Opening Statement



Friday, 29 November 2013

OECTA 's Brock Decision: More Legal Considerations!



Is OECTA PE being disingenuous?

We have another guest blog, a Part 2 if you will, to a former opinion on the legal issues surrounding OECTA Hamilton President Richard Brock's dismissal by the Provincial Discipline Panel [See Here] and the Provincial Executive's response to date [See Here]. Again, considering the fear of speaking openly that's resulted by the example set in silencing Mr. Brock, the writers anonymity will be respected. I would however, ask them to please send me a tag, or nom de plum to add for easier reference.

Procedural Fairness
Members and others have expended a lot of energy questioning the many procedural irregularities surrounding the empanelling of the Discipline Board and believe that a court would overturn the verdict against Richard Brock on this point alone. OECTA's legal counsel, however, told Provincial that these procedural irregularities are not fatal to their case.  How is this possible?

It turns out that courts in the past have ruled that, where associations are concerned, a procedural irregularity can be safely ignored if the outcome would still be the same and there are no compelling reasons for a court to intervene. Compelling reasons include: a result that does not reflect the wishes of the majority; a result that is fundamentally unfair; a result that violates the principles of natural justice; a result that shows bad faith, etc.
The Brock hearing was fundamentally unfair and violated the principles of procedural fairness.  Members have already pointed out the hearing's various deficiencies: accusations not supported by the facts, lack of competence on the part of the hearing panel, real and apparent bias of the people involved in hearing the case, sitting in judgement on their own case, refusing a full defence, and more. Brock's case, to succeed in court, would have to be argued on the totality of the deficiencies of the hearing and not rely on any one part least of all on the irregularity surrounding the empanelling of the Discipline Board.
The members of the Provincial Executive have to be aware of the glaring deficiencies in procedural fairness in the disciplinary process and it is appalling that they have not yet addressed this issue.  Indeed, President Ryan's reply to some members' request to stay the verdict was disingenuous. He replied that no by-law in the Handbook authorizes the P.E. to set aside a verdict.  And this is true. However, it is also true and, he knows or should know, that the P.E. are the Board of Directors and so can make, amend and rescind any by-laws between AGMs.  Part III - Corporations Without Share Capital - By-law 129.(1) states that: "The directors of a corporation may pass by-laws not contrary to this Act or to letters patent or supplementary letters patent to regulate, ...... (j) the conduct in all other particulars of the affairs of the corporation."  Under this authority, the P.E. should have already rescinded the entire section dealing with discipline of members and appointed a task force to create a disciplinary process consistent with the principles of natural justice.  They might find the Principles of Natural Justice helpful in this endeavour. link: https://uwaterloo.ca/faculty-association/policies-agreements/principles-natural-justice.  And, given that Richard Brock was convicted under a disciplinary process so lacking in fundamental fairness, it is outrageous for the P.E. to tell him to take his case to a court rather than setting aside the verdict as a product of a deeply flawed procedure.   

Removal of Directors
The Corporation Act provides that by-laws can be made to remove any director of an association which is a Part III corporation.  Part II 67.(1) applies to Part III corporations and states that "by-laws may provide that the shareholders [of Part II corporations but members of Part III corporations] may, by a resolution passed by at least two-thirds of the votes cast at a general meeting of which notice specifying the intention to pass such resolution has been given, remove any director before the expiration of his or her term of office, and may, by a majority of the votes cast at that meeting, elect any person in his or her stead for the remainder of the term."  This means that any and all executives of the P.E. can be dismissed by members at any time and without cause should such by-laws be enacted.  It also follows that no director [executive member of the P.E.] can be removed except under Part II 67.(1).

Does this provision in the Corporation Act apply to unit executives who are effectively directors of the unit?  In this regard, it is telling that the notice of Richard Brock's dismissal did not include his removal as Past President.  The Past President is a member of the Executive Committee [Board of Directors] because he has previously been President.  This is an unelected position and so electors cannot remove him.  From this it follows that Richard Brock remains the Past President and, in this capacity, can carry out the duties assigned to that office.  Given that unit executives are the elected directors of their unit, it follows that members of a unit may remove any of their elected executives without cause at any time provided that by-laws are enacted to this effect and the provisions of the Corporation Act are adhered to.  This now raises the question as to whether the P.E. can remove any elected unit executive.  Perhaps this question has been dealt with by a court and, if so, there is an answer of which I am unaware. My understanding is that where a director has been elected by a certain class of members, then only those members can vote to remove that director.  This implies that Richard Brock can only be removed from his position by the members who voted him in.  The same is true for all elected directors and elected executive members. 
If anyone knows of provisions or rulings contrary to the argument above, I would be interested in reading about them.

COMMENTS?

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

OECTA Letter: MOU + Me Too Implementation!

My Teacher + Union Blog Acronym Guide is Here!


Catholic Boards to teachers ...

The following letter was sent to all OECTA members last week by President James Ryan. It outlines the problems many units across the province are having implementing the MOU + Me Too clauses of the July 5th agreement. I have documented some of these problems, and their root causes in a number of blogs over the past year or so. These are added at the end of today's to provide you with a study guide of the situation. A number of other noteworthy related communications will be forthcoming over the next few days. Here's James letter:

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 judgement 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 judgement in testing, and protections for occasional teachers. They must be shown this is fundamentally unfair.



So much for being Catholic ...

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


Study Guide Links:

My OECTA Study Guide with the MOU + supporting materials @ July 2012

OCSTA screwed Catholic Principals when left PDT talks @ July 2012

TCDSB agrees to OECTA MOU @ Aug 2012

OCSTA + COPC not happy campers @ Sept 2012

OECTA MOU Me Too controversy @ May 2013

OECTA Me Too? Or Me No? @ May 2013

Sick day plans + the unpaid medical leave crisis May 2013

OECTA verses the OSSTF sick day plan dilemma @ June 2013

Join me on Twitter: I regularly tweet related archive links + updated info. My hashtag is

                                                                           #davidchiarelli



A Merry Christmas Present: From the Catholic Boards to the teachers ...

COMMENTS?

Monday, 25 November 2013

Teachers November News + Views Digest!

My Teacher + Union Acronym Guide is Here!

This popular blog feature is late this month. A lot of "Teacher + Union" news coverage has been going on in my other blogs. I will add links but not repeat that all here. "Party Politics" requires a few links be reposted so the background manoeuvring at QP during the Ford Debacle doesn't get overlooked. Next months Teacher December News + Views will start on time. I promise. Anyway ...


TEACHER + UNION

Teacher Reminder: Did you get your flu shot? Info @ Flu bug

Secret MOE consultation for "building the the next phase" of their "education strategy" was only sent to + shared with select unspecified "stakeholders. Hmmm. Read @ Big MOE Secret?

Teacher free speech is still alive + well for now, here at least. A mile blogstone was reached this month with 280,000 reader visits to date! Please share my link in solidarity! Together we are strong, can stand up to the bullying + make sure the unions represent the teachers interest above all else!

This month has been OECTA, OECTA + more OECTA with some discussion of ETFO's official overview of Bill 122, the new School Board Collective Bargaining Act 2012.

The OECTA coverage has mostly taken place in the Ask Angelo OECTA Q+A blogs. A year ago, the OECTA silence was deafening. Hopefully we won't go through that again. The open forum free speech blogs are @ Here! and @ There!

Bill 122 is currently in 2nd reading at QP. Guestimates are it won't pass until this spring. By then we could be headed for a provincial election. Its hard to see how the PDT can begin without the new bargaining procedures in place. In a nutshell, the OLP plans to move to provincial bargaining. The trustees will now wield more power and influence. The NDP is fighting for changes to the Bill every step of the way. It's too weak for the PC's liking. Hudak's Blue Meanie act has not been winning many accolades, and he hasn't given any indication of lightening up. Perhaps the OLP is thinking Bill 122 can steal some of the PC's anti teacher union support while appeasing Wynne's trustee buddies?


CUPE provides a Bill 122 update @ Clash crisis!

This Ottawa Guardian article provides a good overview of some key issues. Then the writer bares his neo con fangs over the supposed David verses Goliath struggle of the trustees against the teacher unions. His solution? Deem us an essential service so some "meaningful" negotiations can be held. Aaaargh @ Bill 122

Any possible OLP boot licking and butt kissing by the teacher union affiliates must be carefully monitored. Some ETFO members feel their union hasn't said enough about the position they will take. As for OSSTF? I have been negligent in covering them and have some catching up to do. If any readers are following that story carefully please let us know what's happening!

Meanwhile, there are disturbing reports that the local OECTA presidents were being urged to ask the members what they would be willing to concede in the upcoming negotiations at a meeting late last week. Whew! More about this at Ask Angelo! I have also heard it through the grapevine, but have been unable to confirm, that the OLP plans to target the teacher benefit packages and salary grid in the upcoming contract talks. The ETFO Overview of Bill 122: The School Boards Collective Bargaining Act [2013] is @ Overview


I'm sitting on a pretty good OECTA story that a lot of you know something about, the rest no. OECTA President James Ryan sent every member a letter last week. Most of the Catholic boards have not been honouring the terms of the OECTA MOU, let alone the Me Too clause. It's quite the mess, very, very bad in some units. I've been following the correspondence from OECTA TSU [Toronto] where the guff from the TCDSB is unbelievable. Rene J, Dave S + everyone keep slugging away at it. I also have James letter about the situation to MOE Sandals + know PE is waiting for a response, with bated breathe, hopeful for some good news. Hmmm. Thing is I'm kinda pooped from all the news scoops so far, and it's only late November. Might just want to continue with this blog for awhile. I enjoy it a lot. Haven't done it for awhile + a lot of you come here for the links, so we will see when. Stay tuned.

BTW, I've just tweeted archive backgrounder links to my many previous blogs on the big MOU/ Me Too issues between OECTA + the Catholic Principals + School Boards going back to July 2012 via my Twitter hashtag #davidchiarelli


How the Grinch stole Christmas: Santa arrested for civil disobedience in supporting Walmart strikers in Ontario CA! Who's being naughty not nice now? Walmart of course! Howza bout a lump of coal in their stocking eh??

Black Friday is going badly for Walmart among strike actions across the US! That's one way to get their attention. Hit them where it hurts! In the wallet ... BTW Black Friday in Canada is turning into a complete farce! The corporate interests are trying to jump start it as the biggest sales event of the year, without any real sales. Just your regular stuff and some loss leaders. Let's face it -it isn't ANYTHING like in the US here. It's just a very lame marketing scam. CP24 was at a near empty Yorkdale Mall in Toronto promoting it since early this morning. Very embarrassing and irritating. Sure, by this evening the mall will be packed like it always is before Christmas. Methinks the emperor has not clothes! Anyway back to Walmart @ Black Friday

Here's an interesting angle to the whole Toronto Mayor Rob Ford scandal that is often overlooked: The TCDSB Catholic School Board was accused of a cover up involving controversial Mayor Rob Ford's "quasi-employee" status as the "football coach" at Don Bosco Catholic Secondary School. The 91 police court documents released under the Freedom of Info Act include a wide variety of the local staff, administration and policing concerns about his presence in the Catholic high school. These include a previously withheld police letter over a improperly conducted "criminal security check" of his "coaching assistant". Story @ Toronto Star

State of the Unions:  Walrus.ca's activist John Lorinc critiques the decline of the big unions, and the increasingly successful appeal of smaller more grass root hands on unions like "Unite Here!" Some interesting reading for anybody at the OFL Annual Convention this week. Sitting listening to the big leaders' long winded speeches praising each other while the "newbies" agree? These can be turgid affairs! Bet the big boys don't want to hear this @ Goo Goo Bajoo!


How to rebuild the union movement?

OK. I can dig it. The theme of this years OFL Annual Convention is "Challenging Hudak's Anti Worker Agenda". The teacher unions are all out in strength coz quiet frankly we are all going to need each other + labour a lot in daze ahead. Day 2 we get flooded on Twitter with just plain folk photos of the local execs + eager members to prevent the proceedings from seeming too monolithic, impersonal and big brother unionish. Then there's this photo with everyone in matching gray outfits, like something right out of Orwell's 1984. BTW is that OECTA 1st President Ann Hawkins in the bottom left giving us the solidarity forever fist?


[Hi Maureen! Whew! Glad to see you there keepin' an eye on things 4 us!]

99% of Michigan teachers decide to stay in the teacher union despite Right to Work law that allows them to opt out. Difficult to ask but one wonders what the result would be like here in Ontario? Story @ 99%!

I can't resist this rant. It's triggered by an OTF article called "Book Reports No More". Look. I know we're keen on using multimedia technology in the classroom, me too but I still believe teaching is also, as Neil Postma once said, a conserving activity. New is not always good, nor old always bad. Cursive writing has all but been eliminated and written off as outdated but it does teach fine motor skills, and allows us not to be held hostage by a keyboard or a camera. Art teachers have quite rightfully been complaining about students not knowing how to properly hold a pencil by the time they reach secondary school too. For shame. This is just plain wrong headed thinking in MHO.

And now, it's book reports that are on the chopping block?!? Listen, it's essential to be able to concisely summarize and critique what we have read in an orderly logical manner using the written word without being dependent on using a computer to express ourselves. The kids can express themselves in computer projects, on line, in a multimedia lab or whatever. I have no problem with that, far from it. But please don't get so caught up in the new technology that you believe it's not necessary for students to attend to the rigorous and concentrated task of writing book reports anymore. The long lost art of handwriting is important but I suppose they can use a word program too. Just make sure they use written words, please! It will be even more tragic if they lose this invaluable if not trendy skill too!!! Read @ OTF

OTF Planboard scores top points though for this good techie idea. All teacher members can access it for free. You can write, edit and share your lesson plans on it. Plus it comes with an Ipad App! Available @ OTF Planboard


Why we need qualified teachers ....

Florida student threatened with expulsion from private Christian school unless she cuts her Afro. Sly Stone had an Afro, so did Ike Turner, Roberta Flack + Angela Davis. But I suppose that was then + this is now. You can see her picture. She doesn't cut it so looks round like all those other funky dudes back in the day. That would be my advice to her. Anyhow, sounds like she's going to fight it. Good for her @ Florida

Arkansas student threatened with expulsion for wearing an Vera Bradley bag to school. However, the girls are allowed to wear a purse. Sounds like a double standard to me. He should tell them it's a "man bag". I think so. Seriously guys should put their foot down in this modern day and age about a "man's bag". It doesn't mean the guy is gay, and if he is, well up here in Canada that wouldn't fly. What BS @ No Mens Purses

You think we got it bad? In the UK the education ministry is insisting on individual teachers meeting "targets" that are set for them by an inspector, rather than allowing them to use their own professional judgement about what they'd want to improve or further develop according to their own interests and skills. Sound familiar? Now one UK teacher has been told to "target", that is to say get rid of her northern accent @ NUTs!

Teachers in British schools are represented by a number of Unions. They cross each others picket lines. Basically its impossible to engage in any effective, collective actions, for reasons that should be self evident. NUT [National Teacher Union] wants all the teacher unions to now amalgamate into one big union. Makes sense @ One teacher union?

PARTY POLITICS

Late November Party Forum Poll: PC=38%/ OLP+32%/ NDP=23%

This would translate as a PC minority with 47 seats at QP, compared to the OLP with 44 + it doesn't say in this Sun article for the NDP. It's only worrisome if the PC's continue to go up + the NDP down, otherwise its more or less within the regular perameters we've been seeing. Still, the only way we are going to rest assured our social and labour gains in Ontario are safe long term is by uniting the left. Would seem so obvious but both the OLP + NDP remain intransigent as ever. Kind of hard to see how the OLP is lefty anymore but maybe an election loss would smarten them up. However, methinks that would be like suggesting one drink Draino to cure a sour throat. Not a good idea to hope for! Story @ Forum

308 adds the latest results into its aggregate numbers to chart the overall party polling trend results, providing indepth analysis and insight. Updated @ 308

The Toronto Sun might've now decided PC Tim Hudak has finally got the political fire in his belly + hit his stride. Remember though that he still polls as the least favourite party leader by far. Sun perspective @ Tim gets a rise?

NDP + OLP go on QP offensive against PC's RTW 4 less agenda @ QP


An interesting month indeed: Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is @ Cracked!

How did the provincial political parties react?

Premier Wynne said the province wouldn't intervene in municipal Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's dismissal. What can/ can't the province do? More @ Wynne

Wynne outlined the 4 criteria that would need to be considered before the province would intervene, including a request from city council and all 3 party support @ Media Release

Meanwhile the Ontario PC's under leader Tim Hudak have some back peddling to do! Don't forget they have embraced the Ford brothers and played footsies with them a lot over the past year. The Ontario PC's Ford Link hopefully would've provided them with a much needed breakthrough into the Toronto ridings. They got a Holyday win in the past OLP stronghold of Etobicoke Lakeshore, but at what cost? Here's Ford + Lisi at the Doug Holyday campaign office during last summers by-election @ PC Connection?


NDP Party Leader Ann Horwath a clear winner at OTF Convention.

Archive: Hudak's Ontario PC's were thrilled that Doug Ford wanted to run for them in next provincial election, bring his family style of "brash politics" to QP! And now? Bring 'em on baby! More @ Brash Politics!

Damage Control Time: Can PC Tim Hudak find a way to quietly dump the Ford Bros now too?!? Story @ Macleans

Find out why the Tory neo cons are really right royally p.o'ed with former Toronto Right Wing Poster Boys, the Ford Brothers @ Toronto Sun

Now see why they will have a hard time selling this to a lot of the right wing rank and file in Toronto. Things go better with coke @ The National Post

Thank Rob Ford + Mike Duffy for the re-re-re-return of the Canadian political satire rag @ Frank!

IN OTHER NEWS

Early winter woes? Well, take at gander at the beauty of winter in Northern Ontario! See the photos + video from Terrace Bay, north of Lake Superior @ Snow + Ice!


Digital divide: We do or don't, all things not being equal!

There is a growing class division in Canada between those who have access to computers and those who don't. Read about Canada's digital divide @ Apple

Now consider what will happen when this same divide occurs between the developed and the developing world. Reread my blogs on the computer situation in Cuba @ Cuban School Computers

2017: Happy 150th birthday Canada! Guess what?!? The big oil companies like us so much they are helping sponsor the event from the get go starting now, at the Canadian Museum of History in Ottawa. Ahh Jeez guys! I'm getting all choked up! What's the sound of one hand clapping? An interesting location! Are we in for some historical revisionism? Indeed, the museum will now contain oil industry links so we can understand the history of our country .... ummm .... Story @ 150th b'day celebrations!

CULTURE KULT INK


China's new People Liberation Army Tactical Strike Unit! Take no prisoners?

Cold War Update! Communist girls are more fun! How to tell? Read the Chinese Military Review BlogSpot @ Peoples Liberation Army Time!!

You might or might not take a gander at my photo slide show in the top right of my blog site. Lately I'm just clicking photos everywhere I go in my hometown city of Toronto where I have lived much of my life. I use my cellphone or Ipad. I make no pretenses of it being high art. Of course, I don't miss the familiar Toronto sites when on location, but mostly it's just everyday life, in glimpses and scenes of the city. My notion is that sometimes this can say so much more about a cities heart and soul. Of course, you will see a little bit of everything, the good, the bad and the ugly. Enjoy if you will.

Yup. November 22 was the 50th anniversary of the assassination of US President John F Kennedy. I understand that most people today weren't born then, so of course they won't remember that day. It seems thought that every generation has it's pivotal moment. Something just plain awful inexplicably happens, time seemingly stops, everyone and everything is in free fall as the world pivots, and then continues off in a different direction, 9/11 being a more recent case in point. Conspiracy theories anybody? To this day we still are not quite sure what really happened or why to JFK in Dallas on Nov. 22 2013. At the time the press + limited TV media was much more easier for the various interests + powers that be to manipulate and withhold. In the modern global village everybody has been all over 9/11 from the get go, so we are perhaps no longer so malleable or naive, or are we? The US government sure seems royally p.o'ed about the Wiki leaks. Look at all the BS that came to light! Be careful folks! 9/11 resulted in a major reversal of privacy and civil rights law to catch often dubious terrorists and evil doers in both the US and Canada. Also some really questionable wars and dicking about in the middle east. I remember JFK. Might I suggest you should think about it too @ 50 Years


Meanwhile in Nealy Plaza: Hey! This must be the grassy knoll!?!

Here's what Nealy Plaza, Dallas, Texas, where Kennedy was shot, looks like today. It has truly become a pop mecca, which is interesting and fascinating in and of itself @ JFK site pix

Interesting class plan? Compare the political, social, economic and strategic implications of the Kennedy assassination during the 1960's + 70's with those of 9/11 today?

Some interesting new JFK resources: Here are what 3 witnesses to the Kennedy assassination recently had to say. Evil can seem so indifferent, unexpected and even bland @ Dallas

I realize my JFK slide show was rather brutally realistic this year, but then so was the Kennedy assassination. Its time to stop hiding from that. No more puffery. Let's make it clear: Kennedy was shot first through the throat. Jackie K leaned over to ask him what was the matter. As she was looking into his eyes, the next bullet blew off the top right side of his skull, spewing his brains all over her + the rear of the car. The photos show Jackie crawl out on the back trunk. In shock, despite the risk she was scooping them back into the car. Interesting footnote: one leftover bullet was later found still loaded in Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

A lot of what happened was not known then. A lot is quite possibly still not known now.

The Beach Boys remember recording their hit "Warmth of the Sun" on Nov 22. They explain how their feelings at the time affected the music @ Warmth


The big question that will always haunt the baby boom generation: What would've happened differently since Nov 22 1963 had JFK lived. I read the Steven King book "November 22 1963". An interesting concept of time travel but a crap out at the end. For some more thoughtful and credible insights consider @ Huffington

Let's go on a "what if" roll! What if these dead rock stars had lived? What would they look like and be doing today? Jimi Hendrix? Janis Joplin? John Lennon? Bob Marley? Elvis Presley? Kurt Cobain? More @ Lived?


What if Bob Marley was still alive?

The world around us can be shockingly speculative, pointless and mundane. I think so. Maybe life is just a series of random occurrences. Opportunities for us or somebody else to seize or not seize. Hopefully we can capture the moment to our advantage and help as many others as we can. I often believe that myself. TS Elliot's poem JR Proofrock captures the essence of frustration, meaningless and the mundane so well for me. Now its a graphic on line comic book, a quite good one at that @ TS Elliot

Here's another disconnect between the concrete world and the cyber one, besides handwriting and book reports. Soon there will be computers that can take care of our male sexual needs without requiring a real live partnerWomens' options aren't considered but I would assume that too. Anyway, "hand jobs" will apparently come first. Some guys polled think that would be great. Others are too worried. Indeed, what if computer gremlins ever got hold of the speed and stop controls?!? @ Robogirl


Robogirl sez: I love you!

Closer to real life: A neat photo + poem from 'Nam @ Flickr

Friday, 22 November 2013

11/22/63: I Remember JFK!

For today's anniversary I am reposting last year's blog with a few edits. I think I jumped the gun by about a year. For me, this still pretty much says it all. 

Nov.22 1963 - Nov. 22 2013

Most baby boomers can tell you where they were and what they were doing when JFK [President John F. Kennedy] was assassinated 50 years ago today. I was 7 years ago. I remember a lot of the adults crying, even though we lived in Canada, and it was the US President who had been shot and killed. That`s all there was on the two t.v. stations we got back then. There were lots and lots of talking heads. It lasted a few weeks. I kept a scrapbook of newspaper pictures. It' still around somewhere. I was pretty young but I knew it was very, very scary and sad.


John Jr. salutes his father goodbye!

My first recollection of JFK is from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy was on television giving an ultimatum for the Soviet Union to remove it`s rockets from Cuba or else. It was pretty serious, that`s all I really understood. My parents were very worried. A few days later as the crisis heated up Sister So and So sent us all home from school at lunch because, she said, there was going to be a war. My family was living for awhile in the town of Deep River in the Ottawa Valley. Everybody`s parents were at work or out and about, nobody home. All my classmates including myself got our toy guns and helmets. We hid in the woods down the street waiting for the Russian attack. Air raid sirens were going off and jets were scrambling overhead leaving long vapour trails in the sky. We thought it was going to be like "Combat" a popular t.v. show at the time.


Jack and Jackie in the Dallas motorcade moments before. All is well.

Afterwards I was always very interested in what had really happened. In university I completed my Honours B.A with a specialist in International Relations, a minor in Canadian Foreign Policy. I studied Canada and Cuba during the Cold War. Since then I've gone to Cuba an awful lot. Thirty times I think but I lost count. Once I located an old rusted Russian surface to air missile site in the centre of a crop field outside Santiago de Cuba. It looked like something out of a Buck Rogers movie, and had obviously been long out of use.

I crept through the fields to take a photo. A Cuban soldier caught me. He was yelling and waving his rifle in the air. One of my Cuban amigos suggest I give him a lighter and some ball point pens. He let me sit cowboy style on the rocket for a picture like in the movie "Dr. Strangelove or How I stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb"`.


Good bye JFK!

Since then I`ve looked for some of the old rocket sites. They are probably all grown over by decades of brush growth, lost somewhere to the jungles of time. Once however I did find the tail section of the U2 spy plane the Cuban artillery shot down at the height of the Cuban Missile crisis. The wreckage was proudly displayed in a small village museum up the mountainside in Trinidad de Cuba. It was kind of neat to touch it, a link to a time long past. I suppose in my mind`s eye I am still that little boy sitting in the woods alone with my friends waiting for the end of the world, ready to go down fighting. That's pretty much me even today though I am now retired + middle aged.

I got so caught up in the story that I once even took one of my politics classes to Cuba on a study trip. I met some close Cuban teacher friends and have since developed the Cuban Schools Project to provide educational aid. Their story of that day pretty much parallels mine in many ways. However it is only one in a long string of events that carries on though until today. There is still a crippling US embargo against Cuba since just after the botched 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, when Fidel Castro declared the country a socialist republic.


The fatal bullet. Jackie was looking into his eyes to ask what was the matter when it hit him in the head.

Did you know there was a signed greeting on a box of Cuban cigars from Che Guevara on President Kennedy`s desk when he died? Apparently JFK was going to lift the embargo. Of course people also say there wouldn`t have been a Vietnam War had he lived. It`s all speculation. We really don`t know although a lot of the pundits still figure the tumultuous sixties would have turned out quite differently had he not been assassinated.

Today is the 50th anniversary since he was killed. Quite a few classified documents were supposed to be finally released. Maybe we will find out a lot more of the real story, including whether Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who shot President Kennedy. Maybe we won`t. JFK certainly had a lot of enemies from the mafia, to US steel, the US military establishment, J. Edgar Hoover, the list goes on and on. Some pundits even blame the Cubans, though Fidel Castro is adamant he had no reason. Apparently Kennedy and he quite understood each other very well after the crisis. It will be interesting to see if anything really important is declassified but don`t hold your breath.


The smokin' gun?

There are certainly many questionable layers of truth to every aspect of the Kennedy legacy. For years the public myth was that the early sixties were a golden era like Camelot. He was the king, wife Jackie the queen. America was on a quest to save the world and on the home front everything was hunky dory. I could go on and on but it`s not really true. We know better and are not so naive today. However the big question still lingers. What really happened? Why? A lot of`the truth about JFK and the real Camelot was probably silenced forever in our lifetime by a hail of bullets on November 22 1963. My guess is we will never know, but I hope I'm wrong.


Me: "Psssst! Pssst! Mr. President: The protective roof!... Put up the roof ....the roof.... No! I'm not kidding!!! Ho boy!" [I wish!]

Most people today weren't born then, so of course they won't remember that day. However every generation seems to experience a pivotal defining moment. Something just plain awful inexplicably happens. Time seems to stop. Everyone and everything is in free fall for awhile as the world pivots, and life then continues on a different course, 9/11 being the most recent case in point.

Do you believe in Conspiracy theories? To this day we still are not quite sure what really happened or why to JFK in Dallas on Nov. 22 2013. At the time the press + limited TV media was much more easier for the various interests + powers that be to manipulate and control, thereby withholding a lot of  information from us. In the modern electronic global village everybody has been all over 9/11 from the get go. Perhaps we are no longer so malleable or naive, or are we?


The US government sure is royally p.o'ed about the Wiki leaks. Look at all the BS they brought to light! Be careful! 9/11 resulted in a major reversal of privacy and civil right laws to ostensibly catch some often very unlikely terrorists and evil doers in both the US and Canada. Some really questionable wars and dicking about in the middle east have also followed in the confusion. I remember JFK. Might I suggest you should think about it too! 


50 years later: Hey! This must be the grassy knoll!?!

Some News Links

Here's what Nealy Plaza, Dallas, Texas, where Kennedy was shot, looks like today. It has truly become a pop mecca, which is interesting and fascinating in and of itself @
JFK site pix

Interesting class plan? Compare the political, social, economic and strategic implications of the Kennedy assassination during the 1960's + 70's with those of 9/11 today?

Some interesting new JFK resources: Here are what 3 witnesses to the Kennedy assassination recently had to say. Evil can seem so indifferent, unexpected and even bland @
Dallas



Kennedy autopsy: The head wound

I realize my blogsite JFK slide show was rather brutally realistic this year, but then so was the Kennedy assassination. Its time to stop hiding from that. No more niceties or denial. Let's make it clear: Kennedy was first shot through the throat. Jackie K leaned over to ask him what was the matter. As she was looking into his eyes, the next bullet blew off the top right side of his head, sending his brains flying all over her + the rear of the car. The Kennedy assassination photos show Jackie crawl out on the back trunk. In shock despite the risk, she was scooping them back into the car. Interesting footnote: one leftover bullet was later found still loaded in Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. He didn't use it on her.

A lot of what happened was not known then. A lot is quite possibly still not known now.

The Beach Boys remember recording their hit "Warmth of the Sun" on Nov 22. They explain how their feelings at the time affected the music @
Warmth




The big question that will always haunt the baby boom generation: What would've happened differently since Nov 22 1963 had JFK lived. I read the Steven King book "November 22 1963". An interesting concept of time travel but a crap out at the end. For some more thoughtful and credible insights consider @ Huffington

COMMENTS:

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:

Communist Girls ARE More Fun!

Communist Girls ARE More Fun!
See below ...

Youtube Bar: Afrika Bambaataa!

Loading...

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!