Opening Statement



Monday, 18 November 2013

Ask Angelo: An OECTA Follow up Letter!



The truth might blow your mind!

Hello Readers!

A group of you has gotten together to submit the template below. It has been suggested OECTA members should sign and send a copy to the Provincial PE now during the course of the Richard Brock investigation, asking these questions and requesting a formal response. Many of the points that have been made in the recent Ask Angelo! [ Here ] + The Brock Dismissal: Some Legal Considerations  [ Here ] blogs have been included. You might choose to edit or focus on just a few, or make up your own questions that you would like answered too.

As an OECTA member you have a right to ask, and you are entitled to a response. Without a formal request, the PE is not required to take these issues into account as a part of the current proceedings, and all of our dicussions here could, for all intent purposes, add up to nothing but a lot of hot air. Talking the talk is not enough. It is necessary to take a stand and walk the walk too. Many of you have indeed stood up against the bullying within the union, including our own Mr. Brock. Unless others do so it will all be in vain. Please seriously consider the following. You can comment below this blog!

Yours,

David C

Post script:

The following email was received by OECTA President James Ryan + is respectfully included here for your erudition:

Dear Lawman:

I would request that if you have concerns to send them to me with your name or give me a phone call.

James Ryan

President

[Ed: For the Law Man's response please see the Comments below this blog.]

Continued: See Letter Template + possible references to include below:

To: Provincial Executives,
I have read the comments by “Law Man” on Angelo Ippolito’s Guest Blog.

I find them deserving of careful and due consideration.  I understand that Law Man is not a member of OECTA. I am sending these points made by him, as a member. I have three simple requests.

Please give all the points made in this email careful consideration as you move towards a decision regarding the Richard Brock discipline case and the circumstances surrounding that case.
Please respond if you agree or disagree with each comment Law Man makes.

Please respond with the reason you disagree for each comment that this applies to.
I find the comments below relevant to any deliberation that may lead to a decision. Since a member is currently being affected by the verdict of a disputed Discipline Board I respectfully ask for a response before you reach a decision. This would give me the opportunity to respond with any additional, appropriate, and relevant information that may assist as you deliberate on a decision that will have a very serious effect on the life and career of a long lasting member.
My name and email appear at the end of this letter.
Postings from Law Man

At your September meeting the PE passed a referral motion to set up a Discipline Board. The report on this motion is supposed to come back to you at your December meeting, This was done in public session of that PE meeting and the motion was sent out.

The Discipline Board members must be APPOINTED by by-law for a minimum of three years. Richard Brock had his hearing at the end of August. This motion was passed less than one month later. Actually it was just a few weeks.

You had to do this because there was no constituted and appointed Discipline Board in August when Richard Brock was fired.

There is no way a Board that has the power to fire someone can be put in place without Articles 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 in your Handbook being strictly adhered to. They were not.

The four areas where Robert's says motions are NEVER in order then fall into place. This has to happen so the will of the AGM in our Handbook can't be violated. That will was violated.
(Law Man)

1. At all times the essential question is what the parties intended by the language they used, viewed objectively, in the circumstances in which the agreement was made.

12-043 Intention of the parties. The task of ascertaining the intention of the parties must be approached objectively. The cardinal presumption is that the parties have intended what they have in fact said, so that their words must be construed as they stand.

12-046 The expression "construction" as applied to a document includes two things: first, the meaning of the words; and, secondly, their legal effect, or the effect which is to be given to them. Construction becomes a question of law as soon as the true meaning of the words in which an instrument has been expressed.

3.2.1 Parol Evidence Rule


As a general rule, where the language of a written contract is clear and unambiguous, then no extrinsic or “parol evidence” will be admitted.

Where a contract is ambiguous, however, and that ambiguity cannot be resolved contextually within the four corners of the contract, the court may suspend the parol evidence rule and allow extrinsic evidence to be admitted.

Where the language in a contract is clear and unambiguous, it alone can be looked at to ascertain the intent of the parties. Where, however the words are ambiguous, in the sense that they are susceptible of more than one meaning, evidence of the surrounding circumstances may be admitted, not to vary, add to, or contradict the terms of the contract, but to ENABLE the Court to read and construe the language in relation to the facts.

3.2.2 Doctrine of Contra Proferentum
Under the doctrine of contra proferentum ("against him who uses them") ambiguous words in a contract are to be interpreted in a way that is less advantageous to a drafting party.

As applied to OECTA. There is no ambiguity because by-laws always supersede procedures. Since by-laws are the enabling words under which a procedure can be implemented, absence of adherence to the by-laws make the procedure invalid. Not to do this would have the effect of having processes implemented without legal authority to do so. Articles 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 are not only clear but they support each other in their clarity. We can interpret this as quadra-clear. This creates an unambiguous contract with the members. This contract then has procedures that can only be enacted after these articles are fully complied with. In this case we already have written admission that the four articles were not followed and an implied admission that they were not followed due to the Discipline Board referral motion made at the September Provincial Executive meeting.

Taking into many other problems with OECTA's case: refusal to share the rules under which the accused would be tried with the accused, not letting witnesses testify, attendance by and participation by employees of the association both in meetings and the trial itself, correspondence with Discipline Board members before they were appointed (they still have not been appointed), having a perceived biased person chairing the hearing, plus much more leaves me no choice but to say that OECTA, based on legal grounds, cannot have their position upheld in a court of law unless they can convince the Annual General Meeting to agree that the PE has the power to disobey the very rules the AGM wrote thus making the Handbook nothing but a collection of pages without authority. If they cannot get the AGM to agree to this, then the supreme authority of the AGM stays, the Handbook is validated as the rules of the AGM, and the Provincial Executive is mandated to follow those rules. Staff as always fall under the authority of the Provincial Executive. Staff can never go contrary to the Constitution, by-laws, and policies of the Association. Staff must always follow procedures but only after the enabling motions following the bylaws have been passed. Staff can never implement a procedure without being authorized by a higher authority,

Sincerely,

Law Man
Mr Thoth,

I would like to add two questions to your list.

1. Is it true that that Richard Brock's was not given a copy of the rules he would be tried under when he requested them?

2. If a teacher was disciplined to the point of a two year suspension and OECTA found out that the rules required to reach that decision were completely disregarded and someone had set up the disciplinary process without any authority to do this, what would be OECTA's position and what actions would OECTA take?

I suggest that you put these two questions in a letter to the PE with all the other questions you have been asked. Request from them a response and then you will see what happens. You seem like a reasonable person and only want the truth like the rest of us. Ask for it.

Here are the other questions asked of you. Unless you are on the PE you will not be able to answer them. Doesn't it trouble you that these questions have been asked for months but the PE does not answer?

Mr. Thoth, if the chairperson was appointed after the February meeting of the Discipline Board, who chaired the meeting in February?

If it was a retired member, who appointed this person?

If it was not a retired member how is the Discipline Board supposed to be arms length?

Why were there three current workers for OECTA at the arms length meeting?

Who called the six retired members to this February meeting without any authority to do it?

Can an argument be made, that a union person would support, that would allow for the dismissal of a member without due process, all the rules being followed, and due authority being followed?
(Law Man)

Anon wrote:

Could the previous legal expert answer the question- do the Charter rights apply to Richard's tribunal since our Handbook is supposed to comply with the Law of the Land?

Response: I have already laid out much of the legal groundwork and expectations. To your queries, ALL laws of the land take precedence over the Handbook. I can see no legal grounds to support the dismissal of Richard Brock. OECTA has very good lawyers. If James Ryan has the good sense of meeting with them privately with only the elected executive, I am sure they will let him know the truth. OECTA has to be very careful that if strategies are developed to protect an individual or individuals, a cover up will ensue and then untruths will have to be developed to stabilize other untruths and so on and so on. Within the Association this may work but in a court of law it will be shown for what it is. Contempt of court is very serious and it will all be public.

Contract Law is just one area that is pertinent to this case. There is much more.

ie: To say that a meeting took place in February and you appointed the participants to that meeting after the fact (without even a motion to appoint them), would be admitting that someone called them to that February meeting without authority, and that would be torn apart in court. OECTA broke its contract with the members.This is a cross examiners dream and that is only one point. There are fourteen such points that I have found thus far and I have just started looking.

Beware of diversionary tactics. This is what always happens when one party has no case. OECTA will bring up issues and they may be factual but they will not have anything to do with the case. In court they will not be allowed but the members and the PE will be subjected to these diversions before they go to court.
(Law Man)

 This what a judge said about Mayor Rob Ford a year ago.

Judge: Ford actions "characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence...amounting to willful blindness."

So this is what a judge will say in a court case brought by Richard Brock.

Judge (projection): OECTA actions "characterized by ignorance of the law, their own rules and a lack of diligence...amounting to willful blindness and disregard for due process resulting in an unauthorized process leading to unjustified dismissal. Damages to complainant Richard Brock shall be $$$$$$ and his dismissal is reversed effective immediately. OECTA shall pay the complainants legal costs and all court costs. OECTA shall send a copy of this decision to all members of that association."

Law Man. David or Angelo what do you think?
To Anon that projected a judges possible words.

As I see it you will be right or close to it. If you check out my previous posts and others who seem to have a good understanding of the law, there seems to be no way out of this for OECTA. I love the Winston Churchill quote from Angelo.

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. [Winston Churchill]

Provincial Executive, you know it and "there it Is". No way around it.

Two more legal points.

Accepting a report and recommendation from a Discipline Board that never existed is a non-starter in a court of law because such action would mean that the Provincial Executive have delegated the duty to appoint to a staffer. Past practice would have no effect here as it would have to have been widely known among the members and the accused that the four areas of the constitution were not being followed. Secondly, dismissing someone by admitting the rules were not followed doesn't work in a court of law because the contract was broken without due notice. Thirdly, and most important, you cannot give notice to break a contract without the other side agreeing to it.There is no where in the Handbook that makes this possible. The AGM ONLY gives the right and duty to appoint to the PE. There is no ambiguity here. As I have written earlier it is quadra clear. A lawyer will have no problem having this argument dismissed because if it is not dismissed the PE would have to PROVE that they are a higher authority than the AGM. That is impossible.

It is not the role of the PE to make authorship/contributorship decisions or to arbitrate conflicts related to authorized authorship. ... All contributors (unconstituted Discipline Board) who do not meet the criteria for authorship cannot submit recommendations. The criteria (appointment motion for all six participants) for authorship must be met first. Here the right to authorship is dictated and made mandatory by four articles in the constitution and by-laws of OECTA.

David, I am not a member but you or another member should send this to the PE. Angelo, I understand you have already sent letters to the PE. It should be someone else so the PE know that others have figured this out.

Yours,

Law Man
Angelo wrote:

 Are you a labour lawyer? :)

Response: I leave that to speculation which is inadmissible in court.
More Legal Stuff
OECTA's bylaws are one of the most important, if not the most important, document there is relating to the organization. It contains the legal description of what the organization is, how it is organized and how it operates. More importantly, failure to follow the provisions of the bylaws can have devastating legal consequences for an organization and perhaps even for individual board members.

It is imperative that Board members know what the bylaws say and then work to ensure they are followed by the organization. As mentioned, bylaws are a legal document.
OECTA must ensure that the rights of the members are clearly delineated and that the rights are not being ignored or abused by the board. Boards have been known to have members sue them for violating their rights and/or benefits.
OECTA is one of the thousands of organizations whose bylaws adopt Roberts Rules of Order for the organization, you should understand that when you adopt Roberts, you have just added hundreds of pages of parliamentary minutia to your bylaws. In OECTA it is a constitutional requirement. There is nothing in the Handbook that overrides this in the case of bylaws 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51.

Adverse Actions. Boards occasionally face situations that call for adverse actions of some sort, including director or member removal. It is imperative that procedures and  the bylaws specify how such adverse actions will be conducted and how they will incorporate any due process required by your state. Then the organization must follow the bylaws specified. If not followed, bylaws create the basis of a legal challenge to actions taken. In OECTA they were not followed.
Remember that the first document an opposing attorney will ask for when attacking an organization’s actions or decisions are the bylaws. OECTA has found itself caught short by taking actions not in compliance with the bylaws.

OECTA's bylaws constitute legal requirements that cannot be waived or abrogated. They are a legal contract you signed and reaffirm every year with all your members. Yet you broke that contract.
(Law Man)

 I wrote: OECTA's bylaws constitute legal requirements that cannot be waived or abrogated. They are a legal contract you signed and reaffirm every year with all your members. Yet you broke that contract.

When James Ryan wrote the letter to COP he stated that it is legal counsel's "belief" that by accepting the report from the February meeting of a non-constituted group that group became constituted.

Well, legally this makes no sense. If the Executive makes this argument in court they will have to admit that an unauthorized person appointed the participants to that February meeting. Once this occurs that meeting would be declared invalid and EVERYTHING they did at that meeting would be have no legal weight. The Executive, can't before or after the fact, delegate their duties under 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51. It is very simply not allowed.

Note that in the letter James sent to the COP he does not say that the Provincial Executive agrees with this "belief". In a court of law it could not stand because it would require that OECTA take a position where any staff person can call a meeting in direct opposition to the by-laws and it would sanctioned. That would make the Board of Directors (the PE) subordinate to staff. This, legally, is impossible under OECTA's own rules.

Angelo wrote a response where he explained how a report and legal opinion was ruled out of order by the delegates of the AGM. The AGM sent a message. It was, "follow the rules to procure any report or the report does not exist." The basis for this lies in line of authority. You cannot proceed with an action if that action is in non-compliance with the direct orders of a higher authority. Here the direct orders are found in 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51. Ignorance is not a valid legal argument. The PE cannot say that they broke the contract because they were not aware of their duties under 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51.

That being said, justice must always be fair, unbiased, follow due process, and respect ALL contractual agreements. I have now found 34 areas in this case where these legal requirements and others were not met. I have already stated many of them. OECTA's legal counsel has probably found more.

A staff person represented the complainants at the August hearing. If that hearing was audio taped it will also come out. Beware, words can be devastating when they are presented in a court of law. I hope everyone was very careful if that hearing was taped. Staff is especially vulnerable depending on what was said.

What does the letter calling the six participants to the February meeting say about their appointment when we already know, in writing, they were never appointed? Who signed/sent this notification letter? Who authorized the sending of notice to meet in February? What effect does this have on the arms length requirement? There are hundreds of questions like this as you move through the case.

Stay tuned. There is more to come.

Law Man
Dear Anonymous,

My responses follow your questions.

Q. When the PE became aware that 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 were not complied with what legal responsibility fell on them to act?
A. Under 2.51 they are legally required to act in accordance with the Handbook. Once they found out, they would have had to take measures to make sure they were all followed, Since they were not everything that came afterwards, would have had to be declared invalid. Not doing this put them in non-compliance with 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51.

 Q. Three members of the PE including the current president were witnesses on Richard Brock's defence who were not given the opportunity to testify at the August hearing. In court they have to tell the truth. What happens when the testify?
A. Since they were witnesses for the defence it can't be helpful to the OECTA case.

 Q. If it is found that appointments were made by a staff person in non-compliance to the by-laws for any meeting what consequences could that staff person face?
A,  As board of directors, the PE would need to determine this. Since their own authority and the authority of the AGM would be on the line, they would need to take this very seriously. It also would open up a personal law suit against such a staff member.

Q. Is OECTA liable for insubordinate actions by a staff person?
A. Yes because the PE are legally required to know the bylaws and follow them. Ignorance is ignorant and it works against the Association. A good lawyer would never put an argument of ignorance especially when there are nine people on the elected PE plus the General Secretary and the Deputy General Secretary who are all required to know the rules.

 Q. If the Provincial Executive say that past practice is being followed and that Discipline Board was not appointed by motion for a long time, will this stand up in court? It is my understanding that past practice must be well known and in this case it was not. It is also my understanding that an illegal practice cannot be used to discipline and remove someone from office no matter what. Am I correct?
A. You are correct. Past practice has no legal weight in this case for the two reasons you mention. In addition not following the law for a time does not mean you can still decide not follow the law. You may speed in your car for many years and never get caught but when you do you can't say that you have been doing this for years and never had a problem so now it is OK. It just does not hold legal weight especially when not following the rules results in a such a serious verdict. A court of law will not give this any credence at all.

Q. If the by-laws are a contract with the members, whose duty is it to make sure that contract is followed?
A. It is the legal duty of the PE.

I hope this helps.Law Man
Anonymous wrote:

For one point, I disagree with you about past practice. If there was a long standing practice where the PE and the members knew the bylaws were not being followed, then the non-appointment of the discipline board would be accepted in a court of law.

Response: You are 100% legally incorrect. First of all it was not well known by the members. I am not sure about the PE. But imagine the PE knowingly not following the bylaws. That would make the OECTA case even weaker than it already it is.

However those are not the most pertinent points.

First the bylaws are a contract with all the members. Therefore it was and is a contract with Richard Brock. In a normal contract it could only be changed by mutual consent. The GS would have to had informed Richard Brock that the bylaws were not being followed and Mr. Brock would have had to agree to this, if this was a normal contract but it isn't. See article 2.1. in this case ONLY the AGM can make changes to the contractual requirements found in the bylaws, So, legally everyone is bound by the clear and unambiguous words in 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51. Past practice cannot be relied on as justification for breaking the law.

A secret past practice would be used against OECTA with great effect if it went to court. That would amount to breaking the law with knowledge and intent. The award to Richard Brock just increased dramatically and every Provincial Executive would probably lose their next election if this came out.

Law Man
The PE is required to know the scope of the corporation's mandate, as defined by its corporate documents, and that the corporation is required to restrict its activities to that mandate. Directors are not allowed to act in noncompliance with these documents.

The PE is required to know in what specific ways liability may arise for claims of injurious conduct. They are required to know that negligent mismanagement can result in legal actions arising out of non-compliance with bylaws.


Has a review been prepared, either internally or though seeking external legal advice, identifying regulatory and internal requirements that the corporation is required to meet?

Questions the PE should ask themselves.

Do the organization's current activities reflect its corporate objectives as set out in its incorporating documents and duly passed bylaws?

Does the corporation carry out its obligations under the corporate bylaws?

Does the board have a process for authorizing procedures entered into by the corporation?

Is the corporation fulfilling all of its statutory obligations, such as filing mandatory reports and ensuring that reports that are received have followed the obligatory authorization?

If the corporation is non profit, is it taking precautions to ensure the proper investment of funds and not putting the corporation at financial risk?

Is it complying with applicable laws regulating its activities?

When I am unable to attend a board meeting, do I read the minutes of the meeting and voice any concerns I may have?

Do I voice my opposition to matters that I disagree with and make sure that my objections are recorded in the minutes of the meeting?
 
Have I read and understood the corporation's constitution or letters patent and bylaws and follow the mandate?

Do I understand all of the corporation's legal obligations?

Do I understand the special legal liabilities that both I and the corporation face when bylaws are not followed?

Liability for lack of corporate authority


Directors acting outside the scope of their authority as defined by the letters patent, supplementary letters patent, bylaws, or other governing documents of the corporation are personally responsible for any decisions or actions they take. This liability may arise owing to lack of compliance with internal bylaws, constitutions, statutes, contracts, torts or the common law. Effectively, the directors are considered to have taken the decision(s) or action(s) as individuals rather than as a corporate body, so the 'corporate shield' does not apply. It is seen as a personal decision if a director does not comply with bylaws they are required to know and act in accordance with.
Law man

Law Man said...
If you defame someone, one possible way to resolve the problem is to publish a retraction.

Directors who breach any of their duties to the corporation, may be liable if the corporation suffers a loss that can be directly attributed to their actions or omissions. To protect themselves from such liability, directors should always consider whether the decision(s) or action(s) being taken are in accordance with bylaws and in the best interests of the corporation. They must discharge their duties of skill and diligence, as well their duty of loyalty, including acting honestly and in good faith, not improperly delegating their responsibilities, and avoiding conflicts of interest.
Most of the legislation imposing liability on directors does not actually define who is a 'director.' Individuals who are acting in the capacity of directors - de facto directors - but who may not have actually been elected as such may nonetheless be exposed to directors' liability. This could include those serving as de facto directors, ex-officio directors, those dubbed 'honorary' directors and those sitting on an executive committee or otherwise acting as part of a group managing the corporation's affairs, no matter what it is called. If these individuals act like directors, they can attract the liability of directors.

When there is an obligation to constitute authority, this requirement must be met before any authority can be assumed or transferred. In OECTA a Discipline Board cannot have even the authority to meet without first receiving the proper enabling motion from the Board of Directors. Without such duly procured authority, no group would have any legal standing to do anything within the association. Everything that occurred in the absence of authorized recognition of authority with the proper motions required by by-laws, would be inadmissible in any subsequent function of the association and out of order. They would not be admitted for consideration in a court of law because any reports or recommendations from the February meeting were reached without the Board of Directors releasing the required authority to the participants. A court would see this as non-compliance with a written contract with the accused.
Law Man

If the OECTA lawyers have figured out everything you have posted and informed the Provincial Executive we have a very serious problem.
Response:
The PE have a very serious problem that will only be solved by protecting the AGM and by-laws they wrote, In other words, to protect themselves they must hold accountable those who acted without authority and reverse the Richard Brock decision. There is no escaping this. They know it, but they must be terrified because the truth will show that they were wrong and their own authority was disregarded by an inferior authority. Once they come to the inevitable truth then they would have to deal with insubordination. That is why this is taking so long,
In court, all will come out and then they would have to deal with it anyway but then they would also have to deal with a political revolution at the AGM.

It is much smarter from a legal point of view to fess up and deal with it now. A public court case will be devastating for the Board of Directors of the Association and senior management.
From the Canada Corporation Act part II

The powers of the board of directors to manage the corporation.
The by-laws must indicate that the board of directors has the power to manage the corporation.

(The PE is the Board of Directors. Note the word "must". The General Secretary does not and cannot have power over the Board. Law Man)
The by-laws may specifically exclude and retain certain powers for exercise by the membership at a general meeting.

(In OECTA it is specified that ONLY the AGM can change bylaws. The PE must ONLY follow the bylaws and they MUST do it all the time because of this specification.)
Something went, legally, very wrong in OECTA and the PE is afraid to confront it for understandable but non-defensible reasons. In court there will be no sympathy for what they did as well as no defence.

Law Man
Law Man said...

Anonymous wrote: Angelo and Law Man, does a staff person have the right to sign it if the local does not want to sign it?
Response: Yes, but only under very specific requirements. A staff person has no authority to do anything, including the signing of a local agreement under your own rules and the law of the land unless it is granted to them by the Board of Directors or the AGM.

Under your own rules, the Board of Directors or the AGM can grant signing authority of a local agreement to the staff person. In OECTA there are no such granting of authority in current existence. The Board of Directors have the right to take over a local by motion. They would have to do this before they or a staff person can sign anything in opposition of a local bargaining unit's position.
There also seems to be a very serious misconception. I will address it here. The Association is legally the bargaining agent. Only members of the association can exercise this authority to agency. Between AGM's this agency is in the purvey of the PE but it must be wielded in compliance with 2.51. The handbook has a detailed list of requirements on how to do this. They must be followed.

However, the AGM is a higher authority than the Board of Directors. When the AGM is in session they are the Bargaining Agent. The AGM can pass an Action Directive resolution by a simple majority and direct the PE to any action it wants in relation to the implementation of the Bargaining Agent designation. The rules as to notice or as to how it can be brought under new business must be followed. I would suggest that a number of Action Directives in regards to collective bargaining be written and sent in before November 29, 2013 to the provincial office.
The AGM is the bargaining agent and it only delegates this authority to the Board of Directors when it is not in session. Many persons seem not to have made this clear to them.

Staff are not the bargaining agent (and not even members of the bargaining unit) and under your own rules they can't be designated as the bargaining agent. They are workers hired to assist the bargaining agent in completing its work. They have a vital role but authority to act without approval of the appropriate political authorities is not part of their role and cannot be claimed as one of their rights.
Law Man

End of comments from Law Man

You can conclude your own letter to OECTA Provincial Executive as follows:
 
With deepest respect, I request a response from the full provincial executive. Like you I am only interested in truth, due process, rule of law, constituted authority and clarity that will lead to justice. By responding after discussing the comments of Law Man, movement towards unity and trust will be well served. I trust that I am seeking the same things you are.
Sincerely.
Your Name here/
Your email address too

COMMENTS:

95 comments:

Anonymous said...

Every OECTA member needs to read this. it should be required reading.

This very disconcerting.

Concerned in DP

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous said...
Angelo,

I understand that you are not comfortable with naming the third party investigator. That's understandable. Can you comment generally on the choice? ie. are you confident the party selected will produce an unbiased and complete report for the PE? Will the COP be informed/apprised of the findings of the investigators?

Response: The only thing for sure is that the Provincial Executive will get the full reports. No other assurances were made. If this ends up in court everything becomes public. My hope is that this all gets put to rest without going to court.

I suggest everyone to read the template letter on, http://tsu3rdvp.blogspot.ca/2013/11/ask-angelo-oecta-follow-up-project.html#comment-form to see why I feel this way.

We need to work together and all commit to truth, due process, and justice before a court tells us we have to do it anyway.

After reading all the posts on this blog, I believe we need to look at the discipline board process to see if it is even legal to begin with. We may have all wrong and illegal in our Handbook. As it now stands, the whole process needs to be studied to see if it ever any had a chance to withstand the scrutiny of a court.

We may have to rewrite the whole thing. No one has challenged it until now and that may be the very reason why it has escaped an inquiring mind. Well now it has been challenged and once that happened, it forced has forced us to a careful examination and probably some major revisions so it would even have a chance to withstand a court case.

However, now that we know, we can fix it on a go forward basis. We also are forced to accept whatever we did or did not do to meet our legal requirements. I just really feel it would be much better to do this out of court and not in it.

Going to court does not look like an option that will lead to unity and trust. Going to court does not look like it would be the fiscally responsible thing to do. If someone can prove that I am wrong about these two last statements, please let me know why and how.

Churchill said, "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

Let the truth out, whatever it is, and lets deal with it before it ends up in court. This is the best advice I can give the Provincial Executive.

I really like the love stuff.

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Law Man said...

The letter is very good but it is missing some key points from the previous page. I will repost them here if David allows it.

Law Man

Law Man said...

Anonymous said...
Talking about fairness, Law Man wrote:

First, the nature of the decision must be sufficiently administrative or quasi-judicial. Furthermore, the decisions must be final in nature, not preliminary or interlocutory.[26]
Second, the relationship between the (public) body and the individual must be based on an exercise of power in pursuant to a statute (or prerogative power). (In OECTA no power/authority has ever been granted to the discipline board)
Third, the decision must affect the claimant's rights, privileges or interests.[27

So:
1st test - Passed - The decision was final.
2nd test - Passed - The discipline had no authority or power granted to them pursuant to OECTA's own rules.
3rd test - Passed - Richard's rights, privileges, and interests were affected.

The duty and right to fairness has been satisfied and therefore Richard had a right to disclosure, discovery, and delay. All were denied to him.

A member wrote a ten page letter today giving notice to the PE of many, many legal problems. What I write here and what is in Law Man's last three posts are not included in that ten page letter.

It gets worse by the day for OECTA. We have to ask ourselves are our leaders under a self imposed rejection of the truth or is this being forced on them

PE, do your job, read everything on this blog and in all the letters you have been sent and stand up for the members and the AGM by doing the right thing "in accordance" with the Handbook and the law.

With deepest sincerity,

OECTA Activist

Law Man said...

Nemo iudex in causa sua (or nemo iudex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, no-one should be a judge in their own cause. It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. The rule is very strictly applied to any APPEARANCE of a possible bias, even IF there is actually none: "Justice must not only be done, but must be SEEN to be done".[1]

The legal effect of a breach of natural justice is normally to stop the proceedings and render any judgment invalid.

Note the word, "seen".

Law Man

Law Man said...

Ab Initio
[Latin, From the beginning; from the first act; from the inception.] An agreement is said to be "void ab initio" if it has at no time had any legal validity.

The illegality of the conduct or the revelation of the real facts makes the entire situation illegal ab initio (from the beginning), not just from the time the wrongful behavior occurs.

Please refer to my posts concerning the report and recommendations from the February meeting of a non-existent board.

What OECTA did was all illegal from the start and became increasingly illegal as it went on.

Law Man

Law Man said...

Content of Duty of Fairness: Baker Test
Baker v. Canada clarified administrative law in Canada in relation to both substantive matters (discretionary decision making) and procedural matters (procedural fairness). In OECTA the discipline board has no discretionary power to submit a report or a recommendation without the by-laws being invoked first.
The content of the duty of fairness depends on the type of right and the circumstances of the case. There are five factors that affect the content of this duty:[28]
The nature of the decision. It asks whether the decision is more for the purpose of resolving dispute, protecting individual rights or some other judicial purpose rather than a decision that balances many interests and primarily considers policy.
The importance of the interest at stake in the decision relative to other interests.
The Statutory (bylaws) scheme under which the decision is made. This primarily focuses on whether the decision is final and conclusive or if whether it is preliminary or if there is a right of appeal.(There is no right to appeal in OECTA which is illegal but that would not matter because the authorizing bylaws were not satisfied)
The legitimate expectations of the parties based on whether there were any representations by word or conduct that lead the parties to believe there was some type of procedural protection.
The procedural choices available to the ADM. The ADM must be accorded some deference to its practices and policies necessary to accomplish its mandate.
With respect to discretion, historically, the standard of review for discretionary decisions applied by the courts was that of correctness. However, this changed in Baker where the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the awkward line between questions of law and discretion. The court recognized that the 'pragmatic and functional' approach, as outlined in Pushpanathan, should be applied when looking at issues of discretion. In addition, courts are able to apply a standard of reasonableness to discretionary decision making. ( in OECTA there is no discretion not to follow the by-laws.)
Bias and Independence
Administrative tribunals must be free from an APPEARANCE of bias - that is, a reasonable person must conclude that an administrative decision-maker is sufficiently free of factors that could interfere with his or her ability to make impartial judgments (commonly known as the "reasonable apprehension of bias" test)[29] This is derived from the natural justice principle of nemo judex in sua causa, or the right to be judged impartially.
Independence is one important indicator of whether there is an appearance of bias in an administrative body. Although administrative independence is not required to be as strict as judicial independence, there are still certain minimum requirements such as security of tenure and independent administrative control.[30] However, administrative independence is not guaranteed under the constitution, and can be ousted by statutory language.[31]
Once a court has determined that there has been a REASONABLE apprehension of bias, the decision in question must be void ab initio, as there is no remedy for the damage created by the apprehension of bias.[32]

OECTA will lose in court.

Law Man

Law Man said...

”When a public or private authority had promised to follow a certain procedure, it is in the interest of good administration that it should act fairly and should implement its promise, so long as implementation does not interfere with its statutory duty."[18] In this way the courts have found procedural fairness through a promise by an ADM. .
The test is:[19][20]
An authority makes a promise, (to follow by-laws in OECTA)
That promise must be followed,
In respect to an interested person, and
They relied and acted upon that promise/ In OECTA they did not.
According to C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour),[21] if the promise is clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation as to a procedure then it creates a legitimate expectation. In OECTA there is a clear promise on how a discipline board receives authority.
Duty of fairness
The common law imposes a minimum duty of fairness in certain administrative proceedings.[22] The duty can only be invoked where the circumstances satisfy a threshold based on three factors set out by the Supreme Court in Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19.[23][24]
First, the nature of the decision must be sufficiently administrative or quasi-judicial. Furthermore, the decisions must be final in nature, not preliminary or interlocutory.[26]
Second, the relationship between the (public) body and the individual must be based on an exercise of power in pursuant to a statute (or prerogative power). (In OECTA no power/authority has ever been granted to the discipline board)
Third, the decision must affect the claimant's rights, privileges or interests.[27]
Where the circumstances satisfy the threshold test to invoke a duty of fairness a claimant will be entitled to certain participatory rights including pre-hearing rights, such as rights related notice, DISCOSURE, DISCOVERY, AND DELAY., as well as hearing rights, such as rights related to the form of hearing, counsel, examinations, and reasons for judgment. THESE WERE DENIED IN OECTA.

Law Man

Law Man said...

A judicial review allows for the court to consider the entire decision-making process, including the process, the findings of fact and of law. The power of judicial review is found either in the enabling statute or by virtue of the common law.[3] The common law powers are derived from the four original writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus.
Appeals are typically reviews for errors of law.
These powers are also frequently limited by privative clauses or finality clauses within the enabling statute. A privative clause will declare the ADMs decision is "final and conclusive" and/or that the ADM has "exclusive jurisdiction" over the matter, effectively removing any power of review. As established in Crevier v. Quebec (1981), the Constitution requires that the courts be able to supervise errors of ADMs and so the legislature or private clause CANNOT completely oust them from that power, nor can an ADM completely replace a Superior Court.
Substantive review

The decision and the evidence are reviewed based on the appropriate standard of review for the circumstances.
Determining the standard of review is a particularly contextual process and can vary based on the type of ADM or even the specific matter at issue. The modern method to determine the standard of review used to be known as the "pragmatic and functional approach" and is now known simply as the "standard of review analysis".[4][5] Its purpose is to determine the amount of review that the legislature intended.[6][7]
The determination is made based on four contextual factors:
the presence or absence of a privative clause or statutory right of appeal;
the expertise of the tribunal relative to that of the reviewing court on the issue in question;
the purposes of the legislation and the provision in particular; and
the nature of the question - law, fact or mixed law and fact
None of the factors are determinative and will vary in significance based on the circumstances. Where deference was intended the courts will review the ADM on the basis of reasonableness. Where little or no deference is intended the ADM will be reviewed on a standard of correctness.
Standards of review
There are two standards of review available to courts, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick: reasonableness and correctness. A third standard of review, patent unreasonableness, was abolished in Dunsmuir.
Reasonableness
Reasonableness is the deferential standard that a court can give to an ADM. Where the decision is a matter of law, a mix of fact and law or a discretionary decision it is said that the decision is unreasonable where the decision is "not supported by any reasons that can stand up to a somewhat probing examination".[8] In other words, it is unreasonable where "there is no line of analysis within the given reasons that could reasonably lead the tribunal from the evidence before it to the conclusion at which it arrived."[9]
Correctness
Correctness is the LEAST deference that court can give an ADM. The court will give no deference at all and will judge the decision on the basis of whether it is correct in law. A court may substitute its own opinion for that of the ADM. Not following a clear contractual agreement is incorrect in law.
Certain matters have been held by the court to always warrant a correctness standard: questions of constitutional law and division of powers,[10][11] a "TRUE DETERMINATION OF AUTHORITY" (in determining whether an administrative decision-maker has properly exercised its authority granted under a statute),[12] questions of general law that are both of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise,[13] and questions regarding jurisdictional lines between two or more competing specialized tribunals.[14].

One more to come,

So OECTA will lose. This is in addition to everything else I have written, This is straight from wikipedia.

Law Man

Law Man said...

James Ryan has emailed me and asked me for my name or to call him.

It has to be a member not me. You now have everything you need. You just need to do it. Angelo, Kent, John. David, Kate, and and a few others can't be expected to defend you and OECTA all on their own.

Send the letter to the PE and request a response. A letter like this from even one member would prove that all the information was before the PE and then that letter can be used in court if they don't respond. Emails are forever. Not responding would strengthen a case showing a cover up which is very strong already. Members have rights. Use those rights.

The PE can end this before a court case very easily.

Law Man

Law Man said...

Directors acting outside the scope of their authority as defined by the letters patent, supplementary letters patent, bylaws, or other governing documents of the corporation are personally responsible for any decisions or actions they take. This liability may arise owing to lack of compliance with internal bylaws, constitutions, statutes, contracts, torts or the common law. Effectively, the directors are considered to have taken the decision(s) or action(s) as individuals rather than as a corporate body, so the 'corporate shield' does not apply. It is seen as a personal decision if a director does not choose to comply with bylaws they are required to know and act in accordance with.

Added comment: In OECTA this would include all the members of the voting and non-voting members of the provincial executive. OECTA has high caliber lawyers. This is well known in legal circles and OECTA legal counsel would have pointed this out to them.

Finally, cover ups are dealt with even more severely than the original non-compliance with the contract when that occurs.

Law Man

Law Man said...

Dismissal is when you end an employee’s contract. When dismissing staff, you must do it fairly.

There are different types of dismissal:

fair dismissal
unfair dismissal
constructive dismissal
wrongful dismissal
Fair and unfair dismissal
A dismissal is fair or unfair depending on:

your reason for it
how you act during the dismissal process
Constructive dismissal
This is when an employee resigns because you’ve breached their employment contract. This could be a single serious event or a series of less serious events.

An employee could claim constructive dismissal if you:

cut their wages without agreement
unlawfully demote them
allow them to be harassed, bullied or discriminated against
unfairly increase their workload
change the location of their workplace at short notice
make them work in dangerous conditions
A constructive dismissal isn’t necessarily unfair - but it would be very difficult for you to show that a breach of contract was fair.

A constructive dismissal might lead to a claim for wrongful dismissal.

Wrongful dismissal
This is where you break the terms of an employee’s contract in the dismissal process, eg dismissing someone without giving them proper notice or following the contractual agreement.

Wrongful dismissal isn’t the same as unfair dismissal.

If an employee thinks you’ve dismissed them unfairly, constructively or wrongfully, they can take you to court.

I agree with Angelo that court is not the best option for OECTA. The long letter above the comments plus the comments up to this point lay out why OECTA has no case. There are many more problems with OECTA;s dismissal of Richard Brock from his elected position. OECTA has very good lawyers and they probably have found 95% of them.

Richard Brock is a member by law. That is just one more point I am sure the OECTA legal Counsel have pointed out.

Angelo is correct is stating that everything in the Handbook relating to the discipline bylaws and procedures needs to be looked and reworked for the future.

However, the past is behind us. OECTA broke the law and a contract with Richard Brock and they got caught. I am 100% sure the Provincial Executive know this.

They are now putting in jeopardy their fiduciary duty.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

The glue that holds all relationships together,
including the relationship between the leader
and the led is trust and trust is based on integrity.


~ Brian Tracy

The best proof of love is trust.


~ Dr. Joyce Brother

"Trust is a business communication skill which, in combination with behavior, either works to build trust or destroy it.' L. Finkle

"Trust is the
easiest thing in
the world to loose,
and the hardest thing
in the world
to get back." R. Williams

"Your words must match what you do. In so many words, you need to show sincerity with your words." John Garret

"How do you build trust? Trust is earned when everyone's interests are considered and respected. Communication is the key to do this." Sheri Levit

"Trust is something that is difficult to establish. It is very fragile that needs to be taken care of. Once trust breaks or shatters into pieces, it is very difficult to rebuild it." K. Cunningham

"One error a trust-breaker makes when attempting to rebuild trust with another, is refusing to take full ownership for what they did. Learn not to blame, project, or minimize what you have done." Karen Wells

Take responsibility, accept the truth, take corrective action, and apologize. If the PE does this then and only then will trust and unity return without a court case.

Angelo seems to have hope. I am not so sure.

Concerned in DP

Anonymous said...

An adaptation from Gerard Manley Hopkins


OECTA, áre you gríeving
Over Goldengrove unleaving?
Leáves, líke the things of man, you
With your fresh thoughts care for, can you?
Áh! ás the heart grows older 5
It will come to such sights colder
By and by, nor spare a sigh
Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie;
And yet you wíll weep and know why.
Now no matter, child, the name: 10
Sórrow’s spríngs áre the same.
Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What heart heard of, ghost guessed:
It ís the blight we were born for,
It is OECTA you mourn for.

-- G.M. Hopkins

Concerned in DP

David Chiarelli said...

thanks for this! We have a good summary between the blog and the comments to continue our discussion here. The first Ask Ajngelo blog is getting kind of long and impractical to use as such.

Anonymous said...

Hope? I hope so but:

The Darkling Thrush

I leant upon a coppice gate
When Frost was spectre-gray,
And Winter's dregs made desolate
The weakening eye of day.
The tangled bine-stems scored the sky
Like strings of broken lyres,
And all mankind that haunted nigh
Had sought their household fires.

The land's sharp features seemed to be
The Century's corpse outleant,
His crypt the cloudy canopy,
The wind his death-lament.
The ancient pulse of germ and birth
Was shrunken hard and dry,
And every spirit upon earth
Seemed fevourless as I.

At once a voice arose among
The bleak twigs overhead
In a full-hearted evensong
Of joy illimited;
An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small,
In blast-beruffled plume,
Had chosen thus to fling his soul
Upon the growing gloom.

So little cause for carolings
Of such ecstatic sound
Was written on terrestrial things
Afar or nigh around,
That I could think there trembled through
His happy good-night air
Some blessed Hope, whereof he knew
And I was unaware.
By: Thomas Hardy

Angelo, where are you finding hope? I don't see it.

JM

Anonymous said...

To Law Man or Angelo,

If Richard Brock's case is indeed found to not have followed proper procedure, what happens with regards to any other OECTA member who may have been disciplined using the same incorrect procedures?

Angelo Ippolito said...

JM wrote: Angelo, where are you finding hope? I don't see it.

Response: This may sound corny but it is the truth. I believe in goodness. We have good people in leadership positions. We must always have hope that good will triumph. If we loose hope, we lose the will to fight for what is right. Hope is essential.

Either internally or in court justice will be served and all the truth will come out. I have hope.

Internally is far better than externally. The PE has a received a letter, from a member, outlining many of the pertinent areas that need to be investigated and many of the questions that need to be answered. Law Man has added what may have been missing, in that letter, on this blog. The PE have everything they need to conduct a proper investigation and make a determination. We have good people there.

Instead of losing hope, you should send your own letter to the PE. One person can make all the difference,

Great poem!

I have hope.

Anonymous said...

Angelo, how can we get more members to read this blog?

Law Man makes such a great case. As I read it, it seems water proof. Are our PE members stupid?

Since it is our money, how can we let the PE know that we are very unhappy when they are evidently prepared to waste it?

Can we reduce the fees we pay at the next AGM?

Are you prepared to run against Ann Hawkins at the next AGM?

You speak so often about truth and courage. These are sadly missing right now. We need you now.

James has always been known as one who had a strong sense of what is right so what is going on? Is he ignoring the facts or has he been locked into a position where he must ignore the facts? In court he will have all those truths put in front of him and OECTA will get slaughtered. Doesn't he see this?

There are three quotes that should be the mottoes of this blog along with a quote from you.

Churchill said, "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"Trust is something that is difficult to establish. It is very fragile that needs to be taken care of. Once trust breaks or shatters into pieces, it is very difficult to rebuild it." K. Cunningham

"One error a trust-breaker makes when attempting to rebuild trust with another, is refusing to take full ownership for what they did. Learn not to blame, project, or minimize what you have done." Karen Wells

"Silence is the Enemy of Both Truth and Justice."
Angelo Ippolito

Concerned in DP.

Anonymous said...

OECTA MOU deal with the devil hits a roadblock.

November 2013

Dear OECTA Member,
It may be hard for you to believe, but the struggle to implement agreements reached by OECTA with the
provincial government in 2012 and early 2013 is still going on in some parts of the province.
You may not have encountered any problems in your unit. It’s possible that your board administrators
respect your professional judgment when it comes to testing. Perhaps occasional teachers in your unit
are appropriately interviewed, their credentials and experience evaluated and their applications for LTO
positions treated with seriousness. And maybe your colleagues are benefiting from longer maternity
leave, for example. If that is the case, your board officials deserve to be congratulated. Unfortunately, this
is not the situation in all boards.
Since July 2012 we have witnessed two main trends.
Some boards have adopted a positive, respectful attitude towards OECTA’s settlement with the provincial
government. These boards have implemented all aspects of the 2012 agreement and the 2013 Update to
that agreement and OECTA members are benefiting.
On the other hand, a large number of Catholic district school boards have refused to put the entire
agreement into effect. And because of this, many OECTA members are losing out when it comes to more
generous maternity leave provisions, transparent hiring of occasional teachers, sick leave, and more.
It is the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association (OCSTA) that has been orchestrating much of the
resistance to implementing our provincial agreement. On one hand, most boards have been quick to
implement claw-backs from teachers, for example, the end to retirement gratuities and sick leave banks.
On the other hand, most refuse to honour provisions that respect teachers’ professional judgment in
testing, and protections for occasional teachers. They must be shown this is fundamentally unfair.
We believe OCSTA is positioning itself for the new provincial bargaining system that will come into effect
if Bill 122, now working its way through the Ontario Legislature, becomes law. If that occurs, OCSTA will
benefit from unprecedented influence at a new provincial bargaining table. The trustees’ association
doesn’t like the 2012 agreement and would like to pretend it does not exist for the next round of
bargaining, expected to start early in 2014. This explains some of their actions in the past 12 months.
OECTA has attempted to correct boards’ damaging actions locally, and we have repeatedly urged the
Ministry of Education to pressure reluctant boards to show their good faith by acting on these
agreements. Responsibility for many of the problems we’re facing across the province must be laid at the
ministry’s door.
Because our efforts have not produced the desired results, OECTA is committed to taking whatever
action is needed to compel local school boards to abide by the collective agreement, which is, after all,
law. To this end local bargaining units will be engaging in action that we hope will convince the offending
school boards to change their ways.
As a sign of OECTA’s commitment to these efforts, our Provincial Executive has authorized significant
financial and practical support of local actions. One example, working with local bargaining units the
provincial Association is producing a comprehensive version of every collective agreement, including
local understandings currently in effect, so that all members have that tool in order to evaluate their
employer’s faithfulness in implementation.


Your local bargaining unit will provide you with more information on their plans as these are developed.
Sincerely,
James Ryan
President


Law Man said...

Angelo,

You are getting some very good literature on your blog. It even fits with the issues at hand. You may want to explain the connection among the two poems and what OECTA is going through. I am sure the members at large understand but it is not so clear when it comes to the Board of Directors.

Has Richard sent notice to the PE that he is going to court? Nothing is going to happen until they get that notice. It is a normal strategy to do nothing until you have to. This should be done today, if it has not already been done.

Everything will change once they receive this, The letters they have received plus what is in this blog is undeniable in court. I am very confident they don't want to go to court but they will only be forced to confront that eventuality once Richard Brock's legal counsel gives notice. They will not do it before because they are counting on Richard not having the financial resources to challenge them. This is how the BIG side always tries to shut down the LITTLE side.

In this case the little side has everything in its corner. It is in black and white and OECTA’s legal counsels are very smart people.

Going to court would be an abrogation of the PE's fiduciary duty. If they throw away your money, well it's your money and you can hold them accountable. Since it is your money, going into confidential session to throw it away would constitute a serious infraction against your best interests. They would have to do this publicly and outline the reasons why they are doing it. Since bylaws and duties would not have been complied with, each PE member (voting and non-voting members of the Board of Directors) would be seen by a court as acting as individuals and thus be individually accountable. A recorded and public vote in open session would possibly shield those who follow the rules and comply with their duties. Any member has the right to attend meetings of the Board of Directors (the PE).

Law Man

Anonymous said...

JM quoted Thomas Hardy:

An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small,
In blast-beruffled plume,
Had chosen thus to fling his soul
Upon the growing gloom.

If you are referring to Angelo, at least he has the guts to fling his soul. I remember when he ran for Provincial Office he told us us that what you see is what you get and that his heart was on his sleeve. His first speech received a standing ovation from the AGM delegates. I don't think that ever happened before or after.

The Gerard Manley Hopkins poem is about confronting one's own death.

Here is something else that cuts to the chase.

Lost trust

The words you spoke meant to injure me, and with the same smile you call me a friend? The hurt of knowing your words have all been useless lies…Once turned to for support now knowing it was a joke. The mess of your friendship, the lack of your trust. Can I speak to you as if it hadn’t occurred? Can I forget that inside you think of how to destroy me? The illusion I allowed to remain for so long….The illusion that you were a friend and deeply cared of my existence. The absence of that illusion turns my mind to disgust. The new found truth of your intentions of disaster. Your hope for my failure while at the same time I hope for your success. Many words I have spoken to relieve those who had a clouded opinion of you…only now I see they knew the truth while I was the one who was blind. The rose colored glasses are lost and a new view is gained…The view of a girl who whispers in the dark your secrets meaning to destroy your happiness and cause you pain. Yet you still remain clueless to the obvious issue at hand..you search for a reason for this madness only to find the bridges are gone…the path has been blocked, no entrance permitted to gain wisdom of my interests…no chance allowed for you to access my inner soul and whisper again my secrets…Again I look at you and cry because a friend who became an enemy in one breath still yearns for peace.
Jessica A. Kelly

Angelo come back to us. I am also falling in love.

Sincerely,
M ( I thought Kevin should have one the election last year but now I am happy he did not.) ( James has not proven himself either.)

Anonymous said...

2.188 and 2.188.2 - Any member of the Association is liable to a complaint under 4.136 to 4.151 who: .... advocates the contravention of established policy before seeking to change such policy through established Association channels.

The PE cannot even ADVOCATE a case showing they do not have to follow 1.10. 2.51. 2.51.15, and 2.193. The minute they try to do this, you can add 2.188.2 to the many contraventions the Board of Directors have already committed.

This clause just adds one more clarification that the AGM gives no discretion to the PE when it comes to following their by-laws. They have to not only follow them all the time but they cannot even advocate not to follow them.

However, even if this clause was not there OECTA has absolutely no case. This clause shuts it down before it gets started. It stops them from even making a case to protect themselves.

PE, it is time to accept your responsibilities and act accordingly.

Angelo, you mentioned this article to me. Am I reading this clause correctly?



Law Man said...

Anonymous said...
2.188 and 2.188.2 - Any member of the Association is liable to a complaint under 4.136 to 4.151 who: .... advocates the contravention of established policy before seeking to change such policy through established Association channels.

The PE cannot even ADVOCATE a case showing they do not have to follow 1.10. 2.51. 2.51.15, and 2.193. The minute they try to do this, you can add 2.188.2 to the many contraventions the Board of Directors have already committed.

Response: I was hoping that this was one of the problems with OECTA's case that their legal counsel would not catch. It would have been great for them to see it for the first time at court.

However, it's now out. Dear members of the OECTA Board of Directors, it is over for your case. I believe it was over, "Ab Initio".

There are still a few very serious problems with OECTA's case that no one has mentioned on this blog, yet.

Stay tuned.

Law Man

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous said...
2.188 and 2.188.2 - Any member of the Association is liable to a complaint under 4.136 to 4.151 who: .... advocates the contravention of established policy before seeking to change such policy through established Association channels.

Response: In order to advocate for the non-compliance of any bylaw or policy in the handbook, the PE must first seek to change it through the AGM (That is the only body that can change it.). If this did not occur in this case, then 2.188.2 would have been contravened from the moment the PE knew that they had not passed a motion appointing the six members of the Discipline Board and tried to say they did not have to do this.

On a go forward basis, the PE cannot advocate that they have any right to not follow a bylaw until they first seek to change it at the AGM. For this case it would be too late.

None of this is new.

Angelo Ippolito

Anonymous said...

Earlier, someone posted that by having 1.10 in our constitution, OECTA effectively added hundreds of requirements to our bylaws. This is not true. Since it is in the constitution it effectively adds hundreds of requirements to the CONSTITUTION.

Anything that came from the non-appointed and non-existent February meeting of a bunch of people who had no authority to do anything is absolutely 100% out of order and it is so, CONSTITUTIONALLY.

Good luck OECTA.

Anonymous said...

Let's add this.

If the participants to the February meeting were called/approached by the General Secretary to attend that meeting we have still another problem.

The DB is supposed to be arms length and independent. If the GS called them to be on the board, then the same person who refers cases to them. called them in. That destroys any sense of independence.

It looks like it was a biased and a concerted effort to destroy Richard Brock from the start or at the very least not independent.

Apparently, there was a letter soliciting complainants against Richard Brock from one the complainants. Intent to destroy, it sure looks like it. I was told it started in the London Unit.

No matter. OECTA has no defense no matter how you look at it. The letter at the top of this page plus everything else Law Man and others have written here CONSTITUTE an air tight case for Richard Brock.

This all started with Kevin O'Dwyer and his LEADERSHIP. I hope the London Unit is reading this blog.

David, can you send this link to London OECTA,

http://tsu3rdvp.blogspot.ca/2013/11/ask-angelo-oecta-follow-up-project.html#comment-form,

and ask them if they would be willing to be interviewed, after they have read it. It would be great to hear what they have to say now that they know the PE sacrificed their solemn vow to the AGM and thus acted in contravention of the bylaws/interest of the Association in putting a member out to hang and are now acting against their fiduciary duty to all the members including those in London.

OECTA London can be contacted at:

Telephone: 519-667-0842 or 1-888-336-3344
Fax: 519-667-9938

Email: oecta.london@on.aibn.com

Yours,

Concerned in DP

David Chiarelli said...

You can interview them and post as a guest blog!

Anonymous said...

David
The petition is still a go on line
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/oecta-executive-reinstate-richard-brock
People who have not signed can still do so. There is also a nice comment section if they wish to have their say.
PS

Anonymous said...

I heard that on Thursday evening, November 21, Ann Hawkins said that the members have to let OECTA know what we are willing to give up in this next round of negotiations. Apparently, she said this in front of around 100 members.

After everything we gave up in the last MOU, we are not prepared to give anything else up. Don't even ask us what we want to give up.

Angelo, is it true that Ann Hawkins said this?

David Chiarelli said...

Hmmm. It could be insightful to know who is on this years Oecta CB team, cross reference the names with their position on last years MOU! Can anyone tell us who they are?

Anonymous said...

Posted on last executive minutes

Anonymous said...

5. Reps to Provincial Bargaining Team

Large - Barb Dobrowolski
Medium - Keith Boyd
Small - Louis Clausi
OT - Carlo Palermo

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous wrote: I heard that on Thursday evening, November 21, Ann Hawkins said that the members have to let OECTA know what we are willing to give up in this next round of negotiations. Apparently, she said this in front of around 100 members.

After everything we gave up in the last MOU, we are not prepared to give anything else up. Don't even ask us what we want to give up.

Angelo, is it true that Ann Hawkins said this?

Response: It is my understanding that she did say this. It was the central Ontario regional (GTA Area Plus units close by). You may want to ask someone from that area to confirm.

The Handbook does still say status quo plus for Collective bargaining so I do not know where this is coming from. I hope there is no plan to reduce our benefits through a provincial benefit plan. We gave up enough last time.

In solidarity,

Angelo Ippolito

David Chiarelli said...

I twittered out some background archive links today to assist in this discussion. John Cafferky's guest blog on competing OECTA elites. Mine on OECTA Neo realism, the July 5th 2012 MOU + an OECTA Vichy Mentality. Public info on voting records for past + present OECTA PE's and last last years COP too. You can receive or review my tweets via my Twitter hashtag #davidchiarelli

Teacher free speech is above + well despite attacks past, present + no doubt in the future. As teachers we know you can't give into or appease bullies, wherever they might be, in the school yard, the government, even within our own unions.

Thanks to all who have contributed in our open forums, discussions + with guest blogs, especially here in our OECTA forum over the past year. Last fall the silence was deafening. You set an example for us all. This weekend was a blog milestones: 280,000 + reader visits.

Please continue to share my link in solidarity. As Catholic teachers we can make a difference!

Now, a question: who chooses the negotiating team and what are the procedures that should be followed?

Also, what are the status of "Association Interests" and "Collective Agreement" principles within the OECTA Handbook and Constitution? Could be useful to clarify.

Angelo Ippolito said...

David wrote:

Now, a question: who chooses the negotiating team and what are the procedures that should be followed?

Also, what are the status of "Association Interests" and "Collective Agreement" principles within the OECTA Handbook and Constitution? Could be useful to clarify.

Response: COP chose the COP representatives. The President and 1st VP are mandatory. The GS is mandatory non-voting. Other staff will be selected by the Provincial Office as required and they will also be non-voting.

The process to be followed in provincial bargaining are set in bylaws 2.51,25, 2.67 to 2.78.2, policies 3.19 to 3.42, and procedures 4.170 to 4.175. I advise that you read them carefully.

Note: 2.51.25 - It is required that the Provincial Executive, " to obtain the approval of the council of presidents in order to enter into any form of provincial bargaining." The word "any" is all encompassing. It would be my opinion that this includes any discussions leading to an agreement on provincial benefits and provincial LTD whenever they first come up or when they come up for renewal.

As far as Association Interests the AGM is the prime authority, No other body can override the decisions of the AGM. For collective bargaining, the Handbook says what it says and the systemic objectives are set by the COP. The CB Regionals are the first step towards setting those systemic objectives. Between AGM's the PE run the Association but must do it in accordance with the Handbook.

David Chiarelli said...

Thanks Angelo! It's good to know what the OECTA CB team selection + accountability procedures are, or rather, what they are supposed to be. 1st President Ann Hawkins recent statements [above] still quite frankly scare the living Bejessus out of me.

Readers might've noticed that President James Ryan personally responded to our Comments here to state that OECTA has no interest in Concession Bargaining. I trust James, I know he's one of the good guys in this story, but as for the rest of them?

Cheers/
Solidarity!

David C

David Chiarelli said...

OK I looked into the Ann Hawkins Concessions statement from last Thursday. Either, she told about 100 local units presidents + executive members to find out what concessions their members would be willing to make in this years contract talks. Or she asked them what were their priority items they'd least like to loose.

Dunno, either OECTA Provincial is in damage control mode or some of the listeners made a mistake.

We know Ann is a noteworthy social justice/ woman issues advocate. Also a MOU'er! This ones hard to call, but methinks its essential to remain eternally vigilant all year to anything coming out from our executives that doesn't sound quite right.

Anonymous said...

NO MORE CONCESSIONS FOR OECTA!

Anonymous said...

NO MORE CONCESSIONS!!!!!

Don't even ask us.

We will not be pulled by septum piercings to the slaughter so that a few may feast and gain from our demise. Those few walk among us. You know this is true. You know who you are. We know who you are.

Anonymous said...

No More Concessions

Angelo, what does the Handbook say about concession bargaining?

No More Concessions

Anonymous said...

Some insurance company will make a ton of money as we are handcuffed to provincial LTD and Benefit plans. They are and will be plans worse than what we had/have here locally.

James Ryan. what is OECTA gaining for persons or provincially while the rest of us lose? It is obvious, you are not doing to better the situation for our local members, so what is the real reason?

Suspicions are there and they are warranted.

Anonymous said...

Angelo you can disregard my previous question. I just found it.

3.13 - That the Association oppose the removal by school boards of those provisions in collective agreements which guarantee the rights, salaries, benefits and working conditions of the members.

In other words the Association must oppose anything that is less than what we already have. In the last round, OECTA proposed/agreed to, getting rid of accumulated sick days and retirement gratuities, forced LTD concessions on us, unpaid days (salary cut), deferral of grid advancement (salary cut), and retiree benefits in one area. This was in direct opposition of 3.13. Everyone who sat at that MOU table sacrificed us all by not acting in accordance with established Association policy. Angelo, when you and others asked if we were in concession bargaining they did not answer and actually misled us.

Now, benefits and the grid seem to be next on the chopping block. I remember a time when we stood up for ourselves. Are those times gone? Are we all puppets to the PE? Is the PE a puppet to staff?

Everyone who spoke at the MOU table to the agreement of the removal of contractual language guaranteeing the areas I stated earlier should do the right thing and leave OECTA. We can never trust them again.

Angelo, a while back you told me, that you believed, that the Short Term Disability Plan appended to our MOU was never brought to the PE or anyone else for a ratification vote.You said to me that the COP was told that their endorsement vote meant nothing before they voted. In our unit that plan, based on that appendix, has been a disaster. James, can you send out the motion where that appendix was ratified by the PE? If it does not exist, who chose to impose those requirements on us? Can you send out the PE motion that forces this imposition? I wish we had chosen the ETFO or the OSSTF plan.

Finally, 3.40 - That the Association disapproves of a teacher bargaining unit entering into ANY form of collective agreement that would have the effect of having ANY part of its collective agreement dependent upon the collective agreement of another teacher bargaining unit.

Well that is what the "me too" did to all the bargaining units. OSSTF and ETFO were handed junk and they were forced to build on JUNK. We then gained from there efforts. Those of you that were smart enough to choose the ETFO or OSSTF STDP. good for you. It is embarrassing but it should send a message that the OECTA plan is unacceptable. It certainly has turned into a nightmare here. On a go forward basis, me too clauses should be banned. They only hurt the good efforts of our brothers and sisters.

No More Concessions and let's show some willingness and courage to not be pushed around by external forces but much more important that we do not get pushed around and misled by internal forces.

Anonymous said...

David wrote: OK I looked into the Ann Hawkins Concessions statement from last Thursday. Either, she told about 100 local units presidents + executive members to find out what concessions their members would be willing to make in this years contract talks. Or she asked them what were their priority items they'd least like to loose.

David, I was there. She, without question, talked about our members letting the Provincial Office know what they are willing to give up. It probably was her personal opinion and not an Association position.

She said it and 100 people heard her. She has some serious explaining to do. She did not represent the position of the Association or the interests of the Association.

Anonymous said...

No one has written a very uncomfortable truth.

Last year, the MOU was ratified by a 5 to 3 vote. Kevin O'Dwyer did not vote but he did sign it.

So, Kevin O'Dwyer, Ann Hawkins. Warren Grafton, Andrew Donihee, and Jeremy Cox were in favour of the MOU.

Many lost Retirement Gratuities and suffered under a new provincial LTD plan.

Kevin O'Dwyer, Ann Hawkins, and Jeremy Cox are from Dufferin Peel and they suffered no loss of from the LTD provincial plan and they did not lose any retirement gratuities. The rest are paying for their/our continued gain.

Warren Grafton suffered no loss, being from Waterloo, in regards to retirement gratuity. Many did.

Andrew Donihee, being from Eastern, suffered no loss in regards to retirement gratuity and no loss in regards to LTD.

Everyone who supported the MOU, protected their own interests and their unit's interests at the expense of many. They did not care about the interests of the members throughout the province but acted in support of their personal interests.

This is what we are up against. Personal agendas are being put ahead of the members interests.

Richard was right all along and tried to save us and he was removed from elected office. I am sure they are searching for ways to get rid of Angelo.

They fear good people who have the courage to speak the truth. Angelo, are you prepared when they come after you?

Concerned in DP ( Despite my affiliation, I along with many here still hate the MOU and we are very concerned that our leadership is being controlled by the Provincial Office. Now they want us to plan to go on strike to defend their decision to take away our vote and force this MOU down the throats of all the members across Ontario. DP is being used against the rest of the province and I don't like it.)

Law Man said...

The Council of Presidents can direct the PE. (Article 2.61.14).

Any member of the COP may request a a double majority vote on any financial matter and on any procedure and it must be granted,
(Articles 2.64 and 2.64.1).

LTD and Benefits are financial matters and the Richard Brock decision was based on a procedure in direct opposition to three by-laws and the constitution.

COP can do this and require a double majority vote. COP is not completely innocent and the February COP is still to come. The PE can also refer decisions to the COP.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

Many lost Retirement Gratuities and suffered under a new provincial LTD plan.

Kevin O'Dwyer, Ann Hawkins, and Jeremy Cox are from Dufferin Peel and they suffered no loss of from the LTD provincial plan and they did not lose any retirement gratuities. The rest are paying for their/our continued gain.

Warren Grafton suffered no loss, being from Waterloo, in regards to retirement gratuity. Many did.

Andrew Donihee, being from Eastern, suffered no loss in regards to retirement gratuity and no loss in regards to LTD.

Everyone who supported the MOU, protected their own interests and their unit's interests at the expense of many. They did not care about the interests of the members throughout the province but acted in support of their personal interests.

My observation: It now makes perfect sense that Ann Hawkins wants us to consider what we are willing to give up. Last round she gave up almost nothing when compared to many of the rest of you.

Earlier, someone asked if Ann Hawkins was Catholic and if it is true that she supported removing the reference to Catholic teachers in our pledge. The poster also asked if she was on Kevin O'Dwyers campaign team including chairperson for many years and then she also sat on the personnel committee that hired Kevin. I have not seen an answer, however, I can tell you she is not Catholic, she wants to remove the reference to Catholic teachers in our pledge, she was the key player in many, many of Kevin's campaigns, and then she sat on personnel committee and hired him. You decide what this means. I have known Ann Hawkins for years and she will do whatever Kevin or OECTA Provincial tell her to do. She does not think independently. It has never been her style.

So when she said that we need to let OECTA know what we are willing to give up, that thought was placed in her head by someone else and she did not have the wisdom/good judgement to walk away from it.

Until a very short time ago. I was not aware that DP gave up so much less than everyone else. I also learned that London Unit gave up much less than everyone else. It makes perfect sense that London Unit started the process to get rid of Richard Brock.

It is all becoming clear now. The PE needs to wake up and take this Association back.

Concerned in DP #2

Anonymous said...

Concerned in DP wrote: ( Despite my affiliation, I along with many here still hate the MOU and we are very concerned that our leadership is being controlled by the Provincial Office. Now they want us to plan to go on strike to defend their decision to take away our vote and force this MOU down the throats of all the members across Ontario. DP is being used against the rest of the province and I don't like it.)

I am also from DP and like so many we are very unhappy with the MOU and we were very angry that our vote was taken away. No one should make the mistake that we are happy here. This stuff that many units suffered much more than Dufferin Peel and London, is completely new to me. This was never explained to the members at Dufferin Peel at large.

The members of Dufferin Peel believe in Union Solidarity and if this true, someone misled us and kept important information from us. There are a few of us talking in the staff room right now and we are not happy.

David Dolan and Peter MacDonald, learn how to say no. Be your own men and don't let yourselves be manipulated.

James Ryan, Marshal Jarvis, Ann Hawkins, and Kevin O'Dwyer back off and let local members in Dufferin Peel do our own thing. We are more than capable and we do not approve of undue pressure bordering on bullying.

Angelo, you defended all the leadership in OECTA. Are you going to defend the members of Dufferin Peel? Whatever has occurred, the members were kept in the dark.

Staff Room in DP

David Chiarelli said...

I can't see any strike or work actions to support the MOU being very popular or wildly supported, especially since the members did't ratify it and it made serious concessions to our contracts, sick days & gratuities. But where are the claims the members are going to asked to so coming from?

David Chiarelli said...

Sorry, I am writing this on my Ipad at Hero burger. I meant to write: where are the claims that members are going to be asked to do so coming from?

I might as well also ask, is this particular to DP unit? Does anybody have anything in writing?

David Chiarelli said...

Also worth noting: These open free speech forums are not unlike a big staffroom crossing the problem. If Angelo or anybody is threatened or reprimanded for participating please let us know. There is strength in numbers. It might be interesting to see if we could organize a protest outside Provincial office if its coming from there.

Angelo is very principled and only wants the truth, as are most of us!

David Chiarelli said...

Again mea culpa! I meant to say the open forums remind me of a big staffroom crossing the province. Now back to you readers & writers .... (PS Good burger & fries!)

Anonymous said...

All the DP Bargaining Units made a presentation to the Provincial Executive encouraging them to prepare for job actions across the province in defense of the OECTA MOU. Many Unit Presidents were on a conference call listening to the presentation. This was in public session.

Anonymous said...

I never knew how bad this was and is.

I was blind but now I see.

I was lost but now am found.

The PE is lost and does not know which way to go.

The PE is being advised on direction and the adviser is sending them down a wrong and dangerous road but they remain clueless.

We, on the other hand, understand, and that should send a chilling effect to the top echelons. We will not be fooled anymore.

No more concessions. No more hidden agendas.

NO MORE CONCESSIONS. Ann Hawkins, do you understand these three word?

Churchill said, "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

Anonymous said...

Concessions? How about conspiracy theories? Lots of them floating around DP it seems.

Reality Woman

Angelo Ippolito said...

Things have gotten very personal. I will not address these here. If you feel strongly, you need to write to the individuals,

Truth and justice remain important interests of the Association. I will continue to pursue these, wherever they may lead.

Angelo

Anonymous said...

Churchill said, "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

We need the truth out now. Those of us who do not want the MOU as part of our contract are being forced and I just don't get it. This seems to be all about Provincial bargaining, LTD, and benefits. In this scenario we lose. So who are the winners? Instead of improving our lot. we are forced into mediocrity.

Angelo, if the handbook says, "3.13 - That the Association OPPOSE the removal by school boards of those provisions in collective agreements which guarantee the rights, salaries, benefits and working conditions of the members.", then how did the PDT team give up stuff and told us only after the fact? Talk about going against the interests of the Association.

Did Kevin O'Dwyer know the meaning of the word "oppose"? Now, we are all aware that it is there and we know exactly what it means. I don't think they even bothered to check what the Handbook said either in negotiating the MOU or inj the Richard Brock case. Ignorance, that's the word I am looking for.

Ann Hawkins did say what was reported yesterday on this blog.

Concerned in the GTA

Anonymous said...

I am very worried about the lack of respect for the AGM that the PE is showing. They seem to have consciously decided to disregard their boss and the members.

There should be no guest speakers at this years AGM and the rules in our Handbook should be up for discussion and direction for HOURS. We need to set this straight because the PE is afraid to stand up for us.

James Ryan and PE's please make this happen.

Staff Room in DP

David Chiarelli said...

I wish you well in reforming the AGM and breathing some vitality into it again. Last year I found it was so tightly scripted it ended up being little more than a formality. The big decisions had been made before, and the time for the debate from the floor was minimal. A lot of units just vote in block anyway, and if you don't you won't come back.

BTAIM I agree with the earlier writer about the need to get involved. No doubt it will be a big job to reform and rebuild OECTA but it has to be done. I should think from the grassroots up if you want the union to be yours again.

As with most if not all of the teacher unions, truth be known, member apathy has allowed for a strong sense of entitlement among those who got involved long ago. They are use to calling the shots, know they can get away with it because most members are apathetic, indifferent, so they just keep them in the dark and feed them shit. Just like growing mushrooms. The bottom line is they want to maintain the status quo as they see it no matter how self serving or out of touch that may be.

OECTA was fortunate to have some excellent presidents during the 2000's. It needs a good shaking from the bottom up by a new generation of activists who are ready to step up to the no doubt difficult job of representing the interests of all the members today.

Otherwise the shit will just solidify and OECTA becomes a horrible mutated version of itself until somebody like a Hudak comes along to put it out of its misery. Hell Tim? The OLP is all ready laughing so hard they must be wetting their pants. Trustees too.

Ryan was quite happy to move on after his last term in office. I know he's not there for fame, glory and the money. Quite frankly I think he should stop playing tiddly winks with a lot of these idiots and step up to a real political life, with the NDP that's his roots. Suppose Coran screwed that option though. How to do it without looking like a sell out or that one is self serving?

It will be interesting to see what he can do for the good of OECTA to save it from itself before his term is up and turns his mind to better things. Right now though, must admit it looks bleak. And unless the association gets an injection of new blood and ideas soon, I hate to think what follows next with a lot of them who are ponied up for the job next. It could be all down hill from here folks.

Just my thoughts ....

David Chiarelli said...

One other thing: Public political figures and associations can be criticized, that's a part of a healthy democracy and free speech, as uncomfortable as it might sometimes be. However, I think it makes sense that Angelo is not here to address these personalities and specifics. He has been actively involved for many years in writing and developing the OECTA Constitution, so those are the questions he can address for us, as he has stated. Angelo operates by the principles of fairness and justice, and we are lucky to have him here.

Thanks Angelo + everybody else who is joining in our open forum!It's been far too long since we had these frank discussions in OECTA.

Solidarity!

David C

Angelo Ippolito said...

David, thanks for the opportunity to have this blog. The road is not long when we have good company. We need to work together to reach the goals we all share.

The AGM is above all others in hierarchy of authority. As long as the rules are followed the AGM can direct as it wishes. Know the process and bring things to the AGM. I am sure many resolutions have been sent in and more may come as late resolutions from the February COP. There is also also a process where action directives can be brought up under new business and the agenda can be changed by the appropriate vote so that they can be brought up earlier. If the form is ready to go before the agenda is accepted at the start of AGM, a motion to amend the Agenda so that particular Action Directives can be placed at a specific time is the easiest way to ensure they get to the floor. If it is done at this time, you only need a simple majority to amend the Agenda. After that, I believe it needs two thirds.

There will be forms at the AGM that have to be filled out. They will be there before we are called to order. You can probably get your hands on one the night before. You would write the Action Directive on this form and then you must (I believe) get at least twenty signatures from delegates representing at least five units. I may be a little off on these numbers. It is not the normal motion sheet. The area for the multiple signatures is right on the form. It is usually on longer paper.

Last year, Mario Bernardo and I used this form to get the donation to the Porter Airlines workers on the floor.

I hope I have explained this process clearly enough.

Take care,

Angelo

Anonymous said...

We are certainly going to have to take back our union at the AGM! Let's prove that the "C" in OECTA does not stand for Cowards. Let's also make it clear to the Liberal Party that teachers are not interested in a situation of Double Jeopardy- paying taxes in addition to paying our salary and benefits to subsidize government waste! Let's make it clear to provincial that teachers are not interested in writing the Ontario government's budget this round to the detriment of our" free and unfettered" collective bargaining rights and our salary and benefits!

David Chiarelli said...

Hello Angelo! Lawman! Could either/ both of you comment on the recent guest bloggers article on some more legal considerations about the Richard Brock Case?

Was OECTA PE's explanation on why it can't reverse the Disciplines Panels decision disingenuous as the author states?

Should OECTA Provincial have set aside the Brock decision pending an investigation into the Discipline Panel by laws + procedures with a report/ recommendations/ motions to then be submitted for approval at OECTA AGM 2013?

Law Man said...

Yes, it was disingenuous from the start. The PE abandoned their primary duty to the AGM and thus the Handbook. If it was done purposefully or not does not matter legally. The whole process will not withstand scrutiny, not just in this case but in general.

The PE acted without any authority to disregard their prime directives. The Discipline Board never had any authority to do anything, not even to meet.

LawMan

Anonymous said...

Angelo I have to go to a dinner party on Sunday night. Is it better to bring a bottle of Merlot or a bottle of Malbec?

Anonymous said...

It seems that the PE is more interested in preserving an unjust system rather than doing the right and lawful thing.

How can they sleep at night? They probably can't because they are sleeping on the job all day. Well at least the released ones are every day and the rest when they attend meetings.

Anonymous said...

Angelo, have the two investigative reports been received by the PE?

Were they written by an independent and objective party with no affiliation with OECTA?

Can the AGM direct the PE to follow the bylaws and reinstate Richard Brock?

Can the PE disregard the will of the AGM?

Is James afraid of staff?

Concerned in Toronto

Anonymous said...

Why are the PE afraid of the word tender when it come to LTD? Why did my premiums increase dramatically? Why did nothing happen to Dufferin Peel in regards to LTD and gratuities? Am I paying for them? Why did London ask others to join in persecuting Richard Brock?

Why was the worst president in the history OECTA rewarded? Who is really in control at the top? Does the Handbook mean anything?

Are there deals and written agreements we should know about?

Who called the participants to the February 2012 (discipline board) meeting? Who authorized this calling?????

Why should we have any trust in our PE and top management?

Does James have a sense of what is right and just? Does James have the courage to call management to task and put them in their place?

Why is Kevin O'Dwyer even allowed to come near anything regarding collective bargaining after he gave away the store and got nothing in return? Why did Kevin O'Dwyer sacrifice almost nothing when compared to others? Why was Kevin O'Dwyer given a huge raise after selling the members out and destroying OECTA? Who were Kevin's accomplices in destroying the interests and rights of the MEMBERS?

These are just a few questions we all need to ask.

James Ryan, and not Angelo or Law Man, needs to step up and answer them.

JM

David Chiarelli said...

I am pretty sure that there are those at OECTA who would rather delay this as long as they can in hopes that Richard Brock will just fuck off and go away. Retire. Give up. He won't though. Pardon the language but there is no nice way to put this.

James Ryan is not one of them but you are right. He's in the hot seat as President. We need some decisive answers + actions taken now to stop this palace coup.

Anonymous said...

I keep reading in these comments that the AGM is the ultimate authority above all else including the PE. But the MOU was signed and binding without AGM approval or individual OECTA member vote or approval. What disciplinary action was taken here?

David Chiarelli said...

If John Lennon were still around he'd know what to do! Yup. See my latest blog .....

Law Man said...

The PE runs the association between AGM's.

However, the AGM is the highest authority. The AGM can do everything the PE can do plus much more. The AGM can reverse the Brock decision and direct collective bargaining priorities. In an action directive the AGM can do this because it does not need to extend beyond one year. It can be effective immediately. They may try to say it is out of order ( It is not.) but the chair can be challenged and the AGM will decide if it is in order or not. It is not out of order because the AGM would only be defending the rules it wrote/ The AGM has every right and authority to do this.

By-laws were not followed so your question as to discipline is a valid one. This is especially true of whomever called the participants to the February 2013 DB meeting.

Law Man

David Chiarelli said...

Thanks Lawman! I'd bet you've hit the nail on the head except for one thing. Maybe any recent AGM participants would like to comment: Has the OECTA AGM become a tamed beast?

Law Man said...

A group like an AGM is very difficult to control. The AGM with action directives in hand, can direct as it wishes and those who would, or have been, insubordinate to the AGM should be concerned because they can be named.

If you get a group like the AGM energized to stand up for themselves and in protection of their authority do no be surprised if the words non-confidence come up. If this comes up and 50% plus one delegate support it, the what is the PE to do?

Never underestimate the power and will of a large group holding all the authority.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

Law Man is finally correct on something. The AGM is the most powerful body and it could restore Richard Brock's privileges.

David Chiarelli said...

Agreed!

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous wrote: Law Man is finally correct on something. The AGM is the most powerful body and it could restore Richard Brock's privileges.

Response: I agree with the fact that the AGM is the supreme authority. However, I strongly disagree with the word "finally". Law Man has added so much to this debate. I must say that I can't find anything that he has said to not ring true. Law Man has made sense and put forward reasonable arguments and facts all along. I hope someone is listening.

I continue to welcome his words of wisdom on this blog.

Angelo

Law Man said...

1. At all times the essential question is what the parties intended by the language they used, viewed objectively, in the circumstances in which the agreement was made.

12-043 Intention of the parties. The task of ascertaining the intention of the parties must be approached objectively. The cardinal presumption is that the parties have intended what they have in fact said, so that their words must be construed as they stand.

12-046 The expression "construction" as applied to a document includes two things: first, the meaning of the words; and, secondly, their legal effect, or the effect which is to be given to them. Construction becomes a question of law as soon as the true meaning of the words in which an instrument has been expressed.

3.2.1 Parol Evidence Rule
As a general rule, where the language of a written contract is clear and unambiguous, then no extrinsic or “parol evidence” will be admitted.

Where a contract is ambiguous, however, and that ambiguity cannot be resolved contextually within the four corners of the contract, the court may suspend the parol evidence rule and allow extrinsic evidence to be admitted.

Where the language in a contract is clear and unambiguous, it alone can be looked at to ascertain the intent of the parties. Where, however the words are ambiguous, in the sense that they are susceptible of more than one meaning, evidence of the surrounding circumstances may be admitted, not to vary, add to, or contradict the terms of the contract, but to ENABLE the Court to read and construe the language in relation to the facts.

3.2.2 Doctrine of Contra Proferentum
Under the doctrine of contra proferentum ("against him who uses them") ambiguous words in a contract are to be interpreted in a way that is less advantageous to a drafting party.

As applied to OECTA. There is no ambiguity because by-laws always supersede procedures. Since by-laws are the enabling words under which a procedure can be implemented, absence of adherence to the by-laws make the procedure invalid. Not to do this would have the effect of having processes implemented without legal authority to do so. Articles 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 are not only clear but they support each other in their clarity. We can interpret this as quadra-clear. This creates an unambiguous contract with the members. This contract then has procedures that can only be enacted after these articles are fully complied with. In this case we already have written admission that the four articles were not followed and an implied admission that they were not followed due to the Discipline Board referral motion made at the September Provincial Executive meeting.

Taking into many other problems with OECTA's case: refusal to share the rules under which the accused would be tried with the accused, not letting witnesses testify, attendance by and participation by employees of the association both in meetings and the trial itself, correspondence with Discipline Board members before they were appointed (they still have not been appointed), having a perceived biased person chairing the hearing, plus much more leaves me no choice but to say that OECTA, based on legal grounds, cannot have their position upheld in a court of law unless they can convince the Annual General Meeting to agree that the PE has the power to disobey the very rules the AGM wrote thus making the Handbook nothing but a collection of pages without authority. If they cannot get the AGM to agree to this, then the supreme authority of the AGM stays, the Handbook is validated as the rules of the AGM, and the Provincial Executive is mandated to follow those rules. Staff as always fall under the authority of the Provincial Executive. Staff can never go contrary to the Constitution, by-laws, and policies of the Association. Staff must always follow procedures but only after the enabling motions following the bylaws have been passed. Staff can never implement a procedure without being authorized by a higher authority,

Sincerely,

Law Man

Law Man said...

The PE is required to know the scope of the corporation's mandate, as defined by its corporate documents, and that the corporation is required to restrict its activities to that mandate. Directors are not allowed to act in noncompliance with these documents.

The PE is required to know in what specific ways liability may arise for claims of injurious conduct. They are required to know that negligent mismanagement can result in legal actions arising out of non-compliance with bylaws.

Has a review been prepared, either internally or though seeking external legal advice, identifying regulatory and internal requirements that the corporation is required to meet?

Questions the PE should ask themselves.


Do the organization's current activities reflect its corporate objectives as set out in its incorporating documents and duly passed bylaws?

Does the corporation carry out its obligations under the corporate bylaws?

Does the board have a process for authorizing procedures entered into by the corporation?

Is the corporation fulfilling all of its statutory obligations, such as filing mandatory reports and ensuring that reports that are received have followed the obligatory authorization?

If the corporation is non profit, is it taking precautions to ensure the proper investment of funds and not putting the corporation at financial risk?

Is it complying with applicable laws regulating its activities?


When I am unable to attend a board meeting, do I read the minutes of the meeting and voice any concerns I may have?

Do I voice my opposition to matters that I disagree with and make sure that my objections are recorded in the minutes of the meeting?

Have I read and understood the corporation's constitution or letters patent and bylaws and follow the mandate?

Do I understand all of the corporation's legal obligations?

Do I understand the special legal liabilities that both I and the corporation face when bylaws are not followed?

Liability for lack of corporate authority
Directors acting outside the scope of their authority as defined by the letters patent, supplementary letters patent, bylaws, or other governing documents of the corporation are personally responsible for any decisions or actions they take. This liability may arise owing to lack of compliance with internal bylaws, constitutions, statutes, contracts, torts or the common law. Effectively, the directors are considered to have taken the decision(s) or action(s) as individuals rather than as a corporate body, so the 'corporate shield' does not apply. It is seen as a personal decision if a director does not comply with bylaws they are required to know and act in accordance with.

Law Man

Law Man said...

The PE have a very serious problem that will only be solved by protecting the AGM and by-laws they wrote, In other words, to protect themselves they must hold accountable those who acted without authority and reverse the Richard Brock decision. There is no escaping this. They know it, but they must be terrified because the truth will show that they were wrong and their own authority was disregarded by an inferior authority. Once they come to the inevitable truth then they would have to deal with insubordination. That is why this is taking so long,

In court, all will come out and then they would have to deal with it anyway but then they would also have to deal with a political revolution at the AGM.

It is much smarter from a legal point of view to fess up and deal with it now. A public court case will be devastating for the Board of Directors of the Association and senior management.

From the Canada Corporation Act part II
The powers of the board of directors to manage the corporation.

The by-laws must indicate that the board of directors has the power to manage the corporation.

(The PE is the Board of Directors. Note the word "must". The General Secretary does not and cannot have power over the Board. Law Man)

The by-laws may specifically exclude and retain certain powers for exercise by the membership at a general meeting.

( In OECTA it is specified that ONLY the AGM can change bylaws. The PE must ONLY follow the bylaws and they MUST do it all the time because of this specification.)

Something went, legally, very wrong in OECTA and the PE is afraid to confront it for understandable but non-defensible reasons. In court there will be no sympathy for what they did as well as no defense no matter what avenue is pursued.

Without a settlement based on justice, due process, contractual obligations, and rule of law, a considerable penalty can be expected based on the facts of this case.

The AGM is the PE's boss and they disregarded it's specific orders.

Law Man

Law Man said...

If you defame someone, one possible way to resolve the problem is to publish a retraction.

Directors who breach any of their duties to the corporation, may be liable if the corporation suffers a loss that can be directly attributed to their actions or omissions. To protect themselves from such liability, directors should always consider whether the decision(s) or action(s) being taken are in accordance with bylaws and in the best interests of the corporation. They must discharge their duties of skill and diligence, as well their duty of loyalty, including acting honestly and in good faith, not improperly delegating their responsibilities, and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Most of the legislation imposing liability on directors does not actually define who is a 'director.' Individuals who are acting in the capacity of directors - de facto directors - but who may not have actually been elected as such may nonetheless be exposed to directors' liability. This could include those serving as de facto directors, ex-officio directors, those dubbed 'honorary' directors and those sitting on an executive committee or otherwise acting as part of a group managing the corporation's affairs, no matter what it is called. If these individuals act like directors, they can attract the liability of directors.

When there is an obligation to constitute authority, this requirement must be met before any authority can be assumed or transferred. In OECTA a Discipline Board cannot have even the authority to meet without first receiving the proper enabling motion from the Board of Directors. Without such procured authority, no group would have any legal standing to do anything within the association. Everything that occurred in the absence of Board of Directors authorized recognition of authority by following the mandatory use of proper motions required by by-laws, would be inadmissible in any subsequent function of the association and out of order. They would not be admitted for consideration in a court of law because they were made without any authority officially granted by the Board of Directors.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

Angelo or Law Man,

Can you explain pecuniary duty? Can you also explain risk assessment?

Are these considerations that come into play here?

Can the AGM direct the PE with regards to LTD and Benefits?

Law Man mentioned the words, "non confidence". What would that mean if the AGM expressed those words with regards to individuals? Are they proper words that can be used under Robert's Rules of Order?

Out of what fund of members money would any settlement come from? Can they pay this in confidential since it is our money?

Very Concerned in the GTA

Anonymous said...

By law the Board of Directors must be the highest authority between AGM's. Nothing in the by laws can override this. The whole DB process is illegal. It was just time until someone challenged it. You cannot grant power to an unnacountable body that supercedes the power of the PE and the AGM. That is the law. OECTA tried to do this and thhen did not even grant this illegal authority to the DB so they could even meet in February. As Law Man stated the whole case for OECTA is a non-starter.

Reinstate Richard on the condition he drops all legal proceedings and hope he says yes. That is OECTA's only salvation.

Law Man #2

Law Man said...

The Board conducts all the business of the organization that is not specifically assigned to the membership by the by-laws. The Directors are responsible to the membership who elects them.
Under federal law, a director is not required to be a member. However, under provincial law, a director (but not an officer) must be a member or become one within 10 days of election or appointment as a director and if s/he ceases to be a member then s/he ceases to a director.
While there are no specific provisions in the Ontario Act dealing with duties or the removal of officers, it is wise to make provisions for such in the by-laws. Under federal legislation, by-laws must contain provisions in the by-laws that deal with the basic responsibilities/duties of the officers, their removal, and the fixing of their remuneration. By-laws must state how the removal procedure is enacted.
Directors of a charity or non-profit organization can be held personally liable for certain activities
Personal liability will exist even if the organization is incorporated
Directors must understand their potential liability and know what steps to take to avoid liability
Legislation sets out duty and standard of care
Sections 165 and 171 of the Canada Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-32, as amended

Section 134(1) of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario), R.S.O. 1990, c. C.44 as amended
CANADA CORPORATIONS ACT

The affairs of the company shall be managed by a board of not less than three directors.
The directors of the company may, in all things, administer the affairs of the company, and may make or cause to be made for the company, any description of contract which the company may, by law, enter into
ONTARIO BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
Every director and officer of a corporation in exercising his powers and discharging his duties shall
(A) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation; and
(B) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances
Board of directors is accountable for the activities of the organization and compliance with the law
Because the board is responsible for the activities of the organization, they can be LIABLE for the activities of the organization
Board members have a fiduciary duty of care
Must act with a reasonable degree of prudence
Act in good faith
Act with honesty, loyalty
Avoid conflicts of interest
Common Reasons for liability
(A) Contracts
(B) Tort
(C) Breach of fiduciary duty
(D) Breach of trustees duties
(E) Common law liabilities
(F) Statutory liabilities
Director enters into a contract without proper legal authority to sign the contract
By-laws should provide for authority to sign contracts
Tort is a legal term meaning a wrongful act, resulting in injury or damage, on which a civil action may be based
FIDUCIARY = agent of a principal or a company director, that stands in a special relation of trust, confidence, or responsibility in certain obligations to others
Arises where directors act outside of the scope of their authority
Authority for board of directors is contained in the articles of incorporation, mission statement, etc.
Avoiding liability
Avoid conflicts of interest
Declare any interests immediately with consultants, suppliers, etc.
Avoid using third party providers in which a director has an interest
Actively hire and review employees, particularly management
Ensure directors are well trained and knowledgeable
Understand legal issues
Understand business of the organization
Obtain professional advice when needed
Legal advice
Accounting/tax advice
Follow the by-laws

The Board of Directors is responsible for all decisions between general meetings and this responsibility cannot be delegated away.

Law Man

David Chiarelli said...

Real leadership would admit that a mistake was made in dismissing Brock and correct it, so OECTA can move on. Otherwise the moral authority of OECTA's leadership has been compromised. OECTA will not be able to move on, no matter what else is done to bully, persuade or try to fool the membership.

My best guess is that we have all ready seen this happen with the latest crisis over the MOU. The teachers are stuck in a very bad situation with the boards. From the comments here, it seems some at the OECTA office thought they could still rally the teacher troops around the PE + the MOU decision by getting the teachers to go on strike with the Catholic boards for not implementing the MOU. How disingenuous!

The MOU is now clearly a mistake, even if it wasn't believed so before. There will be those interests at OECTA who are only digging in their heels harder to protect their self interests + those of the few who still stand to benefit from it. We can see the disconnect that has now happened between the PE + Secretariat up at St. Clair, with the membership as a whole! How could they even think they'd be able to pull this off, even if it is necessary, without the moral authority to guide, inspire and rally everyones' support?

OECTA would only be divided from within, and setting itself up for more anger from without. The union would truly look foolish and be in greater peril through it's own folly. Without a strong moral centre it can blame whomever or whatever it wants but the battle is lost.

For all we know, the leadership of some of the other affiliates is little better. OECTA maintains that the situation between it and the other teacher unions is better now. It is trying to blend in again through its involvement at the OFL + CFL. Perhaps the leadership at some of the other affiliates think the same way, but they all are deluding themselves + out of touch with their ability to motivate and convince the grassroots after last year.

By not reinstating Brock now OECTA will continue to rot away from within. Possibly enough backroom deals have been made + strings pulled to prevent those who want change to be able to challenge the status quo. I suppose by making Mr. Brock take this to civil court they think it will take too long to matter. Other matters will have arisen by then to divert attention or rally the troops. Perhaps Mr. Brock will not be able to afford to continue his fight or most everyone will have forgotten when the case is lost and the day of reckoning arrives. Slaps on the wrist all around for a decision that can't be reversed by then anyway?

I doubt the association will last that long. The C for Catholic in OECTA will have long become corrupted. The membership will not be guided by any principles strong enough to inspire them to fight together the many challenges ahead. There will just be more Tom Foolery as the Tory's, the OLP, or those who do not support the Catholic schools any way circle around them, knives drawn for the kill. The OECTA leadership will have nobody else to blame but themselves. By then it will be too late.

Let's hope that the PE has the backbone + clear headedness to realize its mistakes in letting the Brock decision go this far without reversing it so that justice will be done and the union is still something we can all believe in and support.

Just my thoughts .....

Cheers!/
Solidarity!

David C

Angelo Ippolito said...

It looks like Law Man is energized.

Angelo

Anonymous said...

If this thing ultimately has to go court, Richard Brock should hire Law Man, if indeed he is a lawyer. However, I seriously hope the PE deals with this themselves.

Angelo - any word on the supposed third party 'investigations' that were supposedly undertaken weeks ago?

Law Man said...

Very Concerned in the GTA wrote: ( My responses follow your questions.)

Can you explain pecuniary duty? Can you also explain risk assessment?

Response: You probably meant fiduciary duty. The Board of Directors have a duty to take care of your money with due diligence. Whenever their is a probability that your money is at risk there should be an assessment done to avoid the waste or to minimize it. This is normally initiated by an audit committee. Members of audit committees have have been found liable for not bringing risk to the attention of the Board of Directors and share holders (members).

Are these considerations that come into play here?
Response: Yes they do.

Can the AGM direct the PE with regards to LTD and Benefits?
Response: As long as the rules are followed, the AGM can direct anything.

Law Man mentioned the words, "non confidence". What would that mean if the AGM expressed those words with regards to individuals? Are they proper words that can be used under Robert's Rules of Order?
Response: The Board of Directors would have to decide what to do with a vote of non-confidence. Under Robert's Rules this is allowable.

Out of what fund of members money would any settlement come from? Can they pay this in confidential since it is our money?

Response: I can't say what fund it would come from. The General Secretary must keep the books open for inspection by the
PE, the President, and the COP ( article 2.57.8). The same is true for the treasurer ( article 2.55.2 ). Ultimately it is the members money and to waste in secret would be very problematic.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

I copied the following from the York Sentinel

It is amazing to me that the older I get the faster time seems to fly! We are already heading fast and furiously to November. The start of the school year was interesting, but nowhere was it more interesting than in Halton. You are all aware, through the wide distribution of the new @OECTA publication, that the President of the Halton Elementary Unit was removed from his position as the result of a discipline panel decision by provincial OECTA. This decision has created much concern across the Province, and should also be concerning to each of us. Concerning, not only because of the overly harsh penalty, but because of the deeply flawed process in which the provincial executive engaged in making this decision. The Provincial OECTA Handbook contains the rules and regulations by which, through the AGM, the Association has determined to govern itself. When the rules of the handbook are not followed, or are ignored the Association, as a governing body, is diminished.
According to the handbook the Provincial Discipline Board is to be established, as are all provincial committees, by the provincial executive. It is by their authority and theirs alone by which individuals can be appointed to the Discipline Board. However in the case of Richard Brock the members of this Board were not selected by the provincial executive. Therefore the panel that heard the case against Mr. Brock was not a duly constituted discipline panel. While on the surface this may appear to be a technicality it has much deeper repercussions. Any member who is brought before a discipline panel should be assured that the panel hearing the complaint has been duly constituted, and confident that there be no appearance of bias. In this case the ‘appearance’ may have been a little blurry as the chair of the panel was the past president of one of the complaining units. The absence of an open and transparent process has left many members feeling skeptical of the ability of the Association to act in a fair and impartial manner on behalf of ALL members. It has also exposed the Association to judgment and ridicule of other affiliates. This became apparent in the blogs posted by a retired OECTA member, David Chiarelli, and the many responses posted by teachers across the province. Ignoring the concerns of the mishandling of the process followed to deal with this complaint is simply NOT acceptable.
Rather than addressing the concerns the provincial executive has decided to take no action and to wait for the matter to be brought before the civil courts. We have certainly urged the executive to take action. We have asked that they act in the manner we hoped they would when we elected them to lead this Association! Acknowledge that an error was made and undo the decision, follow the process outlined in the Handbook and have the complaints (made in good faith) heard by a duly appointed Discipline Board.
The Provincial Executive needs be less concerned with weakening a legal argument in a court of law and more concerned with further weakening the reputation (and solidarity) of the Association, both internally and externally! The old saying “Act in haste, repent at leisure!” is particularly appropriate in this instance. The entire case against Mr. Brock was expedited, it is possible that had cooler heads prevailed we would not be in the mess in which we now find ourselves.
Moving forward we as an Association need to turn our minds toward ensuring there is a truly open and transparent process when a complaint has been filed. This process needs to be clearly understood by both complainants and respondents before the hearing begins. We would accept nothing less from our employer, and as an Association should always exemplify best practice.
We will continue to inform the membership of this matter as it unfolds, and will continue to insist that our provincial leadership demonstrate integrity above all else!

Concerned in the GTA

Anonymous said...

Justice delayed is justice denied. Our PE is steadily losing all credibility.....

David Chiarelli said...

Thanks! Yes this is too important to go unnoticed by all my readers. I am posting it as a separate blog. Liz Stuart is great. I wish there was more such leadership in OECTA, but we are seeing it with her, Angelo. Kent of course and our Mr. Brock. Perhaps there is hope yet!

Angelo Ippolito said...

I would like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas.

It is my hope that the peace of the season will commit us all to truth and justice. Maybe we can look at different ways where authority can be used to serve those who are hurt and have suffered because of decisions we have made. Maybe we can work to unity by committing to do the right thing for each other. Maybe we can accept the truth and work with it. Maybe we can learn from the example of Pope Francis. Maybe we can embrace equality and justice while we embrace each other. Maybe we can all find the courage to speak and act on behalf of those who have lost their voice.

Maybe.

Merry Christmas to all and may we all find peace.

Angelo

David Chiarelli said...

Hello Angelo!

Merry Christmas to you too. Most regretfully, my questions cannot be nearly so optimistic as your heartfelt greetings. It has now become quite clear that the members efforts to have the Brock decision properly addressed + clarified by OECTA Provincial have completely failed.

The Provincial 3rd party legal report on how the Discipline Panel decision was authorized + carried out according to the unions own constitution + by-laws has not been provided by the Provincial December deadline promised at COP.

Furthermore Mr. Brocks effort to challenge his dismissal in civil court has been blocked by Provincial's Thursdays OSCOJ Demand for Particulars, paid for with the membership dues, that he cannot possibly afford to match, so that his case might even proceed to be heard.

Since all this has failed is there any other reasonable prospect that justice can still be done according to OECTA's own Constitution + handbook?

I'm afraid, my friend, that they aren't worth the paper they are written on, nor is it even clear who is in charge of the union anymore.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yours,

David Chiarelli

Angelo Ippolito said...

We are waiting for a response. We, are those who sent in letters to the PE as members. We will see what the responses say. I fully expect that responses are forthcoming. It is unclear if the PE is finished going through the reports. It is not time to give up hope that justice will be served and that due process w
I'll be protected and defended. It is precisely the process that must be scrutinized. I am confident the PE is doing this.
Angelo

David Chiarelli said...

Yes Angelo, but with all due respect: PE promised two reports by December. One had something or other to do with Marshall, I'm not exactly sure what. The other was the 3rd party lawyers report on the Brock debacle. Here are my concerns about trust:

December has come and gone without the reports. Why? Where are they? Has any explanation been forthcoming???

We don't even seem to know who is handling these, getting them to the lawyers, providing them with their instructions, who are they are being returned to [directly to PE?] and so forth.

Can you tell us anything bout these two concerns? If nothing has been forthcoming from PE, then after all we've seen this year, trust would be ..... how to say it nicely? Not warranted.

Have you heard anything at all?

Most respectfully!

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!