Bloomberg, Klein to Decide
What to Do With Diana Lam,
Who Tried to Hire Her Mate
And Failed to Tell the Truth

Henry J. Stern
March 8, 2004

The wolves are out for Diana Lam, the $250,000-a-year deputy schools chancellor. And it's not just Andrew Wolf, who has been denouncing Ms. Lam for a year (his latest screed is in today's Sun).

The issue of her husband's search last summer for a job in the Department of Education was examined in a 13-page report to Chancellor Joel I. Klein Friday by the special commissioner of investigation for the New York City School District, former Police Commissioner Richard J. Condon. The report concludes as follows:

"Based on the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence gathered during this investigation, it is clear that Diana Lam made a concerted effort to obtain employment for her husband with the DOE. Lam contacted DOE employees on her husband’s behalf and submitted paperwork in support of his application. Subordinate employees who tried to expedite Plattes’s hiring flatly contradict Lam’s assertion that no one was aware of their relationship. We are forwarding our findings for your information and review. In addition, Lam’s conduct may constitute a violation of Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter, which is administered by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.

We are forwarding a copy of this report to the Office of Legal Services.  We are also sending our findings to the State Education Department."

The story appeared Saturday in four newspapers, the New York Post, the New York Times, the Daily News, and Newsday. In addition, the editorial boards of the Daily News (scroll to the second article) and the New York Post commented harshly on the case. Both newspapers were highly critical of the itinerant educrat (New York is her fifth gig in 13 years).
 
Ms. Lam has critics in education like Sol Stern, who writes that her brand of ultra-progressive education is rubbish, and an enormous disservice to minority children. The U.S. Department of Education rejected the curriculum she submitted as untested and unproven. She also has supporters at Teachers College, but they have been noticeably silent in her travails.
 
The problem with firing her is that then she sues you. San Antonio had to pay $800,000 to obtain her silence and buy out her contract when they parted company on unfriendly terms in 1998.  
 
Ms. Lam is clearly quite concerned about money. She took the job in New York a few weeks after demanding, and receiving, a substantial raise in Providence, Rhode Island to keep her from jumping to Portland, Oregon. To come to New York, she demanded and received a salary of $250,000 a year, exactly the same as her boss, Chancellor Klein, and higher than any other New York City employee, even counting the overtime that fattens many of their paychecks.
 
The case that seems to resemble Ms. Lam's the most is Martha Stewart's. It is not a mortal sin to try to get a job for your husband—if you tell your boss, apply to the Conflicts of Interest Board, and avoid personal involvement with the application.

But to fail to tell the man who hired you what you were doing, to ignore the Conflicts of Interest Board when told to check with them, and to lie to investigators about what you did and said—that is below any reasonable standard of conduct for a public servant. She is fortunate that Commissioner Condon is not a federal official. If he were, she could face prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001, the statute whose violation led to the conviction of Ms. Stewart.

It is noteworthy that neither Randi Weingarten of the United Federation of Teachers nor Jill Levy of the Council of Supervisors and Administrators has called for Ms. Lam's removal. They would rather scrap with an albatross than with a tiger.

Ms. Lam's fate is now in the hands of Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel I. Klein. I am hopeful they will exercise appropriate judgment in a matter of this importance. It will be a test of the administration's standards of ethical conduct.