Opening Statement



Thursday, 5 September 2013

OECTA's Bad Boy Brock: Guilty Verdict!

Here is the "Dear Richard" text of the OECTA General Secretaries letter advising Halton Elementary President Richard Brock of his verdict and consequences from the August 22 Discipline Panel Hearing:

August 29, 2013

Dear Richard Brock:

Re:  Discipline Panel Decision
     

The appended document is the decision of the Discipline Panel (“the Panel”) constituted under Procedure 4.13 – Discipline of Members of the Association for Alleged Violation of Association Constitution, By-Laws, Policies and Procedures of the Handbook. *
 The Panel has found you, Richard Brock, to be in violation of the Handbook, By-Laws 2.69.1.1. ** Furthermore, the Panel has determined the penalty, as per Procedure 4.13.10, *** to be the suspension of membership privileges for a two year period ending June 30, 2015. As a result of this suspension you are hereby, 

1. Immediately removed from the elected office of Unit President of the Halton Elementary Unit; and

2. Prohibited from holding any elected or appointed position within OECTA, provincially or locally during the term of the suspension; and

3. Subject to the removal of other privileges of membership, including but not limited to those privileges, noted below. 
i) to attend the Annual General Meeting of the Association as an observer, alternate or as a voting delegate;

ii) to vote at the Annual General Meeting of the Association as a voting member of the Council of Presidents or as a unit delegate;
iii) to be nominated for election or appointed to any provincial committee, work group, task force or network including standing committees of the Provincial Association;

iv) to hold the position of school representative;
v) to act as a delegate or alternate to any provincial conference, regional meeting, workshop or any other provincial activity;

vi) to attend general or special meetings of the unit or vote thereat ;
vii) to accept the nomination for or be appointed to any unit committee;

viii) to receive grants from the reserve fund;

ix) to legal assistance from the Provincial Association including circumstances where the member is "in difficulty with the school board arising out of the performance of duties as an official" or "where it is alleged that a member is guilty of unprofessional conduct" or "where a member is in difficulty arising out of the performance of duties as a teacher.";
x) to any form of post-graduate scholarship or fellowship or bursary normally awarded to members;

xi) to be appointed to the secretariat of the Provincial Association;
xii to sit on the "provincial negotiating team" as a secretariat member, provincial executive member or representative of the branch affiliate where the Provincial Executive grants an application for provincial take-over in collective bargaining;

xiii) to receive legal costs in connection with a complaint before the Ontario College of Teachers;
xiv) to receive support from the Association "in situations arising out of an assault including funding or legal counsel";

xv)  to participate in any type of in-service workshops conducted by either the Unit or Provincial Association;
xvi) to support and funding in connection with a challenge to an employing board arising out of the application or enforcement of rights reserved under existing provincial legislation and regulations, (e.g. Human Rights Code complaints, etc.);

xvii) to be considered or nominated for life membership or honourary membership in the Provincial Association;
xviii) to receive any publications of the Provincial Association; and

xix) to receive any further privileges of membership offered by the Provincial Association or unit, where the provincial or unit executive decides to withhold the privileges.
This suspension is in effect until July 1, 2015.

As directed by the Panel, I shall be seeking your immediate return to a teaching position with the Halton Catholic District School Board.

 Sincerely,
 Marshall Jarvis/
General Secretary

* = Discipline of Members of the Association for Alleged Violation of Association Constitution, By-laws, Policies and Procedures

** =  ... to promote the interests of the association ...

*** = .Where the panel finds the accused ... in breach the panel may decide to take no action or it may decide to take some or all of the following actions ...

COMMENTARY:

The OECTA Disciplinary Board members were Joe Ryan [Chair], Kathy McVean and Gary Tomcko. Marshall Jarvis is the OECTA General Secretary.

President Brock has been a duly elected member of his Halton Elementary executive for the past 25 years. He became embroiled in controversy last year when he spoke out against the OECTA MOU on behalf of his executive and members. Their contract had been unilaterally stripped by the infamous OECTA Executive ratification vote approving the OLP MOE. What's the message here? OECTA local executives and members must shut up, do as they are told and not complain?

YOUR COMMENTS?

68 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Star chamber hath conveyed their little puppet show. That turd General Secretary must have penned this letter in an orgiastic state. The ink? His freshly drawn blood. What a farce OECTA is.

Anonymous said...

No opposition allowed in OECTA! Look out it's open season on locally elected presidents and members who disagree with Provincial. Ask a question or disagree and you could be next! Time for elected members of the Provincial Executive to reclaim the union for its members? Great example of behaviour to model for our students too! Will this union ever get fixed?

Anonymous said...

This is absolutely disgusting. How can they do that? Speak for children? Speak up and get shipped out should be their new motto.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the Secretary General, who convened this disciplinary committee is unaccountable to the Provincial Executive.
Otherwise the provincial executive would/should have prevented this from happening long before it did because the process is seriously flawed.
It does not bode well for catholic education in my opinion and ALL presidents should be taking a serious look at what this means for their members. So should the members.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Chiarelli's comments are inaccurate. The Discipline Committee would not be convened because someone opposed the MoU. OECTA does not tell its members to "shut up, do as they are told and not complain". If this was so there would be many Presidents before the Discipline Committee because they opposed the MoU. However this has not happened. Readers, consider the source, and the bias, before you accept opinion as fact.

David Chiarelli said...

Hmmmmm. Could fool me! Then please explain what this is really all about. Enquiring minds want to know!

Anonymous said...

I agree with comment #5. Why don't you ask Mr. Brock what the nature of the complaint was? I'm assuming that it was he who shared the letter he received with you (it appears to be addressed to him & not cc'd to anyone else), but apparently he didn't share the text of the actual decision (that the letter you've posted says it was appended to it). You might want to wait to read it before jumping to conclusions about why the hearing took place. But then again, it looks to me that you aren't one to let the facts get in the way of much of what you've posted here so why start now?

Anonymous said...

And, to add to what David said, let's not forget that this was the organization that gave NO VOICE to it's members in accepting the MOU, but ensured they would get the benefits of the struggles of other unions because of their cowardly "me too" clause. So much for integrity.

Anonymous said...

It's odd that you haven't included anything from the "appended document" the letter mentions. I imagine that it contains the nature of the complaint, who made the complaint and why the ruling was made. What are you trying to hide, David? Are you afraid of the truth or is the truth being kept from you because you would realize the ruling is justified?

Anonymous said...

These criminals violated the handbook themselves all over the place when they were forcing their MOU down our throats! Who is going after them? They certainly don't like dissenting voices! WE are going to have to get rid of all of them in the next election. Where are the honest people while Richard is being crucified! Anyone who has any doubt about Richard's innocence should read the minutes of the case in the Labour Relations Board last year where 5 units and Metro 7 stood up against Provincial.
Disgusted!!!

Anonymous said...

What is the purpose of sending those letters to Halton Oecta reps? Trying to divide the members from the Unit Executive? Sounds like the MOU process all over again. Top down power dictates and no votes/opinions from dues paying members allowed.

Anonymous said...

I wonder why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander? Why were numerous violations of the handbook by Oecta Provincial and their henchman Jarvis ignored although detailed in the presentations by the 5 OECTA units in the OLR Board last fall and suddenly this becomes an issue for Richard Brock. Also the LR Act of Ontario was ignored- there is supposed to be a general membership vote before a contract is signed and there was none for the Ontario Catholic Teachers! The executive seems to be above the law and the handbook regulations for some reason while Richard Brock seems to have been selected as a scapegoat for them since he had the courage to take a stand against tyranny. Don't worry Richard- we know who the true bad guys are and you are not one of them!Au contraire!

Anonymous said...

This has been a travesty of justice since the get go and a total abuse of power by one person with a personal vendetta. If OECTA doesn't resolve this issue then it is a slippery slope to the end of OECTA as a union. In the OECTA prayer it is stated "service over domination." I guess these are now just empty words.

Anonymous said...

The nature of the complaints filed against Mr. Brock were that he was not promoting the best interest of his members yet his local unit is shocked by the verdict. If you know Mr. Brock, you know he fights for us and what we deserve. I've never experienced anything less. Funny though at the AGM, the past president had already labelled Mr. Brock as difficult. Must of already had his agenda written.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that Richard Brock should be given a Medal of Exemplary Service for his service to Halton OECTA members and to all due paying OECTA members.

The others who voted for the nefarious MOU should be tried and condemned as they deserve. OECTA has it all in reverse as usual. The choice is service to members or looking after the interests of the Executive (who knows what award they received for the despicable sell-out in the MOU?) The executive priority is crystal clear- we should "throw all the bums out" and seek decent and honorable people like Richard Brock for our leadership! The scum are being treated as heroes and the heroes like scum. Perhaps there is no hope for OECTA at all, as it is too evidently too corrupt and it should be abolished altogether. One Big Union is an increasingly attractive option!

Anonymous said...

The MOU issue is done. Brock and associates lost at the Labour Board. No violation of the Handbook. No violation of the Labour Act. CASE DISMISSED. An AGM has come and gone. What he did was side with a board AGAINST another bargaining unit he did NOT represent! He interfered with their ability to take their board to task and undermined all members of OECTA. It is no better than crossing a picket line during a strike. The punishment fits the violation.

David Chiarelli said...

Please note: The Discipline Panels Appended Decision is posted above this blog containing the covering letter and verdict.

Anonymous said...

A note to Kevin O'Dwyer....the great MOU "me too" clause that you negotiated without us being allowed to vote on it...working hard to make sure it is applied to give Halton Oecta members paid compensation for their vested sick days like OSSTF? Or not?

Anonymous said...

One comment said that the MOU is over. You could have fooled me! It seems that all of the Boards and the OECTA units are still constantly bickering and fighting over its provisions. This has caused untold and unceasing trouble and no one seems to know what is in our contracts or not as a result. The Boards argue with validity that they were not party to the MOU and therefore don't have to abide by it! Teachers could argue the same point since they had no vote on the MOU. OECTA Provincial has created chaos for all of us! Maybe we need a new union that looks out for teacher interests!

Anonymous said...

Could this be a sideshow to divert attention from the total chaos the OECTA Provincial's MOU continues to cause? The LRB did not say that there had been no violations of the handbook in the hearings,it said that such violations were outside its jurisdiction and that the MOU was not a contract! You could have fooled me about the latter, as now no teacher even has a proper contract due to the continuous state of flux caused by continuous MOU arguments between the various Boards and union units! We are effectively working without any contract as we don't know the provisions and they are continuously changing! Welcome to the OECTA generated banana republic!

Anonymous said...

If the last comment is true, David you must investigate and help us in Halton. We were unjustly targeted in an unfair accusation and in a process that was not following the rules set by the AGM. Kevin and Marshall are where the buck stops. They need to do the only appropriate thing and resign or be be dismissed. If the Provincial Executive fails do this, the COP or the AGM would have no choice but to direct them to fire the two people who should have ensured that the will of the AGM as we wrote into the Handbook was followed. Please ask James Ryan for an interview and find out if a motion to appoint the Discipline Board ever came to the Provincial Executive over the past two years. If it was not then not only is this a farce but it would be vindictive, political, and personal. As such the decision of the non-existing Board must not only be reversed but because of the nature of the personal and vexatious attacks on Richard Brock the matter must be dropped forever.To not do this would mean that OECTA exists for only the personal advancement of the few and not for the best interests of the members. We in Halton support our president because he only acted in our best interests which is why we elected him. Please help us. The comment that many other parts of the Handbook were also not followed must also be investigated. A non-existing committee should have no power. Since someone gave them this power and SET UP this farce he must be fired. Marshall, that could only be you, Kevin you should have made sure the Handbook was followed so please resign as it seems to be a fact that you were insubordinate to the AGM. David you may want to report this to wider media. HELP!

Anonymous said...

NOT only did the PE of OECTA screw EVERY education worker in Ontario, they seem to be busy screwing their own members too! Disgusting and shameful!

Anonymous said...

I would like to dispute one of the previous posts. I do not have the time to go through all the PE minutes for the past two years. Someone seems to have nothing to do.

However, I seem to remember a PE motion to appoint the chairperson to the Discipline Board. I do agree that a full investigation needs to be conducted by the PE. It will find the GS and the Past President conducted no wrong doing.

Appointing a chairperson to a non-existing board would be ridiculous. If, in fact, that motion was brought to the PE when the PE had never appointed the Board, then it would be the duty of Marshall and Kevin to point this out.

If they did not, it would rise to the highest level of incompetence. I know these people and I cannot believe this happened. If it did then the previous poster is correct and then they should be fired because their non-compliance with the Handbook resulted in the unjust dismissal of a duly elected unit officer. Give me a break. The GS and the Past President would not let this happen. Removal from office is very serious and I am sure all the rules as set and reaffirmed by the AGM were followed.

We need to step back and let the PE do their investigation. I would only recommend that an outside lawyer not affiliated with OECTA be hired so that all members can trust the result when Marshall and Kevin are found to have followed the Handbook and the Discipline Board members were ALL appointed by the PE, as is clearly stated, in our Handbook. If I am wrong, then and only then, is the previous poster correct and there would be no choice but to fire the GS and the Past President. I am confident that will not happen.

Anonymous said...

Note that all the regular unit presidential witnesses above voted for the MOU in the COP meeting of July 2012. IS this a coincidence or is it a vindictive payback for Richard Brock for opposing the MOU? Something stinks and it is not in Denmark!

David Chiarelli said...

OECTA Provincial Executive meets on Monday for it's regular monthly meeting. One would hope the Brock discipline panel decision would make the agenda. However, the Panel has an arms length relationship with the executive, in that they are supposed to be non political and the decisions binding.

I would suggest that they might want to re-examine the procedural issues that arise from the case and grant Richard a stay while they are investigated thoroughly. Bob Boyle is well respected throughout OECTA for his adherence to procedure. His comments as recorded in the hearing decision are quite interesting. The Panel did not address at least one of his concerns at all.

It would be interesting to see the minutes from the meeting. Have those been released yet? This documents from this hearing are publically available all over the internet, so God only knows. I'm sure they would be very insightful.

Anonymous said...

Are you posting all the comments pro and against? You need to be fair as you use your constitutional right to freedom of the press. I hope you are. It seems to be very much one sided thus far.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting how all of these secret "deals" and kangaroo court cases always seem to happen during the summer when no one is paying attention! Do we need to post a watch dog on our "union" during the summers to see what evil is afoot?

David Chiarelli said...

I would agree that an outside lawyer, or even a civil suit, could be possible solutions. It is in everybody's best interests that a fair objective assessment be done.

I am uncomfortable with basic issues around the "letter of the law" verses the "spirit of the law" when it comes to applying the bylaw and terms of the panel here though. Also proportionality between the the local different president/ executives verdicts. Also to the harm done. Halton elementary is hardly the cause of the trouble we have been having with the catholic boards and the MOU.

I'd bet you could find a good lawyer to find something on anyone out there in law and by-law land though, and a way to use the law to nail them but good. In this case I just don't see where the panel decision seems based on best intent either. This is a very devisive issue and pretty much undermines any attempt at reconciliation for OECTA in the months ahead. Also has scary implications with respect to the issue of provincial verses local OECTA rights.

My other concern would be, have Richard + Halton Elementary been provided with any legal costs for any of the challenges this year or so? Provincial certainly has used it's lawyers to the max. It certainly puts the president and unit at a distinct disadvantage.

One can do pretty much whatever you want with the rules sometimes, but does that make it the right thing to do? I think not.

Anonymous said...

As an OECTA School Rep., OECTA members keep asking me, "What's this dispute really all about?" Time to look at this in the simplest terms:MOTIVATION. Richard Brock was fighting for his members. The other side? Stay Brock's penalty. Investigate the discipline process. Reinstate a membership-elected Unit President. Dismiss any wrongdoers, elected or appointed. Create an OECTA OMBUDSMAN. Then maybe OECTA members will heal and trust their leaders and union once again. James Ryan please do these things and save OECTA!

David Chiarelli said...

Thanks for asking whether all the comments both pro and con are being published here. Yes they are. If you will recall I also invite pro and con guest blogs on issues. I have my own strong views + beliefs, as most everybody does on this site, but its always been central to my blogsite that all points of view are presented so we can hear the arguments and think the issues through for ourselves as teachers/ educators/ unionists.

I always hope this site can be a clearing house for as much openly shared information and discussion as is reasonably possible: independently + all affiliate. Think and speak for yourselves please. I do. We get enough party line stuff most everywhere else these days.

Anonymous said...

I cannot find any motion appointing a chairperson to the Discipline Board. It must have been in confidential. That is OK. I agree with one of the previous posters. The investigation needs to see if the all the members of the Discipline Board were appointed in confidential session. If they were then all may be OK. If they were not, then the discipline board never officially existed and someone put it together without being authorized to do so. James Ryan and the PE need to investigate this and then act appropriately. All of this is very disturbing.

Anonymous said...

OECTA members...think about all your dues paid being wasted on a campaign to silence any opposition to the MOU "rulers" at Provincial Office. This union is 100% funded by your dues...email Provincial and tell them to stop using your dues money against you. Also-why is it OK to appoint Discipline Board members in confidence/confidentially? Transparency and Accountability should be the rule. Why so secretive? Coming out of all the MOU process "mistakes" does OECTA keep repeating them? FULL ACCOUNTABILITY and DISCLOSURE to all OECTA members. NOW!

Anonymous said...

Good> This is the guy that denied his delegates the right to vote at the Provincial AGM by walking off with their voters cards. Here is the big question does he have to return his leased truck paid for by his members.

Anonymous said...

In confidential? Do we need yet more secrecy in this union? This is entirely beyond the pale!!! What happened to the modern concepts of accountability and transparency, especially in a democratically elected union? We must of course make an exception for Marshall Jarvis who has been appointed for life apparently! There are also the little apparently unimportant issues of freedom of speech and liberty for Richard Brock and the press in this case!

Anonymous said...

David...is it standard practice for Provincial Presidents/Executive members and Unit Presidents to be provided with leased or purchased cars as part of their compensation packages? Where can the members of OECTA who pay their wages get access to the financial reports to prove, or disprove, this?

Anonymous said...

Very sad. David, will you be attending the PE meeting tomorrow and Tuesday? How can the members make sure their rules were followed? This puts all members in a state of fear where we are afraid of being unjustly accused. In a democratic union this should not be allowed to happen. We need to restore confidence, if it is not to late. Absolute power really does corrupt absolutely. I, personally, am now afraid to speak up when I disagree. I guess that was the intention from the start. Our human rights have been taken away as has due process.

Anonymous said...

Everything is by "Anonymous". That makes perfect sense. Why would anyone put their name forward when the process to deal with accusations is full of lies and we apparently have no respect for the AGM. OECTA is in deep trouble. Is there any way way to have an emergency AGM so we can straighten this out if there is no will at the top to listen to and follow the members rules? Any Provincial Executive, who in the next two days does not stand up for what we wrote into our Handbook must resign because they would have not acted in our best interests by disobeying what we wrote into the Handbook. Who is the ultimate authority? Oh, ya, I almost forgot, the AGM. Je me souviens.

Anonymous said...

Let's call an emergency AGM and allow due paying members to cross examine these jackals! We need to get to the bottom of this fiasco and end the witch hunts against people who actually do the job they are elected to do eg. represent the interests of the MEMBERS- like President Richard Brock. Otherwise our "union" is dead in the water! We would be better off in the Mafia the way this "union" has been operating the past couple of years! At least they are open when they are doing an assassination!!!

Anonymous said...

Funny how some try to divert the discussion. The "leased car" posts make me think that those who burn the words in our Handbook are reaching for straws. The straws will burn first. When you have no defense, I guess that is all you can do.

The PE must follow the Handbook. They know that. The next two days will tell us if our rules mean anything. Let's let them do their job. As a previous poster stated, "There is only one question that the PE needs to answer. Did they appoint all the members to the Discipline Board?"

Anonymous said...

Let's just stick with the facts.

By-law 2.131 - There shall be a discipline board comprised of six members who shall be appointed by the provincial executive for a term of no less than three years.

So the legal questions are simple.

1. When the last motion came to the Provincial Executive to appoint the members were ALL the names of the persons who heard this case in the motion?

2. Did the appointment in the motion cover the time when this case held the hearing in August of 2013? ie: If someone was appointed for three years and the three years had lapsed before the date of the hearing in late August 2013, the answer would be no.

If the answer is yes to both then it was done properly.

If the answer is no to any of the two questions then we have a very serious problem.

It is very clear in the language.

Anonymous said...

There is also a third question to my previous post.

3. Before anyone can be appointed as chairperson of the Board, they must first be on the Board. Had the Chairperson's appointment lapsed before he was named chairperson?

This is like our OTF Table Officer. They must first be elected as an OTF Governor, before being elected as Table Officer.

If the chairperson was not a valid member of the Discipline Board, he could only act as a non-voting member.

I hope this helps.

Yes, to all three covers OECTA. No, to any one of them would be a serious offence because of the outcome. I trust the PE will answer these three questions and act justly while protecting our Handbook and the will of the AGM.

Anonymous said...

To the poster above: The by-law you included (2.131) says the term for discipline board members is for "no less than three years". Correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't that mean that the members must serve AT LEAST three years on the panel, and their term would not necessarily "lapse" at the three year mark? ie., they could serve LONGER than 3 years?

Anonymous said...

The previous poster said, " Yes, to all three covers OECTA. No, to any one of them would be a serious offence because of the outcome. I trust the PE will answer these three questions and act justly while protecting our Handbook and the will of the AGM."

If we are looking at this legally, I am sure they meant, "Yes, to the first two and no to number 3 covers OECTA. No to the first two or yes to the third question would be a serious offence because of the outcome. I trust the PE will answer these three questions and act justly while protecting our Handbook and the will of the AGM."

Anonymous said...

Question: Correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't that mean that the members must serve AT LEAST three years on the panel, and their term would not necessarily "lapse" at the three year mark? ie., they could serve LONGER than 3 years?

Answer: It depends on how the motion to appoint was written. I am sure the PE will have any motions that exist before them tomorrow. The answer to these three questions will go a long way towards solving this. The answers should be sent to all the members so we can move forward.

Anonymous said...

The handbook didn't mean anything when the MOU was being forced upon us with just a PE vote of assent, what has changed that would make it inviolate now?

This is a test for our new Pres. I hope that he is up to the challenge. The very fact that this persecution of President Richard Brock has been permitted is not a positive sign.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with a previous poster. You cannot appoint someone as the chairperson if that person is not already appointed on the board.

The three questions are perfect other than that. I look forward to the answers.

Anonymous said...

What a sentence. It says it all and is worth repeating.

"MJ had no right to select a disciplinary committee without the approval of the Provincial Executive."

In a nut shell that is the crux of the problem. Goodnight.

Anonymous said...

OECTA cannot heal with Jarvis and O'Dwyer around.

So welcome to the new day and the bright shining light.

OECTA is dead and will be replaced by the Jarvis O'Dwyer Koop for Educators and Insurance Plan. Otherwise known as JOKE and Insurance Plan.

The Rules
1. Do whatever the General Secretary says.
2. The Provincial Executive, COP, and AGM follow number one or be dismissed.
3. JOKE and Insurance Plan may take whatever money they want from the members without any accountability.
4. Kevin O'Dwyer will recieve and be in charge of all funds but only at the direction of Marshall Jarvis.

The Prayer and Pledge will change to:

"All hail the General Secretary and his obedient servant. We pledge our lives to their wisdom and supreme authority. We will not think for ourselves. They will do that for us. Tell us what to do or we shall be lost."

Unless the Provincial Executive fix this today just accept this new, kind, and easy reality. There is no JOKE here.

Anonymous said...

The last post says it all. This is a battle between good and evil No mistake- Satan is the father or lies and chaos and our union has been in his corner for the last couple of years. It is time to get rid of the authors of all these lies and the chaos. Do not let these agents of evil turn our righteous hero into a zero!

Anonymous said...

To the previous poster: Are you referring to James Ryan as our righteous hero? If not, who? We do need one. Aren't all the members of the Provincial Executive bound to follow the rules affirmed and re-affirmed by the AGM? If the GS set a committee without the authorization to do so, wouldn't the PE have to overturn the decision? They wouldn't have a choice I hope. If not, you are right, we have Satan in our midst.

Anonymous said...

If Richard Brock was removed from office by a board that was never appointed under our rules so did not exist, he could sue us for millions and easily win. This is our money and we do not like our money wasted. PE, stop this farce and embarrassment now. Unions have an important role to play but it is exactly this type of behaviour that strengthens the other sides argument that we be abolished. You are playing right into their hands. Wake up!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I think many people are misinformed about a number of things. Let's start with the MOU. Many of you are livid that you did not get a chance to vote on the MOU. I understand the anger but the simple fact is that OECTA did not have a process for dealing with an MOU or any other type of deal with a government outside of the OLRA. This was the case back in 2004 and in 2008. The difference back then was that the deals were good and no one put up a fuss. This time, the MOU cut deeply into our agreements and people were naturally ticked off. The actual process whereby the MOU was ratified by the PE and then endorsed by the COP was no different from what occurred in 2004 and 2008 and because there was no process delineated in the Handbook for dealing with the MOU, the Executive of the day simply followed past practice. Was it right? Should members have been given a vote? Perhaps, but the mechanism and the language did not exist. It does now, thanks to the Task Force that was established and the subsequent language that was passed at the last AGM.
Once the MOU was ratified and later endorsed, the Association then was obligated to move forward. That was the democratic process that existed in the Handbook at that point in time. There was no violation, nothing underhanded and nothing secretive about it. The COP was totally briefed at a Special Council just prior to the ratification of the MOU by the PE. COP members were told by legal counsel that the government could legally process any number of strips and that our best bet was to mitigate whatever damage was coming to the best of our CB team's ability. They did that. Was it a good deal. No - it sucks, but it was the best deal we could have achieved at the time. What were the options? Join our sister affiliates like lemmings going over the cliff and have the government do it to us, or lead the way and try to mitigate the damage. It took a great deal of intestinal fortitude to stand alone and O'Dwyer paid the prioe for that but he did not act alone. He could not act alone. The Handbook clearly states that the PE needs to ratify any "deal". It was not unanimous but it was ratified and in any democracy, the majority rules. Likewise, it was not unanimous endorsement at Council but again it was endorsed which means the majority ruled in favour. Does that mean the MOU supporters see nothing wrong with the MOU? Hardly - it is the worst contract most of us have ever seen. It stripped away much of what we negotiated over the last 20 years. But, it could have been a lot worse.
Did Richard Brock go out of his way to support his local members and try to ensure the death gratuity was protected? Sure, but once that was achieved, he should have backed off and moved forward. Instead it became a personal vendetta against Marshall Jarvis and Kevin O'Dwyer. I have little sympathy for a person with his experience applying for intervener status in support of a school board against his own union. He violated the handbook and basically committed treason against his own union. The penalty is just. If he decides to run for office again he can in two years.
Part 2 of this post will follow.

Anonymous said...

Part 2:
The Discipline Board was duly constituted and it's ruling came about after a hearing where both sides were represented and had the right to call witnesses. I disagree that Brock was not able to call witnesses. You can read in the transcript that the complainants side agreed that the respondent could call any number of witnesses as long as those witnesses provided will say statements. The request for will say statements came from the chair of the Discipline Board and went to both sides well in advance of the hearing. All of the complainants provided those statements. The respondent did not. However, at the hearing it was made clear that the respondent could call witnesses as long as the other side was provided with statements prior to witnesses being called. That would have required another day for the hearing but nobody objected. Brock's side decided it did not want to call the witnesses and proceeded.
None of this, from the MOU to Richard Brock's removal from office is good news but it is not a conspiracy or the result of actions of one or two people. It is the process as we have structured it or as it had been structured prior to the last AGM.
We need to move forward. We need to deal with the MOU and resulting legislation, we need to enforce the gains made (fair hiring, professional practice), we need to ensure all aspects of the agreement are adhered to by the Boards, and we need to put the arguments and infighting behind us.

Anonymous said...

TREASON was committed when all OECTA members weren't allowed a vote on the MOU by the Provincial Office. That will never be forgotten! The only way to move past this mess? Everyone who voted YES on the MOU should now do the right thing for OECTA members and RESIGN. See... that said it short and sweet... without any "misinformation."

Anonymous said...

Yeah right. The last two statements are total poppycock and you know it. We know who is on our side and who isn't. OECTA members are not stupid and can tell the difference between right and wrong. Because Kevin O' Dwyer or Marshall Jarvis quote their lines does not make it so. Kevin O' Dwyer did not have a gun to his head and have to sign the MOU and give away 40 years of collective bargaining gains- one of the worst sell outs in Canadian labour history!His infamy is right up there with that of Neville Chamberlain and will live on in the memory of OECTA! And to add insult to injury he denied the members a vote on his "deal". Why is he still around when he should have been banned after both these despicable deeds! The devil made him do it! Right! And you can stop trying to sully the good name of your betters who actually stand up for member rights!

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but OECTA Provincial bargaining 'Past Practice' in 2004 and 2008 resulted in FRAMEWORK agreements which were still subject to member ratification vote on a unit by unit basis. That is to say, what was agreed to by Provincial could still have been rejected by local units. It was not a complete DONE DEAL as it was in 2012 where all of the significant contractual details were a fait accompli and enshrined into our contracts via the infamous MoU and ratified by only the PE. I'm very sorry, but I beg to differ on this opinion that what occurred last summer was the same "process" as had been used earlier in 2004 and 2008 when we also had provincial bargaining. There was no mechanism whatsoever for the rank and file member to vote on the elements of their own contract. If past practice were actually followed in 2012, why were we not allowed to vote locally to accept or reject the results of the provincial bargaining as had been done in the past? It's old ground we're covering here, yes, but it is important, and it is the crux of why so many OECTA members are still so angry.

Anonymous said...

I have never met a more dedicated leader than President Richard Brock who is so up front for his membership's rights. I have been asking him to move over to my unit and be our president! He is a model for all unit presidents and should be given a medal instead of villified. I think that certain people feel very threatened by his zeal and it shows them up as the self-serving scum that they are. This is why he is being scandalized and persecuted.

President Brock, I saw your mettle in the OLRB and have an immense appreciation for you! "You the man" and none of these lessor individuals will ever change my opinion of you. I know that your heart is in the right place- with your Members and defending their rights! I hope that this will be evident when this case is decided! Teachers are not stupid like some of these blarney-spewing individuals believe. Let's hope that our new provincial president can turn this around and that the decent and fair people prevail in restoring your rights and in saving our union.
LOL

Anonymous said...

The previous poster said, "The Discipline Board was duly constituted ..." Where is the proof? None has been provided because there is none.

Like I said in my earlier post, "By-law 2.131 - There shall be a discipline board comprised of six members who shall be appointed by the provincial executive for a term of no less than three years."

If they were properly constituted the proof should be easy to produce. When I see it, then you would be right but the silence is deafening.

It's put up or admit that the persons who heard the complaint did not have the constituted power to do so. Either way we can decide on what to do. Covering up truth will achieve only more divisiveness and prolong the injustice. Let's stop the lies and the cover up.

Anonymous said...

I will say it in an even more straightforward way.

PE, show us the motion where the names of THREE people who heard the case appear and they are appointed. If you produce this then the board existed. If you did not pass this motion then the Discipline Board did not exist and Marshall Jarvis should be fired with just cause.

PE, do the right thing and stop the excuses and the cover up. Remember Nixon.

Anonymous said...

My name is at the end of this post.

The Provincial Executive met yesterday and are meeting today. We have no idea what they will decide to do.

Once we get their decision, and all the facts, a much more knowledge based debate can take place. The truth, whatever that may be, will come out.

Let's give the Provincial Executive the time and courtesy to deliberate and respond.

Sincerely,

Angelo Ippolito

Anonymous said...

The world will not accept dictatorship or domination.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Anonymous said...

OK...the Provincial Executive made their decision...they chose to not answer the question to REVIEW the DISCIPLINE PROCESS. How convenient!

Anonymous said...

Let's throw "all these bums out" in the next election including all past presidents. Why these individuals are permitted to have permanent lifetime seats on the executive after they have lost elections is beyond me. They seem to be a cancer on the union, instead of an asset! Unfortunately if cancer is not treated or removed it spreads as is evident in our organization!

Anonymous said...

I posted these on the other blog. I think they need to be here too, so all the guessing will stop and OECTA does not get attacked without good reason. If we do that then we would be acting in the same way we are accusing others of. So, here it is. The actual rules we are governed under. It is very easy to get to the bottom of this. Were they followed or not. This should all be over very soon because the facts are there and they just need to be sent out. I am sure the Provincial Executive is already compiling these.

These are right from the Handbook.

Duties of the Provincial Executive
2.51.15: to appoint the chairperson and members of all the Association standing committees, networks, work groups, project teams, task forces, and the discipline board. save and except the audit, personnel and program and structures committees;

2.51: The duties of the provincial executive shall be to administer the affairs of the association between annual general meetings in accordance with the constitution, by-laws, policies, procedures and directives of the annual general meeting.

Duties of the general secretary

2.57: to carry out the instructions of the provincial executive;

Discipline Board

2.193: There shall be a discipline board comprised of six members who shall be appointed by the provincial executive for a term of no less than three years;

There it is. This is our law. Make up your own mind as to if there is a cover up or not because a copy of this motion to appoint has not been seen by anyone. That does not mean that one with the three (six?) names does not exist. We just need to see it.

Also:

4.143: Upon receipt of such written complaint the discipline board chairperson shall appoint a three member panel from among the members of the board and shall advise the general secretary of a hearing date , time and place determined by the panel;

Therefore, the PE had to appoint six members including the chairperson. The chairperson had to select two people beside him/herself to sit as a panel, from the other five appointed by the Provincial Executive. This then is over if we see the motion from the PE appointing the six people and it is clear that the chairperson selected the other two to sit on the panel. If the PE did not appoint six people and/or someone other than the chairperson selected the other two, then we have a very serious problem and probably a constitutional crisis. It is one of these two scenarios we are in. Which one will be easily determined when we see the motion, or not see it, and we find out who contacted the other two to sit on the panel. If anyone but the chairperson selected/asked the other two to hear this case, OECTA fired someone without cause or due process. If the motion with six names not three exists and the chairperson selected the other two members to hear the case then Mr. Brock was dealt with fairly and justly. (He is gone and we are safe.)

I think we have all this figured out correctly now. We just need to see the paperwork and this would all be put to rest. It's our money that was either spent properly or not. It is also our money that would be put in jeopardy if we did not follow our own rules. I can just hope they were. PE, please just show us the relevant documentation or reverse the decision. It seems pretty easy to me.

I don't understand why there would be any problem in getting to the facts. They either support the rules or they do not. Whatever they are, just act accordingly. Press the "Easy" button because it's there.

New: This is a case of following the rules or not. I am sure the Provincial Executive has already figured this out and will soon let us know. After that comes out the way to solve this would be very easy to implement. Until then we just don't know.

Anonymous said...

The truth is out. The following was passed by the Provincial Executive at their meeting this past Monday and Tuesday. There was no Discipline Board existent in OECTA when the case against Richard Brock was heard.

The Motion

PE-13/14-647 THAT THE FOLLOWING MOTION BE REFERRED TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY FOR STUDY AND REPORT TO THE DECEMBER 2013 PROVINCIAL EXECUTIVE MEETING:
That the Provincial Executive direct the President to place a call out to non-active retired members interested in serving on the Discipline Board in order that a list of potential appointees be established as per 2.193 at the December 2013 Provincial Executive meeting.

So there was no board. WHO heard this case? Whoever they were had ZERO authority to do anything. They have just started the process to put one together. The big "oops" at that meeting can be heard around the world. Babe Ruth step aside.

Anonymous said...

I have now gone back to January, 2007 and looked at all PE motions that have been sent out. There was no motion during these 6 years and nine months that would start the process to set up a discipline board.

How the chairperson who heard the case against Mr. Brock was appointed is also full of mystery as there was no process to look for persons to sit on the board that heard this case. This is especially troubling as this person was the former president of one of the units that brought the complaint against Richard.

The other two members could not have been appointed to this board as they were active in OECTA. One was a unit president until June 2012 and one Elections Chairperson until March of 2013.

Since no motion to set up and/or appoint appears in the last 6 years and nine months it would be impossible for these two people to have been appointed by the Provincial Executive.

The motion you posted from the Provincial Executive passed this Past Monday or Tuesday says it all. There is currently no duly constituted discipline board and whoever heard this case had zero authority. All unit presidents would have a copy of this motion. Members should ask their president for it. It would have been done in public session and no rules of confidentiality would apply.

What can we do now?

Anonymous said...

Active?

PE-13/14-647 THAT THE FOLLOWING MOTION BE REFERRED TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY FOR STUDY AND REPORT TO THE DECEMBER 2013 PROVINCIAL EXECUTIVE MEETING:
That the Provincial Executive direct the President to place a call out to NON-ACTIVE retired members interested in serving on the Discipline Board in order that a list of potential appointees be established as per 2.193 at the December 2013 Provincial Executive meeting.

There is good legal reason that they are not active, especially if one was Elections Chair. Having this person on a discipline committee would have a chilling effect on anyone that wants to run for office. The Elections Chairperson must beyond any concerns or involvement in decisions that affect elected officials. Our PE have recognized the importance of non-active and wrote it into their motion. Legally that is the right thing so that all the members of the board can truly be unbiased and objective. Under law any decision like this must be without bias and follow all the rules.

Also, if there was no motion in the last year there could be no disciplinary board.

David Chiarelli said...

Howdy Folks!

I'm going to need to respectfully ask you to post further Comments on this thread to "No Answer for Brock". No more double posts of the same Comments please!

Solidarity!

David C

Post a Comment

Communist Girls ARE More Fun!

Communist Girls ARE More Fun!
See below ...

Communist Girls Are More Fun #1

Communist Girls Are More Fun #1

Communist Grrrls are More Fun #2

Communist Grrrls are More Fun #2

Communist Grrrls Are More Fun #3

Communist Grrrls Are More Fun #3

Communist Girls Are More Fun #4

Communist Girls Are More Fun #4

Art at the Paris Louvre: What does it mean?!?

Art at the Paris Louvre: What does it mean?!?
A careful analytical study!

Help! I Have No Arms!

Help! I Have No Arms!
Please scratch my back.

I can't find my underwear!.

I can't find my underwear!.
Have you seen them!

Weee! I can fly!

Weee! I can fly!
Look! I can crawl thru walls!

I have a headache!

I have a headache!
And a broken nose.

I have a square hole in my bum!

I have a square hole in my bum!

Here try this, it's very good!

Here try this, it's very good!
No. You have a bird face.

I have an ugly baby!

I have an ugly baby!
No I'm not!

Let's save all our money + buy pants!

Let's save all our money + buy pants!
OK but I need a new hand too!

Oh no! I got something in my eye!

Oh no! I got something in my eye!

You don't look well.

You don't look well.
No. My head hurts +I have a sore chest.

Would you like a bun?

Would you like a bun?

Chichen-Itza: Lost Maya City of Ruins!

Chichen-Itza: Lost Maya City of Ruins!
The Temple of Kukulkan!

Gotta love it!

Gotta love it!
Truly amazing!

Under Reconstruction!

Under Reconstruction!

Temples + Snakes!

Temples + Snakes!

The Snake!

The Snake!
It runs the length of the ball field!