en Español)
There is an eerie similarity between how the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) are run. Both leaderships are populated by refugees from the untenable classroom, who have sought upward mobility by getting as far away from a classroom as possible. In addition, there is another similarity: Both LAUSD and UTLA have leaderships that are at the mercy of entrenched bureaucracies that actually run the respective organizations for their own benefit, rather than what the respective leaderships want...or are even aware of.
When it comes to LAUSD, the Board is made up of part-time employees who completely rely on the District's entrenched bureaucracy for all their information upon which they base all their decisions. Ever month over the last several years, this board has voted to dismiss hundreds of teachers based solely on what they have been told by their staff that was there long before these board members were elected and will be there long after they are gone. None of the charges against the vast majority of teachers brought before the board for dismissal were true and none of them were verified under penalty of perjury as is required by law. And yet the LAUSD Board rubber stamps its bureaucracy.
In UTLA, the situation is pretty much the same. The seven out of classroom officers are totally dependent for all their knowledge on an overcompensated entrenched bureaucracy that is really calling the shots based on the sole criteria of what benefits them and the dysfunctional status quo and not the teachers that pay their salaries. So when it comes to thousands of teachers wiling away years in teacher jail/rubber room "housing" without any timely charges or valid evidence against them and in complete derogation of LAUSD Bulletin Policy, the LAUSD/UTLA Collective Bargaining Agreement, and both state and federal law, don't expect Warren Fletcher and Co. to even be aware of the gravity of this outrage, let alone be aware enough to do anything about it- they are just figureheads.
[No. S010266. Supreme Court of California. August 23, 1989.]
In re CARL GARRETT JOSEPH on Disbarment
(Opinion by The Court.)
John Yzurdiaga for Petitioner.
Diane C. Yu, Truitt A. Richey, Jr., Marta B. Galeano, Harriet Cohen and Christina Hill for Respondent. [49 Cal.3d 431]
 Carl Garrett Joseph, admitted to practice in 1976, pleaded nolo contendere to two felonies: falsifying government documents (Gov. Code, § 6200), and appropriation of money by an officer of the state. (Pen. Code, § 424, subd. 1.) The trial court placed him on probation with certain conditions, including that he serve nine months in jail. We referred the matter to the State Bar for a hearing, report, and recommendation on the question whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offenses involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline and, if so found, what discipline should be imposed. The State Bar's report has now been filed; the review department concludes that Joseph's offenses involved moral turpitude and recommends that Joseph be disbarred.
Joseph has filed objections but has not requested oral argument (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 951(d)). This court, after reviewing the entire record and considering all the facts and circumstances, has concluded that Joseph's offenses involved moral turpitude and that he should be disbarred.
It is therefore ordered that the name of Carl Garrett Joseph be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of California. It is further ordered that Joseph comply with the provisions of rule 955 of the California Rules of Court, performing the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the effective date of this order. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6126, subd. (c).) This order is effective upon finality of this opinion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 24(a).)