When I was in high school I read a book with the title Nineteen Eighty-Four about Big Brother, a fictional character who lives in a totalitarian state where every citizen is under constant surveillance by the authorities. We are frighteningly close to the world of Oceania right now.
If you live in America and got vaccinated against COVID-19 or did not get vaccinated with any of the recognized COVID vaccines, your status is coded in national databases managed by the Center For Disease Control (CDC). Here is one: COVID Data Tracker. Another: Data.CDC.gov
See more on the medical codes below.
If your status is “unvaccinated” this information is available to the criminal justice system and FBI, should an Agent decide to look up your information listed by your social security number. Is the Problem Code sent to the FBI or CJS directly? I believe yes, if there is some kind of alert on your personnel file after you are fingerprinted by the DOE. We know that the FBI and CJS can get the information by accessing the NYC Department of Education database, any City Agency requiring fingerprinting, and/or medical records. Doctors keep codes as well on any person who is not vaccinated. More about that is below.
My Declaration on the Problem Code and EXHIBIT A, the email sent to a UFT member, Beth Norton and Mike Sill at the UFT, states that the problem code is sent to the FBI and the CJS, and this comes from an Affidavit of Mallory O. Sullivan written in 2018 (Mallory-problem code). While sources say this is correct, the NYC DOE openly object and deny this information. So, let’s say at minimum, the database with the problem code or flag in all its’ various versions (no hire/inquiry”, “PNOB”, “PC”,”problem”, “Problem Code”, “Ineligible” and possibly others currently being made up) is available to the FBI and CJS. This is just as bad. When an employee with a Problem Code tries to get a job with the NYC DOE or a vendor doing business with the NYC DOE, he/she is unable to get employed due to being ineligible , or not cleared to work, and there are no supporting documents as to why the flag/code was put on the file in the first place.
The Problem Code blocks people from getting paid by the NYC DOE or any vendor doing business with the DOE. Unless you try to get off of it, the Code is permanent. There is a new label VACC NON-COMPL“, which means “misconduct” to employers, doctors, and administrators either because they implemented new terms of employment mandating vaccines, had these rules in place prior to the pandemic or were told to put that label on employees by the state or federal government.
What is the standard for the Problem Code? Here it is:
The DOE pays the Guidelines no attention. We have many years of experience dealing with people who found out they had a Problem Code on their personnel file (EIS “Salary History” page) and wanted to remove it. One of the cases were followed was that of Philomena Brennan. She sued in NY State Supreme Court, and her case was assigned the best Judge on the Court, in my opinion, Judge Alice Schlesinger. I thought her decisions were fair and she was funny, too. Long story, but I did have a chance to chat with her in her office while on a case. She is now retired, sad to say. Judge Schlesinger ordered the NYC DOE to give the Court the procedures for getting on the Problem Code and how to get off it. DOE Attorney Theresa Europe did not want to give the Court this information, so she took Ms. Brennan off the Code. It was fascinating to see how much the DOE wanted to hide the rules (if there were any) and how to get off the Code (not easy).
Of course no parent or employer in the public schools of NYC wants to hire somebody who has been convicted of sexually abusing a child, deliberately harming a child or adult, stealing large sums of money, or defrauding the DOE. The word I want you to focus on is “convicted“. The NYC DOE sadly has their own conviction procedure: if there is an allegation, the person is guilty until proven innocent. See my case with the fake vaccination card allegation. In his Affirmation, Conroy Affirmation, Investigator Gerald Conroy “believed” that all 92 DOE employees who walked in the door of Wild Child Pediatrics in Amityville NY to get the COVID vaccine were deliberately defrauding the DOE and should be taken off salary. So they were. Big mistake. I think it is time for Gerald Conway to retire.
Unfortunately, the DOE puts an employee’s social security number into the Problem Code database for any or no reason. I just finished a 3020-a for a beloved teacher who has worked at the DOE for 27 years, yet was charged with Just Cause for termination because he could not find a $52 receipt for items he bought for the students with the Teacher’s Choice money in 2019. The rule in those situations is that the DOE takes the money out of the employee’s salary. The Principal wanted him removed from the school because she was jealous of his popularity, so she found probable cause that he defrauded the DOE out of $52.00; the Office of Personnel Investigations (OPI) put a Problem Code into his personnel file; and he was charged with 3020-a arbitration. I came up with what I thought was a great idea – the charged employee would write a check for the entire $250 given to him under Teacher’s Choice in the 2019-2020 school year, and send it to the Principal. He did that, donating $198.00 to the school. The principal would not accept it, sent it to the DOE attorney prosecuting him at 3020-a, and the hearing moved forward anyway, on the 2019 missing $52.00. The DOE said they were sending him back his check because “he can’t do that”. In my opinion, the DOE came up with a settlement offer that was extortionary: the DOE would agree to withdraw all charges if he agreed not to sue the DOE. We all agreed the answer was no thanks. He remains on the Problem Code, awaiting the decision of the Arbitrator. We will file a lawsuit against the DOE for violation of his procedural and substantive rights if he is not exonerated.
When someone receives a packet putting him/her into a 3020-a disciplinary hearing with charges of misconduct, the employee is immediately placed on the Problem Code. But wait a minute! There is something very wrong with this. The charges have not been proven, and are only allegations. Yet the person charged is secretly convicted before the hearing begins, and is never told about the Code. The 3020-a arbitration in NYC is set up for the charged employee to prove their innocence. The arbitrator is supposed to “know” that the person is guilty when they walk in the door, but a strong defense with many witnesses and evidence presented by the charged employee can win complete exoneration. In my opinion, NYSUT Attorneys do not provide adequate representation.
At no time should you believe that the codes discussed here are available only to the NYC Department of Education. This has always been untrue, and I believe remains so. The chain of custody of this code and now the “VACC NON COMPL” are randomly leaked, and seen by outside parties. Privacy rights are not part of the NYC DOE rule book.
Indeed, my Betsy Combier declaration describes my experience with the problem code from working at the UFT 2007-2010. I knew about the problem code before 2007, but when I was given an office on the 16th floor – the Grievance Office at the UFT headquarters at 52 Broadway – and I was next door to Amy Arundell, whenever I received a call from a member asking whether or not he/she was on the Problem Code, I would ask for their file number, tell them to hold on, walk next door to Amy, and ask her. She would look at her computer and tell me yes or no within a minute. Then I would tell the caller this information.
Then in August 2022 I was sent the PERB Ruling on the Problem Code, PERB U-32479 BD dated June 13, 2022. In this decision I read that Amy Arundell testified at the PERB hearing she knew nothing about the Problem Code until 2012, when a member asked her to help him get off of the Code. (p. 12). This information testified to by Amy Arundell is absolutely false. In any case, I was told that all educators who were put on the code in or about October 2021 or after solely because they did not get vaccinated were removed from the code in August 2022. The ruling is worth reading for anyone interested in the untrue procedures the DOE insist work to place an employee on the Code, pp. 7-10. PERB found that it was an improper practice for the DOE to place anyone on the problem code without telling the employee when and why. Look at the last page of the ruling. The DOE is ignoring this ruling.
The Code or flag is NOT secret except at the employee level. In 2022 I helped many people with their unemployment appeals. Who represented the Employer, the DOE? Equifax, in Ohio. Huh? The Equifax Company does credit reports, but they are representing the NYC DOE at the unemployment hearing. It doesn’t matter what your argument is for benefits, you will be denied benefits because the DOE has shared your personnel file with the problem code on it. The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board cannot give Claimants any benefits if they commit misconduct and are fired, which is the argument used by Equifax to deny unemployment. In the case of the person whose UIAB decision (1st page) is posted below, the Equifax representative never showed up or made any argument and therefore the Claimant should have been given unemployment benefits by default. She was denied her unemployment because of “misconduct” because the Problem Code is on her personnel file:
I circled the issues brought up by Equifax to deny her unemployment benefit:
“Voluntary leaving of employment without good cause
Loss of employment through misconduct”
She was not the only person I represented at the UIAB who was denied unemployment because of the Problem Code. When the Problem Code became a media event, in or about April 2022, UIAB denied benefits using other reasons and dropped the word “misconduct”. In my opinion, the NYC DOE told them to deny benefits without using the word “misconduct” because the issue of the problem code became such a media nightmare for them.
By the way, as of May 5, 2022 the NYC DOE has changed the way fingerprints are recorded. See below:
“From: OPI INFO<OPIINFO@schools.nyc.gov>
Date: Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 9:46 AM
Subject: Automatic reply: Follow up (request for reinstatement)
To:
Thank you for contacting the NYC Department of Education’s Office of Personnel Investigation (OPI). At this time, all DOE Central offices are available remotely.
This auto-generated message is to acknowledge that your email was received by our office. Due to a very high volume of inquiries, it will take longer than usual to respond to your email. You are advised against sending multiple copies of your email, as resending your inquiry will slow down our response time.
Your email is in our queue and will be addressed. Inquiries are addressed by OPI staff in the order of receipt. We appreciate your patience, and we look forward to responding to your inquiry.
Applicants may not start working until they have been granted security clearance.
The New York City Department of Education (DOE) is excited to announce that as of May 5, 2022, the DOE has transitioned all fingerprint processing activities to the external vendor IdentoGO by Idemia (IdentoGO). IdentoGO is the exclusive vendor for the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) fingerprinting and maintains service centers throughout New York State and nationally. With IdentoGO, all DOE and DOE vendor candidates – including volunteers, related services providers, student teachers and mentors – will now have more accessible and equitable access to fingerprinting.
It is important to know that the ONLY change in fingerprinting is the LOCATION where candidates are fingerprinted. DOE will still oversee all onboarding processes as applicants go through the nomination process. Further, DOE will still receive the results of the fingerprinting. As it is now, only the DOE will have access to the fingerprint results and only the DOE will review the results as part of DOE’s fingerprint-supported background investigation.
All other matters will be responded to in the order of receipt. We appreciate your patience.”
Pursuant to 28 CFR 16.30-16.34, an Identity History Summary is provided solely for you to conduct a personal review and/or obtain a change, correction, or updating of your record. It is not provided for the purpose of licensing or employment or any other purpose enumerated in 28 CFR 20.33. If the reason you are requesting an Identity History Summary or proof that an Identity History Summary does not exist is for employment, licensing, or adoption purposes within the United States, you may be required by state statute or federal law to submit your request through your state identification bureau, requesting federal agency, or other authorized channeling agency. Please contact the requesting agency or the appropriate state identification bureau (or state police) for additional information. For a list of state identification bureaus, visit http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks/state-identification-bureau-listing.
