Opening Statement



Monday, 16 September 2013

The Brock Dismissal: Some Legal Considerations!


Ed: The following guest blog is posted for your erudition. You may comment below.
 

Is it time to look at the bigger picture?

Blog acronym dictionary is Here!

I'm a member of OECTA and an occasional teacher with an interest in the legal meaning of various by-laws. The complainants have cited by-laws that, in my opinion, do not apply to the charges. Their real complaint is that one  filed an application for intervenor status and joined with a Board in a dispute with their locals.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no by-law in the Handbook prohibiting a member or a unit from launching legal action of any type against any entity including OECTA and, if there was such a by-law, it would probably run afoul of various provincial and federal laws and statutes and regulations. The Letters Patent that established OECTA expressly forbid making any by-laws that are contrary to any law, statute or regulation made by the government.  Going to court is a civil right of all citizens and is always an option.

"Promoting the interests of the association" has two aspects to it. First, it is a directive to make known to various parties what the membership would like known about themselves or what the membership would like to happen. This is done in various ways such as advertising, holding workshops, lobbying, establishing relationships with various entities, etc. Going to court is one such activity. Second, it authorizes the expenditure of money for these activities. 

This by-law cannot be construed to mean anything else and this by-law cannot be breached except by failing to "promote, advance, advertise, make known, lobby, etc.".  Conduct such as bad-mouthing the association, being rude to executives, interfering in the internal affairs of other locals, etc. would fall under other by-laws dealing with misconduct. Do we have by-laws regarding misconduct?


Are the OECTA by-laws really the law?

The by-laws cited by the complainants expressly authorize the executive committee and the president of the local to promote the interests of the association.  The interests, objects, objectives of the association are specified and enumerated in the Letters Patent that established OECTA. These interests can only be changed by the Government of Ontario. Within the association, there may well be a difference of opinion among members as to how best to promote some specified interest.  The final arbiter will be a judge, a general assembly or the Government of Ontario.  

The conflict of interest by-law in the Handbook prohibits a member on any committee from voting on a matter where the outcome would constitute a financial benefit to him. The common practice is for the member to announce that a conflict of interest exists, leave the room during the discussion and not vote on the matter. The conflict of interest has to be noted in the minutes and a copy of the minutes sent to Provincial. This by-law is very specific and applies only to members on committees and does not apply to filing papers in a court of law.

The other by-laws cited by the complainants provide the authorization for holding a disciplinary hearing or a preamble to the conflict of interest by-law explaining its purpose.  It is not possible to be in breach of them.

Given that Provincial has two in-house lawyers and, I'm told, two outside counsel, I am surprised that they didn't seek advice before making this poorly written document public.  It does not reflect well on teachers.
Ms. A. Nonymous [Name withheld upon request]


Would the OECTA Discipline Panel Decision hold up in a court of law?

YOUR COMMENTS?

84 comments:

David Chiarelli said...

Dear No Hero to Many!

Pro + con arguments are always welcome. However if you want to submit personal accusations against Mr. Brock that I can't substantiate, you are going to need to resubmit with your correct name. Or reword your argument differently.

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

No appeals of discipline board decisions? No vote on the MOU? No membership wide voting on Provincial Executive candidates? No publication of Provincial Executive compensation and benefit packages to members who pay them. No transparency. No accountability. Last time I checked Canada is not a dictatorship. OECTA?

Anonymous said...

This whole Oecta Discipline Panel Decision is a travesty and the continuous publication of this farce by OECTA on the OECTA website and in hardcopy format constitutes defamation of Richard Brock's character and should be stopped immediately!

Anonymous said...

No matter what, we need to remember that we have rules. You cannot dismiss someone without following the rules. You cannot say you thought they were followed. Legally that does not hold water. It seems evident by the silence from OECTA that the persons who heard the case against Richard Brock were not all appointed by the Provincial Executive. This alone would make the proceeding illegal. This being the case, there are other inconsistencies. There was no OECTA position to break. Richard was acting in the best interests of his members. The law under which this intervenor status was requested has been repealed. We all have freedoms and rights that cannot be taken away. Due process was not there. Someone selected the panel from persons not appointed and therefore had no authority to do so. Plus there is much more.

Personal opinions about Richard Brock, the GS, or anyone else have nothing to do with this. Were all the rules followed and is there the paperwork to back it up, if they were. That is the fundamental question. We have seen nothing. Like, you said that speaks oodles. Who are we protecting here? It certainly is the members.

The proof is in the pudding and Provincial OECTA has no pudding. If they did, we would have tasted it by now. I am sad, so very, very sad because I have believed in unions all my life and my trust has been shattered.

I may vote PC next time. That is what this has come to. There is no sense of doing right or courage left in OECTA. We need a saviour but I do not know who that would be. There are so few members willing to speak up. There are some but not many. Fear has coiled around the vast majority and they cannot speak.

The units that brought the complaint against Richard, now could do the right thing, because they know the very rules they fought for have been broken, and demand that the Handbook, they so forcefully tried to defend, be followed in its entirety. Not to do this would make them at the very least falling into hypocrisy and send a message that they really did not care about our rules and this was personal and vindictive, not to mention illegal,unethical and vexatious.

That would take courage and I don't see it there. We have all been turned into puppets and that seems to include the Provincial Executive.

Anonymous said...

Legally this has set a precedent for all unit presidents.

Unless unit presidents all demand to see that all the rules were followed and make sure that they were, they would be breaking by-law 2.115.2 - Duties of Officers - Unit President - to promote the interests of the Association.

By the way that is the clause they used to get rid of Mr. Brock. Any unit president who cannot stand up and say, "were all our rules followed and prove it" should be dismissed just like Mr. Brock was unjustly dismissed. Yes, you should all be under the equal treatment, equal process, and equal sentencing as Mr. Brock was,without your discipline panel members being appointed by the Provincial Executive. Then maybe we can get some people that actually care about us and not just sit on their behinds while someone else tells them what to do. The Provincial Executive should be also held accountable. If you do not get this injustice reversed, you are all next. Do not fool yourselves.

We only need staff and a monthly referendum where we can dismiss anyone of on staff that cannot prove they followed the rules and do it with just cause. To back this up, AGM's would be held quarterly and only actual members could enter the room, discuss, and make decisions. An outside legal firm and auditors would be invited to give reports,and who could be instructed to make investigations to be reported to the next quarterly AGM. Direct accountability to us, the members will solve this. Good luck.

Anonymous said...

Who made the decision to send out a hard copy to the members? Who gave authority to do this? This will come out and we will find out if there was just cause to do this.

It does look like this would strengthen an already very strong lawsuit against us and that also will be determined. Our money would then be wasted and we will not let that happen. I would suggest that a law suit, personally against anyone who should have known the rules and decided not to follow them, should be filed by the Provincial Executive and every unit executive should file for intervenor status in support of this lawsuit.

I have not given up on OECTA. There are many good, hard working people that have the best interests of our members in mind.

We follow the rules and we will make sure that our Executive and GS do the same. If the rules were not followed those who did not will be held accountable and face the most serious of penalties.

Anonymous said...

Due and fair process is a legal requirement. Looking at all the posts on the four blogs you have on this issue,and the fact that OECTA has not responded, show that this legal requirement was not met.

The absolute worst thing that a union could do is to fire someone without following the rules. This would mean that there was no due and fair process. The effect would be that no just cause could be met by the hearing panel.

OECTA defends teachers who are unjustly accused by making sure all the rules were followed and there can be just cause demonstrated. This is done in front of an arbitrator who not only is not active in OECTA but never has been a member of OECTA. By not following their own rules when they dismissed Richard Brock, they have seriously hurt all future cases to defend teachers as the employer WILL say that OECTA did not follow all their rules, so how could they legally have a problem if they just missed one or two. That is a serious legal consideration. I know how some of these boards work and I will guarantee this will happen.

Anonymous said...

At a meeting last night with Halton elementary, an OECTA member asked James Ryan who in OECTA polices/supervises the OECTA Discipline Board. His answer was NO ONE. Then it was said nothing could be done by the Provincial Executive until the AGM. The Provincial Executive needs to call an emergency meeting immediately and create powers NOW to control the Discipline Board, not standby letting others run the union. Ultimate responsibility for controlling and running OECTA begins and ends with the member elected Provincial Executive. Time for them to ACT!

Anonymous said...

The PE supervises everything and that is by by-laws. It is their job to make sure the rules are followed, There are two, not one, by-laws that say that the PE must appoint all the members to the discipline board. There is another one that says they must follow the rules in our Handbook. The Procedures areas that say the Discipline Board is out of control of the PE have no legal weight, because by-laws must be followed first. Procedures, legally, are subservient to by-laws. A legal case from OECTA based on procedures that are in contradiction to three by-laws is no case at all. OECTA will most likely lose. The OECTA lawyers probably have already told them.

Following procedures that are not in "accordance" with the by-laws would put the PE in the position of not following their legal duty.

That would also put the PE in a position where they would not be in a position to say that they are there, "to promote the interests of the Association.".That is a duty of only unit presidents, apparently. None-the-less it would be very interesting because the AGM has written the rules they all must legally follow, "to promote the interests of the Association."

Finally, they have duty to follow the rules. In our Handbook their duty to to do this is under the title, "Duties of the Provincial Executive".

If we are talking in legal terms, the legal requirements are right in the OECTA Handbook.There are also many legal requirements by law and statute. Did they follow the legal requirements. We "shall" see.

As an interested party this will be very interesting to watch as it unfolds.

Anonymous said...

To say they have no authority as they did in their letter to Richard Brock and at the Halton Elementary Unit AGM last night makes no legal sense. I am starting wonder if they have any understanding of legal requirements. The previous post makes a great case. Of course they have the authority and yes by-laws take precedence over procedures. They must know this.

I am very happy that the discussion on this blog has turned to legal issues. It is important that our PE knows that we have figured them out even if they have not. This is our money we are talking about. I do not want to go through a court case where the media will be there and everything will come out and we will lose.

How do members make sure that our money is not wasted? Is it through our Unit Presidents? Is it through the Provincial treasurer? Even before we get to a court case, was our money spent with the authority to do it? When this glossy snail mail was sent out, about the Brock decision, who authorized the spending of OUR money to do this? It must have cost at least $35,000 of our money. Is their anything we can do to make sure those in power are held accountable when they spend our money?

Can we opt out of OECTA? If it is mandatory then how can you fire someone?

I think this last paragraph fits with the, "Legal Considerations" this blog is about. I apologize if it is not. I just think that how they are spending our money has to be legally available to all members. How do we access files that would show how our money has been and will be spent on this case and how much? An answer from anyone would be appreciated.

Anonymous said...

ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY to every OECTA dues paying member...no more secrecy...we pay the bills with our union dues...time for Provincial to ACT and start to answer to us. By the way...does everyone know that as Richard is disciplined and loses all his union rights that OECTA continues to charge him union dues for no protection/representation?

Anonymous said...

Here is the answer to one of the questions in the previous post.

Duty of the General Secretary:

2.57.8: to have the records open at all times for inspection by the Provincial Executive,the President,and the Council of Presidents;

Duty of the Treasurer:

2.55.1: to keep, or cause to be kept, a proper set of book of accounts of the Association;

2.55.2: to keep the accounts ready for inspection by the council of presidents, the provincial executive, the president and the auditors ....;

Any member of the council of presidents has access to this at any time as do the others named in these sections. You just need to ask the proper person.

Anonymous said...

More legal requirements that OECTA would have had to follow.

When the time comes to get specific about who’s going to serve on a committee, Robert’s Rules gives you six different methods for deciding exactly who you want to do what. Each method is particularly well suited to a different situation (but is by no means exclusive to that situation).

• Appointment by motion: This method is most often used to appoint special committees. Using this method, either you name the prospective committee members in the motion that establishes the committee or you name them in a separate motion after you adopt the motion to create the committee. Not done in OECTA.

• Appointment by the chair: This method is also commonly used to appoint special committees, but it can also be used in the appointment of standing committees. To use this method, you can either specify appointment by the chair as part of your motion creating the committee, or you can use a separate motion to appoint using this method. Not done in OECTA.

Appointment by the chair is also commonly established in bylaws to prescribe that a group’s president appoint standing committees listed in the bylaws. Not done in OECTA.

• Ballot election: Generally used to appoint members to important standing committees, this method is used when a group wants to select the committee members with the benefits of a secret ballot. Not done in OECTA.

• Open nominations: This method is used any time the members want to elect members to a committee but don’t require a secret ballot. Using this method, nominations are taken from the floor, and election is usually by voice vote. Not done in OECTA.

• Nominations by the chair: When you want to take advantage of the chair’s knowledge of individual members’ capabilities, you can use this method. The chair offers her nominees, and the membership votes on each, usually by voice vote. Not done in OECTA.

• Appointment by definition in the bylaws: Some committees are established with the bylaws prescribing details on who serves. For example, a bylaw defining a finance committee may read, “The finance committee membership shall consist of the treasurer, the chairman of the audit committee, the chairman of the budget committee, the executive director, two members appointed by the president, and three members elected by the membership at the annual meeting.” Not done in OECTA.

These are consistent with our constitution in article 1.10. The constitution overrides the by-laws.

1.10: The rules contained in the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, where they are not consistent with this constitution or any special rules of order the Association may adopt, shall govern the Association.

Since the appointment by-laws are consistent with this section, there can be no other way to appoint the members of the discipline board. If this was done the Association would not only be contradicting their by-laws but also the constitution.

The constitution legally forces the appointments to be made in one of these ways unless there are, "special rules of order the Association". In this case there are no special rules and the by-laws only strengthen this constitutional requirement.

Anonymous said...

I sent in the post about the OECTA constitutional requirements. It is also legally important to make these comments.

Not following the constitution and its supporting by-laws would make any decision by the PE,out of order. This means that they would have no right to make such a decision.

Many years ago, an AGM resolution to increase the fees was later overturned because it was out of order. I was there. If an AGM resolution was reversed, imagine legally what would happen to a decision by the PE that did not even follow the rules the AGM affirms every year.

I would think that the OECTA legal counsel have pointed all this out to the PE. Our legal case gets weaker and weaker by the day and it was very weak to begin with.

The only question that reflects this is, " Does the PE have the knowledge before them and the courage to act in accordance to our legal requirements?"

There is no provision that states that a procedure can be followed when it is contradicting a by-law and the constitution.

Legally, the road ahead is obvious. It is at least obvious to anyone that understands the law and our law. Not only do the Provincial Executive have the authority to do this, they are compelled legally to do it.

Anonymous said...

Finally.

Robert's Rules of Order

Four Motions that are ALWAYS Out of Order

A Main Motion reflects the will of the members of the organization! However, the following 4 motions are never in order, even if adopted by a unanimous vote:

1. Motions which conflict with laws (federal, state, or local), or with bylaws, constitution, or rules of the organization;

2. Motions which present something already rejected during the same session, or conflict with a motion already adopted. (See Robert's sections on Rescind, Reconsider, and Amend Something Already Adopted);

3. Motions which conflict with or present substantially the same question as one which has been temporarily disposed of (meaning, Postponed, Laid on Table, Referred to Committee, or Being Reconsidered);

4. Motions which propose actions beyond the scope of the organization's bylaws.

Referring to the Above

1. There was conflict with our by-laws and constitution.

4. The word "beyond" is the legal issue here. For there to be something "beyond" there would have had to be a motion to appoint the six people to the discipline but went "beyond". For example they appointed seven people. If this appointment motion to go "beyond" exists then there may be a provision that it could happen by a two thirds vote IF the association's constitution and by-laws specifically state this. In the OECTA handbook there is only one provision that allows the Handbook to be overridden. That deals with procedures and that would take a 90% vote between AGM's. There are NO provisions in the OECTA Handbook to override the constitution or the by-laws. Therefore any motion going beyond the constitution and the by-laws would be out of order even if the vote was unanimous.

Number one says it clearly. This is ALWAYS out of order.

I hope that my three posts have laid out the legal requirements for everyone. If someone knows how to send these three posts to the OECTA Provincial Executive, I think that would be the right thing to do because I am not sure what their legal counsel is telling them. David, do you know if the PE reads your blog.

Anonymous said...

I just sent something in and I just realized that I probably broke one of your rules.I am re-wording it here. I have removed the sentence I think goes against your rules.

OK. We will lose any court case. Like many have said, it's our money. AGM needs to reduce our fees to $500.00 and let these people who have decided to waste our money, deal with it. On top of this the public embarrassment OECTA would be dealt, in a court case, is at the PE's feet. If you REALLY have courage and integrity we need you now. Legally, we need you to protect and defend us and our money. Please do this both from external and internal forces that may come after us. Please run for provincial office. I was at the AGM last year and all I heard was personal attacks and insults. If you want to run, just stick to the issues or stay home. This all started under the last regime. Was no one there to stay STOP. The past president, you would think would have a duty to stop anything that would hurt OECTA. Did he do that? Only he knows.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the constitutional arguments.

I would like to talk about legal Precedence.

The board wrote:

1. With respect to the complaint against the Halton Elementary Unit Executive, the panel’s decision is that the Halton Elementary Unit Executive was in violation of By-Law Article 2.67.1.

2. With respect to the complaints against Richard Brock, President of the Halton Elementary Unit Executive, the panel’s decision is that Richard Brock was in violation of By-Law Article 2.69.1.1.

2.67.1: to promote the interests of the association.

The PE passed a motion in May. Halton immediately withdrew their intervenor status. There was no position before that. The non-elected board can now back date positions to even before the PE took one. The MOU vote at COP was an endorsement vote and not a ratification vote. The who voted against it represented more than 60% of the members. Yet, a non-elected board decoded this was an interest of the association. Definition of interest has been taken away and placed in the hands of a non-elected group. In this case that was never appointed by motion and by name by the PE. This was precedent setting and now stops any person or unit from speaking and acting against a decision that hurts the members. We have been put in a box and the lid has been closed.

At AGM 2013, the delegates passed a series of motions making sure that what happened the previous year in regards to the MOU never happens again. They unanimously said that the interest of the association was not served by that process. Despite this a non-elected group decided to ignore the AGM's clear statement of interest and make no mention of it in their decision. Our highest authority was ignored by a non-elected board. After this AGM any perceived interests in favour of the MOU and the process were overturned.

Result:

We are now subject to discipline that goes against the rules in our Handbook and the expressed interests made clear by the AGM. The PE, the COP, and AGM can be disregarded any time a non-elected and now non-appointed board wants to do it.

Anonymous said...

Do I have any rights left?

Is there anyone that will protect my rights? The PE won't do it. The President won't do it. The General Secretary has no interest in doing it. Even though they have a duty to do it, the just refuse.

OK. Legal Stuff - If I publicly write an editorial to the the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun, giving my name and I write the following, will this non-appointed board fire me too, if the same complainants say that I acted against the interests of the association? NOTE: it does not even say BEST interests.

Dear Editor.

I am a member OF OECTA. I am embarrassed to be affiliated with them but I have no choice under law. They imposed an MOU that took away 40 years of legally achieved gains.They did that without letting me vote even though they did not have to do this. They also went against long standing labour process and understandings that you do not let others fight for you and make gains on their hard work and courage. This is exactly what OECTA did? THey forced our stuff on OSSTF, ETFO, and CUPE and then took the gains THEY made and just took them.

Now a Unit President has been dismissed and they did not follow our constitution and by-laws. They had the audacity to claim that this MOU was what we wanted. I can tell you right now that the vast majority did not want it and they forced it down our throats. Because this Unit President fought for us and stated publicly, "NO to the MOU.", he was fired. His members wanted him to do this and he acted on their behalf. Yet,he was fired.

Well he acted on my behalf. Now, a discipline board that we are told actually did not exist under rules (That's right: not exist)fired him.

The members of OECTA have treated as collateral damage to bring more money and power to a few people at the top.

While we had to agree to a 2 year wage freeze and a deduction in pay because of mandatory unpaid days (I am fine with this if our Province really is in financial distress.)our OECTA very high paid staff was given a two year, two percent a year wage increase. Also all the losses we incurred had no effect on over 90% of the people our PE chose to represent us at the PDT negotiations.

Yours,

MY NAME

My question: Would the precious protection of our top people warrant firing me and take away my rights to freedom of expression? If the answer is yes, then OECTA is not needed and needs to be dismantled immediately. If the answer is no, then how could the Unit President in question be fired. This letter goes far beyond anything that Unit President was falsely accused of. To that president, I say, You represent ,me, your unit, and the vast majority of members and the discipline board, had no clue that you did.

Anonymous said...

You should send this to the editorial pages. Under law they can't do anything if what you are saying is true. By everything I can surmise, you are dead on with the truth. Just fix your grammar and missing words first :).

The answer to your question has to be no. So?

David Chiarelli said...

Oh. You noticed the spelling + grammar!?! ;-) I knock off 1000 words most days, writing here etc., so these suffer. Plus I'm more of an expressive writer. I do revisit + make corrections sometimes though. Check again a day or so later. Yeah. That's it! Er .......

Readers include reporters from the Toronto Star, Globe + Mail, + York Free Times. I get quoted sometimes, but I don't think a lot of this internal union stuff interests them a whole lot.

Anonymous said...

Keep shining light on the secrecy and darkness David! If the PE and President are unwilling to ACT,maybe they should resign.

Anonymous said...

An earlier post mentioned that a weighted vote of the COP would have resulted in 60% voting against the MOU. This is incorrect. That actual figure would have been 44% Yes and 56% No. This however would reflect full time teachers only and would have excluded the votes of all OT's. If OT votes were counted based upon how the OT Reps voted the actual COP vote would have been 52% yes and 48% no.

This also would not have been reflective of the membership. The only vote that reflects the membership is an all member vote.

Anonymous said...

I am Unit President in OECTA. My name is Angelo Ippolito. My email is angelo4you@gmail.com. I wrote a post before with my name in it.

I know that all unit presidents care about their members. This talk about the demise of OECTA is unwarranted. We will get through this.

The truth always comes out eventually. When it does, I have full confidence that the Unit Presidents will treat it with the due attention and process it deserves. If the constitution and by-laws were, in fact, not followed, we will find out. These things sometimes take time. I know that many members want things solved immediately but rushing can produce the wrong effect.

OECTA is a strong union with great, engaged, and committed unit presidents. As unit presidents we may sometimes find ourselves facing a provincial decision that locally hurts the members. What this case means in regards to local interests will also be determined.

Respectfully,

Angelo Ippolito

Anonymous said...

Many members at COP who voted for endorsement did so very reluctantly and said that they were not voting in favour of the MOU but only to support the team. When you take this into account the actual membership represented would have been around 70% against the MOU. The fact that the board used this in their decision against RB to state that it was an interest of the Association cannot be mathematically and reasonably arrived at. They still did it.

This is especially true since the COP were told that their vote, "means nothing" (direct quote) before they voted. How could a discipline board make a case that the interests of the association were demonstrated under these circumstances when the COP knew it meant nothing and the math does not add up? Legally, they can't.

Even the current president did this. He actually voted not to ratify the MOU but yes endorsement.

Anonymous said...

As far OT's represented at COP, you can't figure out the numbers from the OT reps. Many presidents who voted against also represent OT's. As far as representing the members, the vote was in a majority against even endorsing the MOU, no matter how you add it up.

Anonymous said...

This is new to me. The COP never ratified the MOU. They were told that their "endorsement" vote meant nothing. The current president voted no to ratify the the MOU. That means that 4,5, 6, people imposed this on all of us and the discipline board claims that demonstrated OUR interest. We have a huge problem here and what happened to Mr. Brock is just the tip of the iceberg. Something is very wrong.

The current President can't even claim he thought the he believed the MOU was an interest of the Association because he voted no when it became before him to ratify.

Anonymous said...

There were 7 people that were elected at AGM in contested positions. They were James Ryan, Ann Hawkins, Marcie Tombari, Chris Karuhanga (He reversed a previous position.), Elaine McMahon, and Andrew Donihee. Of the six, 4 of them were against the MOU. The AGM elected 4 out of 6 people, where they had the opportunity, who demonstrated that the MOU was not in the interest of the Association. Questions were asked, unit meetings were held, and this was clear to the voting delegates.

By voting this way, the AGM sent a message ( on top of all the resolutions they passed) that the MOU was not an interest of the Association. The AGM has spoken but nobody listened.

The discipline board acted against the very rational they gave to dismiss a unit president. In court this will come out. They can't even defend the written reasons why they did this. We will lose. The PE needs an outside and independent lawyer to advise them before we kiss our money goodbye.

Anonymous said...

I sent a post about the AGM elections.

Further:

There were 8 people that were elected or acclaimed at AGM 2013. You can't count past president because the AGM has no control over this. They were James Ryan, Ann Hawkins, Warren Grafton, Marcie Tombari, Chris Karuhanga (He reversed a previous position.), Elaine McMahon, Andrew Donihee and Julie Pauletig. Of the eight, five of them were against the MOU. They publicly stated this during the AGM. The AGM did send a message and it was not that the MOU was an interest of the association.

Anonymous said...

Government staffer watch this site as well. They enjoy the intrigue that divides OECTA. It provides good intel to weaken the bargaining agent during negotiations. The next round will take more power from local units and hand it to the Provincial table. Local representation will become less and less of a factor.

Anonymous said...

A union exists to advocate and get gains for its members. Right? So why is the OECTA Provincial Executive refusing to negotiate cash payment for the vested sick days held by the members of Halton Elementary like OSSTF and ETFO members got? Are they being treated like their unit president? Provincial we need your help. Do the right thing.

Anonymous said...

As an OECTA member, I would like to know whose idea it was to send out a hard copy of the Discipline Panel decision to every single OECTA member? Who made that decision???

Anonymous said...

Strong locals have always served us well. Giving more power to Provincial will only hurt us.

David Chiarelli said...

Over the past 2 years or so my blog site has had readers off + on from all 3 Ontario political parties, as well as from the Premiers Office + the MOE. Sometimes for the news links, but regardless, I doubt our discussions have or are going to torpedo the PDT or Contract talks.

Maybe it's a reality fix. I should hope so. It is readily apparent here that there is a disconnect between the affiliates provincial leadership + the members views of the wheeling + dealing that goes on. Well might they read so. You can lead us to the red OLP kool aid but you can't make us drink. The sooner they, and our leaders who are out there in la la land realize so, the better I should think.

I think the fact that as teacher professionals we can discuss the issues intelligently without having to look over our back, or toe a party line makes it all worthwhile too. It makes the Comment discussion + debates a valuable and much needed option, for local union leaders + rank + file alike. Commentators are all equal here, + have to stand on the strength of their arguments + point of view, not rank + privilege

Otherwise I feel like we are being kept out in the mushroom patch on how we are being represented, the Brock case being a case in point. Do you know how to grow mushrooms? You keep them in the dark and, pardon me, feed them shit. That's obviously not O.K. for most of us, be we members of OECTA, ETFO + OSSTF who make up the major bulk of the readership + commentators.

I'd recommend one thinks of the blog discussions as an important return to grassroots democracy. We can all speak our minds here + kick around ideas on how we want to be represented + the decisions being made. We certainly haven't been responsibly lead + kept informed + feel an actual part of the process over the past year or so, as the angst shows.

Cheers + Solidarity!

David C.

Anonymous said...

If the government is Watching that's great.They that we are. Not happy. That's a good thing. We need a return to government by the members and for the members. Right now it's not for the members but only for a few very highly paid individuals.

Anonymous said...

David Chiarelli is an OECTA hero! If this blog did not exist OECTA members would have NO VOICE and NO ACCESS to the TRUTH about how OECTA is really being run. So this blog is going to torpedo future negotiations with the government? BALONEY. The MOU and Provincial's treatment of a 25+ year sitting Unit President should pretty much torpedo SOLIDARITY and moving forward together.

Anonymous said...

At a Tuesday night meeting a Halton Unit member asked James Ryan who was responsible for the content of the @OECTA newsletter since no author is listed. He didn't seem to know. Everyone needs to ask Provincial who authors/or is responsible for @OECTA's content and the reason it was created/exists? Informed answers to members would restore confidence in the need for spending our union dues on printing and mailing it at a time when we have experienced cutbacks/permanent sick day strips to our daily working conditions because of the MOU which we had no individual vote on.

Anonymous said...

When are we going to have some restorative justice for our leader President Richard Brock? OR does he get to stay in limbo until President Ryan actually does something to say we have a real union and are concerned about the handbook and the civil rights of our members and our presidents? This goes beyond the MOU. The question is "is out President" going to fix this rather than hiding behind the skirts of the lawyers who said the MOU was not a contract and therefore our members had no right to vote and who got the OLRB to rule the handbook out of its jurisdiction. Maybe we need new lawyers who are actually interested in justice for the members who are paying their exorbitant fees!

Anonymous said...

This is not a question of members being for or against the MOU this is a question of justice and fairness for all members including this dear President!!!

Anonymous said...

I have noticed two posts from OECTA Unit President, Angelo Ippolito. He tells us to trust the PE andf all the other unit presidents. Mr. Ippolito, I have heard you speak at many AGM's and other OECTA meetings. You are very forceful in defending the Handbook, members rights, and are relentless at getting out the truth. I see Mr. Brock in the same light. He is now gone. There are very few others like you. Most jus sit there or follow the party line without question. I understand why you beleve in your colleagues but I only see it in a selects few.

There are very powerful people in our organization that want you to be silenced. They will come after you and not look you in the eyes when they dp it. That would take courage. They will shoot you in the back. That's what cowards do.

I want to believe you when you tell us to trust all the others, but I have never seen proof of this courageous behaviour but from a few. To the few, I say please don't let them shut you up but Be Wary, Be Wise, and watch your backs.

Mr . Ippolito, there aren't many like you. Don't fool yourself and look at what they did to Mr. Brock. You say the truth will come out. I hope the few left in OECTA that have the absolute courage to fight for this don't give up. You have a few like-minded friends out there but choose carefully because there are spies all around.

Take care of your health, beccause we need you and few others to stay strong. They will try to wear you down.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if we could interest Amnesty International in President Richard Brock's "case". After all he was wrongfully dismissed and was taken away from his lawfully elected position for no apparent reason except for his political beliefs. His civil rights (to go to court or to think about going to court) were also violated and he was later scandalized in the OECTA Provincial media.

Anonymous said...

On the subject of the COP vote last summer- if someone is going to jump in the lake does that mean everyone has to do it too? This is faulty reasoning/justification at best! This is especially true if one thinks about the purpose of the union- to benefit the due paying membership. The provincial executive looking good should not be a consideration in this situation! There is no excuse for not looking after the interest of your members and being seen to do so even if it is just symbolic eg a vote on a done deal.

Anonymous said...

The time for secrecy about what Provincial Executive members of OECTA and OECTA Provincial employees are paid in their "personal services contracts" is over. Teachers, principals and unit presidents have their salaries available for public viewing. Exact compensation needs to be published to every OECTA member who pays their salaries since they are working for us, not the other way around. That could appear in the next issue of the new newsletter @OECTA. Who can we contact to ensure that information is put in the newsletter?

Anonymous said...

OECTA members: Disgusted with the new newsletter @OECTA and its secret author? Print "STOP WASTING OUR UNION DUES" on your newsletter and mail it back to James Ryan or anyone at Provincial. Maybe they'll get the message and stop wasting our union dues.

Anonymous said...

I ave written a letter to David by email. In it there is my full response to the post addressed to me. I have asked David to post it here with the knowledge that it is actually from me. I do this when I use my name.

I trust David will post it shortly.

I add the following.

Are there concerns? Absolutely. Am I personally concerned? Absolutely.

However, we do not know what elected members are raising privately with the leadership so to jump to the conclusion that there are only a few with courage and a sense of due care, is premature.

Keep putting the pressure and keep stating your concerns. It is important that members do that. I am listening and doing everything I can to see that true justice is served and members are informed of all the pertinent facts. I am not prepared to say, at this time, that there are only a few of us willing to do this, but I respect your opinion.

Yours,
Angelo Ippolito

angelo4you@gmail.com

My full response should follow.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire


Anonymous said...

No matter who is right we all need to keep the following in mind if we are to heal. High standards in what we do and say will serve us well.

“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.”
― Mark Twain

“The day we see the truth and cease to speak is the day we begin to die”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

May we think of freedom, not as the right to do as we please, but as the opportunity to do what is right.
Peter Marshall

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

This blog, no matter what your position is and no matter who is right, helps us move towards what these persons have tried to tell us. That is a very good thing.

Sincerely,

Angelo Ippolito

Anonymous said...

In response to the person that addressed me specifically, I would like to make a few things very clear.

1. I will never be silenced and I'm sure the leadership is well aware of this.

2. I strongly disagree with you about the character of elected members in th OECTA leadership. I maintain that the vast majority, if not all, are courageous, committed, and care deeply about the members they serve.

3. Yes I believe in the AGM, and the Handbook that the AGM wrote. I defend them vocally and consistently. That will never change, but I am not alone.

4. As far as watching my back, if I start worrying about repercussions to seeking the truth,those would not want the truth to come out, would have won, but I am not alone.

5. My unit president colleagues, I know seek the truth and defend their members. They may do it in different ways but I know they do it.

6. Personally, I have the good or bad habit of saying what I truly believe to be true and many times asking questions that may make some uncomfortable. Others have a different approach.

7. I hope to see you and others like you going to microphones at AGM and other meetings and making your voices heard

8. I have stated at microphones and in letters that I have written many times that, "Silence is the enemy of both peace and justice." So speak up and voice your opinions, praises, and concerns, A good, open, free, courageous, and honest discussion has never hurt a democratic and representative process.

9. Ask the tough questions and demand answers. There are many of us that already do this but any extra voices are always welcome.

10. As a unit president my loyalty is first and foremost to the local members I represent.

In conclusion. I will watch my health.

With deepest respect,

Angelo Ippolito
Angelo4you@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Angelo for his refreshing comments. One of the reasons there is a huge problem in OECTA right now is that No One from the Provincial Executive is making any calming and reassuring comments like Mr. Ippolito has done to show that someone is in charge of the events unfolding in this union. Continued DEAFENING SILENCE from Provincial except in disciplining(?) Halton (publishing with glee-like that is something to celebrate as a union?) does not build Trust in leadership. Leadership is defined by ACTION or INACTION. Time for Provincial to decide which one will define them.

Anonymous said...

"It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership."
*Nelson Mandela

Anonymous said...

OK. Let's do the right thing no matter what it is. I can't argue with the quotes in a previous post. Of course, that's how we should act. Will we do it, is a different matter.

We are supposed to trust that someone will make sure all the rules were followed, someone will determine what the members interests actually were, and someone will determine how our money has been spent and under whose authority. Someone will also determine how a discipline board that was never duly appointed can have any authority. Someone will also determine what authority the PE has to make sure that our constitution and by-laws were not ignored. Last of all, someone will determine what the actual message AGM sent last was. It's a lot to ask but I am willing to give it a few weeks. The previous poster is asking a lot so we shall see.

Anonymous said...

"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere." Martin Luther King Jr.

Anonymous said...

I agree with a previous poster mail back your @oecta to 65 St. Clair Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario,M4T 2Y8 and write in black marker "I want justice not a Stalinist purge".

Anonymous said...

Mr. James Ryan. I ask that you come out publicly and answer two questions.

Will you make sure that all the things that need to be determined as per the letter posted today at 16:48, are investigated thoroughly and independently, and the findings made public to all members, in a timely fashion?

Do you agree with the five posts from Mr. Angelo Ippolito and where you don't give the reasons why to all the members in OECTA?

We need to know, and as fee paying members we have a right to know. I believe all candidates at the last AGM said they would fight for, or believed in, honesty and transparency. It's time to back up your words with action or be seen as disingenuous. Mr. Ryan it's your call.

David, does Mr. Ryan read this blog? We should all be demanding the answers to these two tough (not really) questions.

David Chiarelli said...

James has been a reader and contributor to this blogsite since I started it. However if he is reading it at this point of time, or whether he can respond here, I don't know. He is the official voice of OECTA now as President, so he's got to follow the protocols, as far as what he can say or do. Next time we talk I'll drop a hint that he might well want to read the comments here if he isn't all ready. I know he is, of course, very concerned about this issue too.

Anonymous said...

Silence = consent!

Anonymous said...

So this stuff began with the negotiations that brought about a MOU.
Of the Triumvirate that formed the main negotiating team, one, realizing that he could not support the MOU distances himself from it and states that he would not have supported it had he realized the outcome. I guess he felt it was not in OECTA's best interest.

The second is removed by the electorate at the AGM. That was in OECTA's best interest.

Two out of Three. Kind of tells you something doesn't it.

It is my contention that the third however, (hired hand of the PE - yes they hired him)decides to shift the focus from himself as he is now the only one left and go after the the most outspoken unit president, Richard Brock. He refers to the Discipline Committee.

So another Triumvirate called a Discipline Panel.
This was done either without the knowledge and approval of the PE or they knew they approved of it. Got to be one or the other. The PE allowed this. So I have to conclude that they support it.

So this Discipline Panel (Joe Ryan, Chairperson, Kathy McVean, Gary Tomcko)
is supposed to have expertise in knowing the handbook. Well, maybe not, as there is a strong likely hood that they were not put in place properly - according to the handbook.

Doesn't matter, they go do their thing anyway and bring forth a very brutal outcome.

Did they? Or did they just sign their names to it?

Meanwhile the Provincial Executive has done nothing to clean up this mess. So I have to conclude again that they support this.

Now, if I were a member of any other Affiliate or Union I would not look too trustingly on the behaviour of OECTA. It certainly has not been transparent as there are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding all of this mess.

Shall we look at the next round of negotiations with the province.

If I was Tim Hudak, I would be loving it. But if I were Kathleen Wynne or Andrea Horwath, I would be loving it as well. Remember, this was a Liberal MOU.

The PE could do something to fix this mess.

If they leave it to the AGM, it will be too late.

There is such a thing as buying out a contract and yes, it will be cheaper than a law suit.

Anonymous said...

Instead of sending out records of Stalinist- like "trials" our union should be sending out detailed answers and explanations to the questions that have been posed on this blog from the due paying members. There is obviously a grave lack of confidence in our leadership out there in OECTA membership-land. Do we actually have any leaders? Are they accountable to the membership for our organization? Or is chaos also ruling our organization? If so it should be disbanded immediately and all members should be allowed to join real teacher unions with handbooks and rules of operation that mean something. A constitutional impasse has obviously been reached when there are no answers for members. Is there any true leadership in our organization or does anything go, which appears to be the case?

Anonymous said...

Maybe Oecta needs less hiding behind protocols and more open accountable leadership to fix this mess.

David Chiarelli said...

It's good to see some movement on the Brock case. Still here's a few respectfully submitted reservations to hopefully avoid the problems of the past. Take as you may:

Process does take time but meanwhile what about Mr. Brock + Halton Elementary? You've seen the guest blog from there. Are they to just remain on hold while everyone else figures what's good for the higher purpose?

The longer an issue is on hold the less likely much earth shaking or important is going to really happen. We should've learnt that from the school boards by now. With time interest dwindles + momentum is lost. More + more business piles up. An effective opposition will diminish. Somebody is buying time. Yet I don't think this Brock affair just came from out of the blue in the first place. To whose advantage are further delays? Process is important but .....

The COP Presidents meeting is in November. AGM in spring. You went this route last year with the MOE ratification dispute. Now here you go again. Realize this action/ reaction strategy of finding loopholes to go through then letting everybody take a year to close them up can go on and on and on and on forever. Every year something new? Just a coincidence? I think not.

Once again the membership is still officially being kept in the dark about most of what has happened and is going on. Whatever happened to being transparent + improved communications? Still seems like a closed door elitist decision making process operating on a need to know basis. Are the teacher members too stupid to understand or be involved? Or maybe its too dangerous to say much? For whom + why?

Is this another case of only as small a group as possible of the member representatives knowing enough? They will make the important decisions then advise the members so they can rubberstamp it with the facts they are given once everything has been figured out for them? Is this another benevolent God the Father top down Catholic thing for the good of the sheep? Don't we have enough problems with that authority model all ready visa the church and boards without OECTA falling back onto it too?

The less an organization actively engages its grassroots the more cut off and insular it will be. The more unreal everything gets. Is this happening all ready this year?

I hope not for the good of the association. Edifices of power built on shaky ground will not last + when they fall they will bring everybody else down with them too. Please don't let that happen. The sense of efficacy, trust + respect for OECTA by its union professional members is all ready in very short supply.

Some folks get mad + don't like the open sharing of information + free discussions going on here on the blogsite. However, if the need didn't exist readers would not be coming here.

One can try to keep shutting down the complainers + so on in OECTA but that's only addressing the symptoms for now according to some best interests, not that of the association as a whole. It doesn't remedy the underlying weaknesses that are not going to go away by being dealt with on a self serving, superficial level or with that good old Catholic cure for all: denial.

I should think we all can do better than this. I know from my years of membership up until last June that we can, but quite frankly the prospects at present continue to look very grim indeed.

Solidarity in the good fight!

David C

Anonymous said...

Transparency and accountability are the buzzwords for all modern organizations these days. A good dose of Cahtolic behaviour (justice and fair treatment) would also be a good thing for our organization since it seems to be in very short supply in our union which uses Catholc in its title. We need to see some good things happening and some good people speaking out to restore the lost faith in our leadership. I'm glad to see that at least one union president is reassuring us that we do indeed have some decent leaders in the organization. I hope that they will see fit to rectify the glaring issue of injustice that is happening in OECTA right now!

Kent MacNeill said...

Above all else, we must remember what the third word in the acronym "OECTA" means...as Catholics, we are all called to fight for social justice in all areas of life. It matters not whether we like the person or people, it matters not what we think of their politics or mannerisms. Social Justice is a right of all people and we must seek it with the same vigour and unrelenting purpose for all.

Remember, all that evil needs to succeed in the world is for good people to do nothing.

If a process is fair, and by that fair process a verdict was obtained. And from that verdict a sensible penalty was imposed, then that would be socially just. HOWEVER, if the process followed was flawed, biased, and patently unfair, then nothing that came from it would be acceptable or just. Even good deeds, if brought about via bad means cannot be justified - the ends does not justify the means.

I truly hope that the light of truth can shine brightly on this entire saga and we can finally get back to our job of fighting the Boards and the Government instead of ourselves.

In Solidarity,
Kent MacNeill
President
OECTA Sudbury Elementary and Occasional Teachers Unit

Anonymous said...

Based upon the James Ryan email to all presidents last Wednesday the 18th, it seems to me that the wagons have been circled around leaving the Provincial Executive on the outside looking in. We all know the handbook does not allow an appeal of a verdict, but my God, if the process leading up to achieve the verdict is wrong then how can one be boxed in by the handbook when the verdict is null and void? An appeal isn't needed, it should just be nullified due to a bastardized and flawed process!

I don't get it! Were the Discipline Panel members "anointed or "appointed"? Couldn't the Provincial Executive reject some of the candidates or ask for additional candidates to be added?

The Discipline Panel should know the Handbook better than anyone. Aren't they the final arbitrator in convicting "violaters"? . Then they should've known the appointment process was flawed. Yet it would seem they stayed silent and felt they could deliver a verdict anyway.

Is it coincidental or convenient? Isn't it the great political past time that if you want to get one disaster off the news you create another disaster? We sure aren't focused on the next MofU!

I like this less the more and more I hear from provincial.

Anonymous said...

Justice delayed is justice denied. President Ryan should get some new lawyers who are not friends with anyone in OECTA provincial to revisit this "case". Neutral lawyers are a must as we saw what the OECTA "permanent" lawyers did to the rights of the ordinary members in the OLRB last year. Hire some new lawyers who can see this situation objectively for what it is. OECTA should be changing its lawyers every few years anyhow to spread all of our good money out to the legal community at large. not just one or two firms with friends in the organization!

Anonymous said...

Thank you Kent....so in the absence of any vocal opposition by the Provincial Executive as to how to fix this discipline process that answers to no one, let alone OECTA members,...an idea for action: Every OECTA Unit President should hold a unit-wide individual vote via ballot box on the following question:

DEAR OECTA UNIT MEMBERS :
"DO YOU WANT OECTA LEADERSHIP TO REPLACE THE CURRENT DISCIPLINE PROCESS WHICH CONTAINS NO APPEALS PROCESSES and ANSWERS TO NO ONE including dues paying OECTA MEMBERS?" Vote YES or NO.
This ballot box vote would show true democracy by allowing all members to vote, since OECTA still has no electronic voting for individual members like the other teachers' unions do.

Anonymous said...

Now we have two Presidents, Angelo Ippolito and Kent MacNeil coming forward. Where are the rest?

The discipline board met before they sent in the report to the PE. A previous poster laid it all out for us. Motions that violate the constitution or the by-laws are ALWAYS out of order.

A report was received from a board that 100% did not exist. They met because someone, without authorization to do so, called them in. The "motion" to accept the report , if it actually is there, is OUT of ORDER automatically and always. If a speaker says different he/she should be fired.There never was a discipline board last year and there still isn't a discipline today.

In other words something that we can call a nothing dismissed Richard Brock. You see where I am going, You got it. A "nothing" that was put together by someone with zero authority over these appointments has exercised great authority. So, the PE who has the authority, has handed over all their power to a "nothing". We are in a constitutional crisis because the PE has handed over the Handbook and the will of the AGM to this, again, nothing. The PE has set a precedent and now they have no power at all. I figure they have two maybe three weeks to get it back. If they don't, the best of interests of the members will mean nothing, the Handbook will mean nothing. The AGM will mean nothing. As far as the COP, there are so many there that are interested in their paycheck and personal advancement, that it became a tired group of yes people a long time ago.

There are a few strong people left. Can they turn this around? If you really care about your members it's time to step up.

Robert's Rules of Order

Four Motions that are always Out of Order
A Main Motion reflects the will of the members of the organization! However, the following 4 motions are never in order, even if adopted by a unanimous vote:
Motions which conflict with laws (federal, state, or local), or with bylaws, constitution, or rules of the organization;
Motions which present something already rejected during the same session, or conflict with a motion already adopted. (See Robert's sections on Rescind, Reconsider, and Amend Something Already Adopted);
Motions which conflict with or present substantially the same question as one which has been temporarily disposed of (meaning, Postponed, Laid on Table, Referred to Committee, or Being Reconsidered);
Motions which propose actions beyond the scope of the organization's bylaws.

These are right rom Robert's Rules. In our Handbook there is no provision or possibility of overriding a by-law or the constitution even if it is a unanimous vote. That is why we have the AGM. You go there and change if you don't like it. Until then you are mandated to follow the constitution and the by-laws ALL the time.

Angelo Ippolito and Kent Macneil, save us, please. Gather, the few strong people together and build whatever needs to be built to save OECTA. "If you build it they will come."

Sincerely,
Deeply Troubled and Scared,

Anonymous said...

I like that idea of a unit by unit referendum vote on the discipline process. Time for individual Oecta members to urge their Provincial Executive into acting and doing the right, transparent and accountable thing.

Anonymous said...

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

FREE RICHARD!

Anonymous said...

Hear, hear to the last comments. However Kent was not the author of the second last statement but it was someone that was present in the OLRB hearing last winter. Any guesses- they may have even been one of the Metro 7 who is totally fed up with rule by dictators and Stalinist purges!!!

Anonymous said...

“Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
Perhaps it is time for OECTA to fix its farm?

Anonymous said...

I agree with the "nothing" references. There is one more nothing point to make..

The Provincial Executive has turned itself into a powerless nothing. They did it to themselves. They listened when the great and powerful one spoke, they were charmed, and they believed. Now they are a nothing and OECTA is in a spiral of despair. All the while, the great and powerful one is laughing as he stokes his fires even higher, burning us all.

Provincial Executive's don't blame anyone but yourselves.

Free Richard and restore law and justice in OECTA. But, of course you can't do anything because you HAVE BEEN TOLD and you are nothing.

Anonymous said...

James Ryan was elected because of his anti-MOU process stance. We don't need continued dictates from Provincial. We need them to do what they were elected to do and clean up the post MOU mess and immediately make this union accountable to its members. Repeated humiliation and vilification of anti-MOU members will not be allowed anymore. Who wants to belong to a union that prides itself in treating valid dissenters that way?

Anonymous said...

James Ryan, Julie Pauletig, Ann Hawkins, Warren Grafton, Marcie Tombari, Chris Karuhanga, Elaine McMahon, and Andrew Donihee,

Do you realize where you are being led?

There were many who followed blindly deeper and deeper into the cavern trusting one person with control of the light. When they were passed many kilometres of turn, passages, curves, scalings, and drops, he who had the power turned it off and all were lost and in darkness.

They were trapped and there was nothing they could do. They sat in cold and damp waiting for death. Death was there only way out.

Some turned on each other waiting for death.

When all were dead, the one with control of the light, selected a new group and began to bring them into the cavern of wonder. Or so, he told them.

The selected ones thought they had the power so began their journey into the cavern.

Anonymous said...

Oecta members need to ask who benefitted from Napoleon's rise to power in Animal Farm. Then Oecta needs to be oink free.

Anonymous said...

Start emailing provincial and let them know you want a union to be proud of not embarrassed of.

Anonymous said...

No, better still, copy your favourite three or four posts from this blog, paste them into your email and then send it to provincial.

Send everyone you know the url to this page and ask them to get involved, no matter what side they are on.

http://tsu3rdvp.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-brock-dismissal-some-legal.html

David Chiarelli said...

Sure. Share the link. The more the better the discussion from all sides. However, I can absolutely assure you that provincial is all ready monitoring this blog site and sees all the comments. Maybe phone them up and tell them you are mad + not going to take it anymore? Hundreds if not thousands of callers? OECTA does work for you as a member whatever your rank or lack thereof.

Anonymous said...

We certainly need strong, accountable, and just leadership in this union as it seems to be total devoid of people who can lead properly and thereby garner membership respect and trust.

Anonymous said...

Our handbook/constitution appears to be toilet paper and our leaders are either corrupt or completely unable or too weak to deal with decision- making. Is it time to join a real union or discard unions altogether?

Anonymous said...

So do we have any answers yet? No.

We get it. OECTA is leaderless right now because they actually have no clue who is in charge. So let me tell you.

Dear Provincial Executives you are charged with protecting your members. It is you!!!!! You are in charge completely and wholly. That is what our constitution and by-laws say. A procedure can NEVER supercede a by-law or the constitution. Anyone telling you that it does or can, has no legal mind at all. This a no brainer for anyone that actually has a brain.

Richard was/is a due paying member. OECTA completely messed up and now it is going to cost us a mint. Protect your members and protect our money. That is why you are there. If you believe it is any other way, you don't know your authority and the rules under which OECTA operates. If legal counsel or anyone else tries to tell you something different, they are not telling you the truth.

David Chiarelli said...

I understand the James Ryan letter is out there somewhere in the public domain now. Could someone please gmail me a cleam wordfile copy of it I can cut & paste here so the plebs and I can readmit too? You will be Anon Amous to protect you from bullying.

Anonymous said...

I have seen the letter from James. It makes a case of appointment by forgetting to appoint. It also makes clear that the discipline board was not selected by the PE but in fact by someone else and that they even produced a report before the PE knew they were even in place.

This non-appointment, though serious, is only the beginning of the problems with this case. OECTA's mess ups run deep and wide. Sooner or later they will all dump out for everyone to see.

Anonymous said...

I sent the above to your email in its original PDF format. Check your email!

Anonymous said...

It looks like you are going to get the letter.

I have a number of concerns with it,.

1. The board met before the PE knew they existed and produced a report at that meeting. Who selected them? Who contacted them to set up this meeting?
2. The PE accepted a report from a non-existent board. The PE accepted a recommendation from a non-existent group. When something comes before the PE thast is contrary to by-laws or the constitution it is ALWAYS out of order. The two motions regarding the report were out of order. What can we do about this?
3. A procedure is being used to justify that there is nothing the PE can do. The rules that were not followed are in the by-laws and the consitution. By-laws and the constitution ALWAYS take precedence over procedures. The PE's power is in the by-laws and the constitution. By ignoring these and letting the procedure take precedence they have diminshed the handbook, themselves, and the AGM. Are we in a constitutional crisis?
4. There are six persons on the board. Why were there nine people at the meeting in February? If the board is to be independent why were there three people that work for OECTA at that meeting?
5. How can a report from a board that does not exist have any validity within the Association?
6. If the board actually existed, why did the PE pass a referral motion at their September 2013 meeting to BEGIN the process of setting one up?
7. Under whose authority were the six people at the February meeting selected and called to the meeting?
8. Since they met without being appointed everything after that would be out of order.
9. There is still no motion appointing the six people by name.
10. Appointment by inference is legally a non-starter because it confirms that they met without being duly constituted before that.
11. A very serious decision eventually came that dismissed a president. The rules were not followed and James' letter proves that they were not followed. You do not fire someone without all the rules being followed. OECTA would demand nothing less if a board did this to a teacher.

Anonymous said...

When is James Ryan going to send out a letter to all Oecta members about cleaning this whole mess up?

David Chiarelli said...

For convenience sake, and our erudition, please continue to add your comments on my Sept 27th blog. Thanks!

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!