This is an excerpt from a recent 3020a hearing in which Principal David Jimenez had testified. In her discussion Arbitrator Lisa Brogan noted: “Principal Jimenez testifies over a period of three days on the Department’s direct case and then was called as a witness for the Respondent as well as a rebuttal witness by the Department and his testimony is key to many of the charges herein. HE SUFFERED A MAJOR BLOW TO HIS CREDIBILITY, however when he spoke about the incident which is subject of Specification 1 in the second set of charges. The charge involved an incident which allegedly occurred when the Respondent and Albetta were driving in close proximity on the FDR drive. Jimenez claimed that Albetta thought Respondent was stalking him, and in support of that notion insisted that Respondent drove up on Albetta, an explanation which was contrary even to what Albetta himself said( both on a audio recording of the meeting in question, and at trial.) Jimenez unwillingness to bend from that position was astounding. Either he refused to believe that the Respondent could possibly be telling the truth or even more troubling, he believed that his account was more damaging and therefore must be told. He went so far as to sat that in fact Albetta had driven up on the Respondent – which is what both Albetta and Respondent said happened– then he would think Albetta was stalking Respondent. “(T-759)
Question: Now during this particular meeting did Respondent mention anything about Mr. Albetta’s sexuality?
Jimenez: No only his– he alluded to it
Question: oh he alluded to it
Jimenez: i think with the drinking after school
Question: So your recollection is that Respondent said something about Mr.Albetta drinking after school,that was an allusion to his sexuality.
Jimenez: Yes if you tie it to his past comments with Mr.Hernandez That how I saw it Like ah he’s coming
With this angle again. But outright he didn’t say anything about Mr. Albetta being homosexual.
Question: so you saw no connection to the comment about drinking between the fact that Mr. Albetta was driving. On the FDR after school?
Jimenez: Well he got into — this was right after school. So I didn’t– As soon as Respondent started to talk about Mr. Albetta’s lifestyle or and after school habits and activities, from — if it were in isolation it probably wouldn’t have mean anything to most people. But in the context of the history it– you could see where he was going with it. That my perception.
Arbitratior Lisa Brogan noted: “I found it odd that throughout his testimony Jimenez frequently sought opportunities, even when he had not been asked ,to bring up issues of Mr. Albetta’s sexualityand his belief that the Respondent was somehow obsessed with this issue and that it was at the core of his inability to get along with Albetta. His insistence on this point one which ,as will be discussed below I reject- gave the appearance that he was once again trying to hard to paint a picture which he (Jimenez) thought was damaging to the respondent.”