Opening Statement



Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Guest Blog: Democracy in OECTA [Part 2]


Since my last blog “Democracy in OECTA?” [ LINK ] nothing has happened that would change my opinion. Instead, OECTA Provincial is steadily digging its own grave deeper. There was evidently not enough leadership in OECTA provincial to remedy its summary wrongful dismissal of elected President Richard Brock of Halton Elementary unit, this past August. Instead; this OECTA debacle has escalated into an expensive court case with OECTA Provincial having all of our member dues at its disposal and the multi-million dollar strike contingency fund. 



To alleviate this obvious power/financial imbalance Halton Elementary Unit gallantly set up a legal trust fund for the defence of President Richard Brock (whose only crime was looking out for his unit members’ interests and rights as he was elected to do). Rather than being thanked as one might expect, Halton Elementary Unit is now being actively persecuted and blacklisted for having dared to try to help their President (who had been re-elected for a period of 20 years). Halton Unit is seemingly being targeted by OECTA Provincial as an example of what happens to “bad” units, who support presidents that commit the “crime” of speaking out against bad “deals” by OECTA, and thus; who do not toe the OECTA Provincial line. Welcome to the “Catholic” “Teachers’” “Union” which increasingly resembles the KGB of the old Soviet Union with its open reprisals against anyone in our union who appears to be pro-democracy or even pro-teachers. 

Instead of serving its mandate to protect the rights and interests of union members against exterior forces; OECTA Provincial is plainly attacking and persecuting its own union members and making a mockery of both unionism and Catholicity. One cannot but wonder who is minding the shop (what is left of it after the MOU of July, 2012) while our leaders spend their time, energy and our resources in such “worthy” endeavours. Perhaps, these present reprisals are aimed at ensuring that President Richard Brock runs out of funds before his case reaches the civil court; which would definitely not look upon OECTA Provincial’s increasingly shady dealings with amusement. The courts will undoubtedly regard this further violation of Richard’s civil rights and his rights as a member of this union with severity, and will likely also, look upon the blacklisting of his unit, as an attempt to undermine Richard’s legal rights and the integrity of the civil court proceedings, by silencing his supporters.

York President Liz Stuart says in her York Sentinel article “Challenging Times Ahead” [ LINK ], that “according to the handbook the Provincial Discipline Board is to be established, as are all provincial committees, by the Provincial Executive”. Members of Richard Brock’s “panel” were not selected by the provincial executive and the “trial” itself had many glaring irregularities.




A petition by our independent OECTA Justice Committee is still on line and open. A hard copy was put in the hands of President James Ryan on November 22nd, 2013 at a meeting with the OECTA Justice Committee.  The petition details facts about the case and documents member support for its remediationPETITION
    
Delegates to the upcoming AGM have an opportunity to vote to have Richard Brock restored to his rightful position as President of Halton Elementary and to let OECTA know what we think of their unsavoury tactics and abuse of power in a free vote on an Action Directive submitted by Halton before they came under attack by Provincial.

The Action Directive put forward by Halton Elementary reads:

[132 Action Directive, page 80 (Halton Elementary]

Simple Majority

"That the Association annual general meeting 2014 declare null and void the August 29, 2013 decision of the discipline panel. That Richard Brock immediately be re-instated as duly elected president of Halton Elementary unit with the restoration of all rights and privileges of membership. That the respondents be reimbursed for the costs incurred, damages, lost wages and the inconvenience arising from the wrongful action".

Rationale: The Supreme Body, the AGM, in recognizing the errors in process, can overrule the entire handbook and reverse the decision of the discipline board with one simple majority vote by the member delegates.



This can be done by AGM delegates and must be done in my view to save any integrity that OECTA still possesses. Ask yourselves the following question:

Do we as delegates want OECTA Provincial to get away with assuming the powers of a dictatorship or an oligarchy? This is the issue, and the Richard Brock and Halton Elementary unit cases; are just a microcosm of this issue which must be dealt with here and now if our OECTA can survive as a viable union ruled by the wishes of its due-paying members. 

Please show Provincial that we know who has the ultimate authority in our union and that the executive is responsible for its mistakes, by voting in favour of Action Directive 132. Justice must be done and be seen to be done, if our organization is to have any credibility.
For a discussion on the issue of democracy in our union see @ Reinstate Richard Brock


P. Spearns
OECTA Staff Representative

Mary Ward CSS

82 comments:

Anonymous said...

The latest is that OECTA provincial thorough its pricy lawyers( that we are paying for) is trying to suppress this action direction and remove it from the AGM agenda! Move over Machiavelli!

Anonymous said...

The devil can quote Scripture for his own use - William Shakespeare. These OECTA orovincial lawyers are doing a good job of subverting the will of the members!

Anonymous said...

Don Corleoni would feel very comfortable in what our union has become. This is totally disgusting! We need competent leaders who focus on the mandate of looking after member rights and interests rather than on power struggles and vendettas!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Speams,

What you are advocating is democracy by public opinion, otherwise known as anarchy. You are suggesting that the members should be able to instantly overturn any law they do not agree with, rather than using the time-honoured method of voting against the leaders who enact the policies you do not support.

That is a slippery slope to stand on! Yes, the people are the ultimate authority, but we have chosen to not live in a state of chaos and anarchy whereby any mob, at any time, can overturn anything they decide they do not like, or that does not go their way!

If you do not like the discipline decision, you can vote at the AGM to institute further changes to the bylaws that now exist.

Should we all ignore laws we that inconvenient to us? Would you have us go back to bullying, lynching, bribing, etc... and forget about the Rule of Law? Speaking of bullying .....

In addition, while you may agree with Mr. Brock's stance on the MOU, it seems that you are experiencing difficulty in discerning that from the actions that Mr. Brock (and Mr. Boyle) took which led to the hearing in the first place.

Now, many members of the Halton OECTA Unit have been speaking up regarding many years of indiscretions on the part of Mr. Brock. Along with the help of a forensic audit, much information has come to light regarding financial and procedural irregularities and conflict of interest allegations.

While none of this has been "officially" proven yet, I believe that much information will become public in the very near future.

While you can agree or disagree on the discipline decision, one thing is abundantly clear .... an opportunity has arisen whereby the Halton OECTA Elementary Unit can make a fresh start, provide greater transparency in financial matters to its members, and create an atmosphere, as one member said at a recent meeting, "free of intimidation, collusion, and bullying. It is not going to be a feudal state anymore with the dark lord in charge. People will be able to speak their minds without being summarily dismissed or taken to the Board by their own union."

I would suggest you attend a meeting sometime, just to get a feel for what is happening at Halton. Much of the information which cannot be published here, will be discussed, and you can see for yourself why the Unit wants to take a truly new direction.

A new day is dawning!

Sincerely,

Candy O

Anonymous said...

Fredo Corleone is in charge. Therein lies the problem. Don't blame Michael or Vito. LOL.

Anonymous said...

Rumour has it that there was an " impartial" investigation headed by the very person who launched the "case" agianst president Richard Brock. Talk about leaving the fox to guard the hen house! None of the members at large have been privy to the results of this "impartial" investigation!

Anonymous said...

Regarding Corleone comment!! ...

Bugga! Thanks mate! Many of us do feel very strongly that Richard Brock and Don Corleone are an excellent comparison!!

Yours,
Roger

Anonymous said...

The AGM is the ultimate authority; not the executive that has been serving us so badly this past couple of years. The OECTA executive is there to serve the members looking after their rights and interests! Read the first part of the badly abused OECTA handbook that details the duties of the executive! Also I think it was extremely bad judgement (at the very least) for the Executive to put the Secretariat in charge of the "unbiased" investigation into Richard's case that was allegedly released to the COP! I was at a meeting of the OECTA justice committee and James Ryan in November and President James Ryan did tell us that the GS was in charge of the investigation. We protested this obvious conflict of interest at that time!

Anonymous said...

Democracy means rule of the people not just a few dictators as is in the case of OECTA. No ratification vote on the MOU and the strange case of Richard Brock are but two recent examples of out of control oligarchy!

Anonymous said...

I admit that Richard Brock looks after the interests and rights of his membership. Since when is this a crime for a union leader? Welcome to OECTA!

P. Spearns

Anonymous said...

Dear P. Spearns,

Wish to inform you that Action Directive 132 was officially withdrawn as of last night by the dues-paying members of the Halton OECTA Elementary Unit.

Members report that, "It would appear that the interests and rights of the membership are well taken care of without Mr. Brock and Mr. Boyle."

It is ironic that you make reference to "crime." Just how ironic it is may come as a surprise at a later date. However, no such activity has been yet publicized and of course everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court. Or at a discipline hearing.

Welcome to OECTA

Sincerely,

Candy O

Anonymous said...

Correct us if we have it wrong, but according to sources at the HEU Unit General Meeting last night, the Unit members present held a vote on Action Directive 132 and voted it down/voted against it? What does that play out like? Does it still hit the floor of the AGM next week?

Also, in the interests of transparency and accountability to unit members, every unit should provide monthly, audited published statements of payments to all Unit Executive members and Unit Release Officers, and Unit Staff members.

Anonymous said...

FACTS CLARIFICATION to this guest blog: The legal defence trust fund was set up by its two trustees first. Then it was presented to the HEU Executive members to request a donation.

David Chiarelli said...

I'm very puzzled that these other issues about Mr. Brocks good name + character are coming up now just before AGM. They don't address the actual case of the Discipline Committee procedures + verdict. Also, if there was another reason why Mr. Brock should have been dismissed, then shouldn't that have been what was addressed by the Discipline Committee? Following fair, transparent and proper procedures? Or is it okay now right before AGM to suddenly want to ignore the original concerns because there are claims he is actually guilty of something else? Still sounds like a heck of a way to run a professional, democratic union. Doesn't quite add up.

Anonymous said...

Are you missing the fact that the HEU members voted to ditch Brock's resolution? I'm sure Richard would support his member's decision according to what you've always said he would stop at nothing to support the wishes of his membership. Are you missing the fact that Richard himself proposed the resolution?

Anonymous said...

You will look like a complete fool when all the information about Brock comes out - you will be remembered as someone who was an ardent blind faith fool who supported a very corrupt individual. Ask your buddy some hard questions about how he ran his unit and the friends he hired - he's lucky he's not in jail. He doesn't have a hope in hell of winning any lawsuit and will need to save his money for defending himself against further charges

Anonymous said...

Yes a bunch of people that never show up and now they showed to approve a list of bylaws written by Toronto never approved by local executive.. They were invited in just to do that.

Anonymous said...

I've been informed by a few people you censor most negative or critical posts of Mr. Brock. Are you afraid to let people post without your approval? This is very telling about the credibility of your blog and especially about this blog on Richard Brock - why not hear the good the bad and the ugly from all unless you are just a simple minion of Mr. Brock's. I will be sure to spread the word online and elsewhere if this criticism isn't posted. If someone makes an unsubstantiated claim ask them to prove it.

Anonymous said...

Thanks David. Last night's General meeting was a farce. All the bylaws that were changed in the last 2 years were rewritten and presented to the general meeting last night. Interestingly enough never approved by the unit executive "and could not be approved by us last night because we had no executive quorum" after people had left. Our meeting was bombarded with anti Richard people. They acted like a bunch of hooligans and made many accusations against Richard. They over turned directive 132, because the President and Chair said it would be out of order. I am sure that all these people were told to come. They are never at any meetings other wise. Half of the Executive is new and are scared of this new disciplinary move that names each of them by name. Everyone who was there with Richard is gone.

Anonymous said...

I was "asked" to come not told, to be accurate about it. And a damn good thing I did. I heard plenty most of which I didn't like. We hired retired Board administration? Or unit had a paid lawyer? What local union does that?

David Chiarelli said...

Re: 2 above.

I will only post this once, because I don't respond to bullying or goading. I always attach my name to what I say. You don't. You have been told this before. I have investigated and there is no way I can confirm your claims. Others have contradicted and negated their credibility such that I am not comfortable posting them as per your Comments. You can't post anonymously and claim someone can verify afterwards. If you don't like my blog, please go somewhere else, or start your own blog and do that there.

I believe we have many good open forum discussions here, which is rare for teachers today. There must be something to it, or I'm sure there wouldn't have been over 323,000 reader visits so far. I try to moderate as little as possible because I've found over time the commentators achieve their own balance, which is how free speech works. There have been a few thousand comments contributed to the discussions on this blogsite, but very very few which I have ever had to withhold like yours for the reasons given. You can believe that or not.

There seem to be a few real heavy handed power plays going on behind the scenes prior to this AGM which does not bode well for Democracy in OECTA, whether one agrees with Ms Spearns argument or not. It doesn't have a very tone. That is very unfortunate indeed for the delegates this year, and the well being of the membership they will seek to represent. I should think my readers can sense that here.

BTW I posted a signed Comment on another blog recently that made a similar argument to the ones you made regarding the Brock case but he didn't attack people, both elected and individuals at large by name with unsubstantiated claims. Its hard to strike a balance sometimes, but I felt comfortable with this, regardless of my own point of view.

You can always try again by submitting more appropriate Comments as per my guidelines above, but otherwise thanks no thanks. Most regretfully I won't be posting or replying to any more of yours in that case for the reasons given.

David C

Anonymous said...

This is what we call transparency at Halton....Get rid of all Richard's friends, all the people with experience and post their job:
In our December, 2013 Unit Executive meeting, your Halton Elementary Unit Executive approved a motion for a Release Officer position.(It was filled) At our Unit General Meeting on February 27, 2014, the membership directed the Unit Executive to fill the position with an active member.

Please find the Release Officer posting and application form attached.

The urgency for this position is due to a need to better serve our members in the Unit office.

David Chiarelli said...

Dear Urgent!

Regretfully this blogging system does not post attachments. Could you please resubmit a link or other way a member can get a form to apply for the position?!?

Thanks!

David C

Anonymous said...

What is wrong with active members being hired as Unit Release Officers? They probably have more current exposure and knowledge to issues affecting teachers day to day.

Also, Release Officers should have terms and rotate people to maximize unit membership participation and development. Develop a pool of talented unit members.

Are only "friends" acceptable as Release Officers? Time for new change and growth.

Anonymous said...

A free vote of 500 delegates in an AGM is "anarchy"? Where did Cindy O study democracy? The Soviet Union?

P. Spearns

Anonymous said...

Halton Elementary unit is moving forward. We need to respect what their members feel is in their best interests. One thing is certain, people outside of Halton do not have all of the information. Bits and pieces of information often pieced together equal misinformation.

David Chiarelli said...

Regretfully, I am wary whenever the OECTA Code of Silence is evoked for matters we cant be told about, it has meant the MOU and questionable committee practices in the past 2 years. Maybe there are some inconvenient truths? Once again, timing for all this, one week before the AGM also seems suspect at best. Just my opinion ....

David Chiarelli said...

Dear Gestapo referencer! Might you rewrite with another term to make your point? I understand perfectly and would be glad to of course include your point of view. However I'm worried this terminology is too inflammatory for our discussion purposes

Anonymous said...

I merely asked if the GS wore his uniform and jackboots when he went to Halton Elementary's impromptu inspection.

Anonymous said...

As far as Action Directive 132 being voted down at the HEU Unit General Meeting, one of the reasons for that backlash voting could be how all HEU AGM proposals have been created for the last decade.

AGM proposal forms were never sent out to the unit membership so they could submit their suggestions.

This year too the HEU AGM proposals were submitted as a done deal created by someone behind the scenes with no unit input into their creation.

That kind of process builds resentment in the unit and might explain that vote.

How are unit AGM proposals created in other units?

Anonymous said...

I agree with you David, that the rhetoric is pointless. It is used when people are uninformed. Lacking specific information, people resort to comments such as the one immediately above. To compare the Halton issue to the experiences of the Nazi era is to diminish the suffering of millions. There is, of course the possibility that Nazi references demonstrate a lack of knowledge and information about this period in history.

I want to thank you David for the work you put into this blog to allow for dialogue. Also, you are to be commended for posting those blogs which are contrary to your opinion. In addition, I agree with you that inflammatory comments do not promote discussion. That being said I want to disagree with you with regard to your inference that the timing of this discussion is suspect as it coincides with the AGM. I have been commenting on the dire situation in Halton since December. At that time it was difficult to say much as the Halton Executive shrouded their activities through incamera sessions. That all discussion and decisions were incamera is inappropriate. It was done to hide the fact that Richard Brock attended and directed (this is fact) executive meetings. This violated the discipline. Once again, I will say that regardless of the flaws in the process, the discipline should be respected. These are the rules of the Association. As time progressed through the fall and into January some on the executive have sought to respect the discipline. The result is a serious split between those who seek to respect the discipline and those who do not.

Throughout January and February there has been an executive struggle to determine the AGM delegation. The list as determined in the fall was changed at an executive meeting. Those who continue to support Richard's involvement in the unit have sought to remove those they deem unfriendly to Richard's cause. If people would be honest and take responsibility for their actions they would tell you that those removed from the list were told that they weren't trusted. The question of trust is whether the delegate would defend Richard's interests. It is my understanding that it is not within a member's power to discipline another. With this understanding an appeal was made to Provincial. The decision was indeed that one member may not discipline another. Two delegates were removed from the list by Provincial as their Life Membership did not qualify them as delegates. It has therefore taken time to finalize delegates for the AGM. Given that there is strife on the Halton Executive and a myriad of other ongoing internal issues it has taken time to do this.

The UGM was held on February 27th. It was at this meeting that the membership removed resolution 132. The members attending the meeting were not "hooligans". They asked questions, weighed the information and made decisions. After witnessing no attendance at UGM meetings for the past 20 years, I am appreciative of attendance at this point. I am incredulous that attendance by the membership at a pivotal juncture is criticized, regardless of one's opinion on the issues. This is what has been lacking in Halton...dialogue, discussion!

Respectfully David, I must disagree with your inference that the timing is suspect. It has been a long process. Provincial involvement contrary to the comments of others has been collaborative and helpful. I implore people to stop the inflammatory comments and understand that there are AGM resolutions supporting further discussion with regard to process. This is democratic. Hopefully, when people understand this there will be an end to Nazi and Soviet Union references and an end to "I don't want to pay dues to OECTA" comments.

Anonymous said...

With regard to the jackbooted impromptu inspection comment, I would state that it is the responsibility of the GS to ensure the discipline be observed. There has been nothing impromptu about this situation. The executive knew well in advance which of their decisions were problematic in terms of compliance with the discipline. Further, the executive knew well in advance that the GS would attend an executive meeting. Not jackbooted, not impromptu and not an inspection. This is inflammatory and uninformed.

Anonymous said...

It is easy to throw stones at a victim who is no longer around to defend himself. Cowards abound.I just watched Son of God and was treated to a view of just how evil the opposition can be. Jesus was wrongfully convicted too and look what happened to Him. I would imagine the Judases and Pontious Pilates want to divert attention away from their own nefarious activities by throwing stones at Richard and his unit.

Anonymous said...

What are the best practices of hiring unit release officers? How do most units do it? Do some still hire retirees? Or only active members?

Anonymous said...

The next thing will be that the GS will be saying "I was just following orders". We all know where we heard that excuse before and it didn't wash then and still doesn't. Members are not as stupid as our "leaders" think.

David Chiarelli said...

Hi again! I need to confirm some details provided about the HE exec before I can post for accuracy sake. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Who directed the Halton Elementary Unit to conduct their discussions "in camera" or to go "in camera"? There is a question that needs to be answered truthfully.

Anonymous said...

Did the GS really go in and convene this surprise meeting, stack the deck with unknown "voters" and kick out any regulars at Halton Elementary unit on Friday evening past? Could this have been done deliberately to squash Action Directive 132 before it got to the floor at the AGM? Does evil know no limit in this "union"?

David Chiarelli said...

The accounts of this meeting are so incredibly varied that it is very hard to ascertain what exactly transpired. There is very little common ground where agreement overlaps with any degree of certitude.

I have confirmed that President Ryan was at the meeting, and that the SG would have been following Provincial procedures.

In a more general sense, I am particularly befuddled why mud slinging issues are clouding the procedural issues about the discipline committee hearing at this point in time.

Also about the Action Directive suddenly being found out of order. Its unclear as well from an earlier comment on whether there was quorum at the end of the meeting, which would call into question whether it can be properly withdrawn.

That this is all so secret and not something that should be talked about or questioned is also very alarming, not exactly what one would expect from a professional organization of teachers. Of course that code of silence also further clouds the actual issues, a big problem from the July 5 MOU forward. When we found out the actual details later they do not not exactly inspire confidence either.

The problems no doubt run very deep.

David Chiarelli said...

Further Re: the Discipline Committee Hearing issue: Quite frankly, mudslinging Richard, the HE executive, past or present, or for that matter the GS or the PE in the personal sense, can only be counterproductive to a good discussion and voting process on the Discipline Issue Hearing motions or the/ an Action Directive at this weekends OECTA AGM 2014.

I don't doubt that mudslinging, to discredit them on personal grounds might well be intentional for political reasons, to influence or handicap the process in dealing with the the real issues at stake.

There is, in my mind, no doubt that there are a number of very heavy handed power plays in motion prior to the AGM, which is most sad and unfortunate.

Otherwise why would all these villainous portrayals suddenly seem to be the main issue now? Tch! Tch!

Anonymous said...

Maybe the AGM should do something about the discipline procedure and make it retroactive?
Maybe dues paying innocent members should be provided with a lawyer paid for by OECTA during the complaint investigation?

Anonymous said...

Objectively speaking could it be that certain parts of OECTA don't want this whole issue to dominate the AGM discussions/motions?

Anonymous said...

It would be convenient of the outstanding issues would go away or could be covered up with long winded speakers or other time wasting measures at the AGM too. Why deal with reality when the decision makers are present?

Anonymous said...

Why was Action Directive 132 (to reinstate Richard Brock as Unit President) judged to be "out of order"? Explain that please.

Anonymous said...

Once again I will respond to the rhetoric and inflammatory comments. Yes, we all know that Jesus was wrongfully convicted and that Judas and Pontius Pilate were involved in the events that led to the crucifixion. To compare the crucifixion to Richard Brock's removal from office is to diminish the suffering of Jesus. The comparison of the GS to Judas and Pontius Pilate would indicate that the blogger thinks Richard is Jesus! How do you respond to this? This is not a discussion. It is childish and offensive.

With regard to the comment that the GS was "just following orders" I feel compelled to say again that this comparison is inappropriate. There is no comparison between a discipline decision and the systematic murder of millions. I am concerned that no one is offended by this. People should be. These comparisons diminish the magnitude of the human suffering involved.

"Does evil know no limit in this union" is a question asked by a blogger with regard to resolution 132. I assume this blogger was not at the UGM. The AGM does not hear appeals. There is no process for appeals. At the AGM delegates can put an appeal process in place. Stop being hysterical and inflammatory long enough to listen and understand. Resolution 132 is pointless because there is no appeal process. When/if an appeal process is put in place, an appeal will not be through the AGM. It will be through an appeal process that is put in place by the AGM. This has nothing to do with anyone being "evil".

When I first discovered this blog, I was excited. I anticipated informed discussion. At this point I am disappointed by the offensive and inflammatory comments. These comments divert attention from informed dialogue which discusses specifics. Consequently there is no real dialogue here.

I am appreciative of the fact that you (David) check facts prior to posting that which seems sensitive. Who are your contacts for fact checking? The President of the Halton unit is Nina March and the Recording Secretary is Mary Anne MacDonald.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Real Dialogue

It was illegal right from the start to impose any penalty on Richard Brock. See the section from the OLRA that follows, Note in the last
paragraph that it states, "because the person has made an application or filed a complaint under this Act or has participated in or is about to participate in a proceeding under this Act."

Ontario Labour Relations Act

87. (2) No trade union, council of trade unions or person acting on behalf of a trade union or council of trade unions shall,

(a) discriminate against a person in regard to employment or a term or condition of employment; or

(b) intimidate or coerce or impose a pecuniary or other penalty on a person,

because of a belief that the person may testify in a proceeding under this Act or because the person has made or is about to make a disclosure that may be required in a proceeding under this Act or because the person has made an application or filed a complaint under this Act or has participated in or is about to participate in a proceeding under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.2, s. 82; 1995, c. 1, Sched., s. 87, in force November 10, 1995 (R.A.).

Check mate? You decide.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Real Dialogue

It was illegal right from the start to impose any penalty on Richard Brock. See the section from the OLRA that follows, Note in the last
paragraph that it states, "because the person has made an application or filed a complaint under this Act or has participated in or is about to participate in a proceeding under this Act."

Ontario Labour Relations Act

87. (2) No trade union, council of trade unions or person acting on behalf of a trade union or council of trade unions shall,

(a) discriminate against a person in regard to employment or a term or condition of employment; or

(b) intimidate or coerce or impose a pecuniary or other penalty on a person,

because of a belief that the person may testify in a proceeding under this Act or because the person has made or is about to make a disclosure that may be required in a proceeding under this Act or because the person has made an application or filed a complaint under this Act or has participated in or is about to participate in a proceeding under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.2, s. 82; 1995, c. 1, Sched., s. 87, in force November 10, 1995 (R.A.).

Check mate? You decide.

Anonymous said...

At last! A blog that is not hysterical. Here are facts. The reason this blogger does not have to make reference to Jesus and the Nazi era is because he has information to discuss. Again, OECTA does not have an appeal process. This situation needs to be rectified, but it is the reality at this time. Richard Brock's appeal at this time must be through the court.

Speaking of information, where is the blog that outlined the Release Officer situation in Halton? It was not inflammatory. Rather, it provided factual information. Interesting that Nazi references are still up but factual information has been removed.

Angelo Ippolito said...

The OLRA could not be any more clear.

Richard "was about to participate in a proceeding under this act" when the complainants sent in there procedure 13 letter. Subsequently Richard Brock even withdrew his right to "participate". This was long before the "DB" hearing.

The penalty was illegal then and remains illegal. All that needs to be determined now, is what do we do when we know we have broken the law. To say that we cannot do anything is the same as sanctioning the breaking of the law.

Silence is the enemy of both peace and justice. I have often said that it would take courage to solve this. That has not changed. The law is the law is the law and a member is a member is a member,

Is there a duty implicit to citizenship and membership? Does that duty include following our own rules and the law of the land?

You wanted real dialogue so let's have. Start by posting with your name and email.

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Welcome back Angelo. We missed you.

David Chiarelli said...

Good to see you back Angelo! Can you or anybody else confirm that at this weekends OECTA AGM:

a] the action directive will be withdrawn and

b] the Discipline Committee motions will be referred to a working a group for study and dealt with next year?

If so, so much for that eh?

Angelo Ippolito said...

It is my understanding that you are correct on both a and b.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous wrote. " Again, OECTA does not have an appeal process. This situation needs to be rectified, but it is the reality at this time. Richard Brock's appeal at this time must be through the court."

This is not correct, Once it was clear that the law was contravened and our by-laws were not followed the Provincial Executive had the duty and right to ensure they were followed. Since that did not occur the decision of the DB becomes null and void. Yes a court will make a decision but it is a costly exercise in the obvious.

Past practice can only be used in court if it was consistent, long standing and well known, Not following our bylaws to appoint the DB was none of these,

The truth is like a lion. Just set it free and it will defend itself. I love OECTA and I am acting in its defense and for its future,

Truth and justice are always in the best interest of our members. Be courageous and stand up against injustice and we will all be better off for it.

With deepest respect,

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

David Chiarelli said...

Mudslinging individuals without using your own name is quite unfair. Nobody should have to shadowbox an anonymous or get drawn into a fight by them.

Anonymous said...

How does the AGM make sure the Discipline Committee motions are not thrown aside or delayed until next year? This just gets sadder all the time.

Anonymous said...

God Bless You Angelo! Harder to stand up when you are being actively persecuted by your own union!

Anonymous said...

Where is the mudslinging? I have agreed that this situation needs to be rectified. My objection is the mudslinging directed at the GS and the so called "hooligans" in the Halton unit who seek to carry on the business of the unit in the member's interest.

I am aware of the OLRA section 87.(2) a) b). I am aware also that the PE had a duty to ensure bylaws/laws are followed. Given that this section of the OLRA was violated and the PE did not act we find ourselves in the position we are now in. The recourse now is as Angelo and David agreed: a) Action Directive 132 is withdrawn and b) Discipline Committee motions are referred to a working group. This is what I have said in earlier posts. I have also said that I would defend any members rights and plan to do so.

I am asking you to recognize that the Halton unit must continue to be conducted in the interest of the members. The decision to remove Richard from office had severe repercussions. Someone had to step up and assume a leadership role. One needs to be from Halton to understand what this means. No one except Richard knows what the day to day business of the unit involves. This is the reality because of the authoritarian and unilateral leadership style of Richard Brock. He did not, at any time step away from unit business. Rather than act as a mentor he was a harsh and abusive critic. In addition, he was involved in executive meetings. Every meeting was moved in camera and conducted with one concern...Richard. The extent of involvement and the decisions made will at some point be known. Others have alluded to a trust fund. There is much more to this. The details will be released with an audit report. At this point I am trying to explain and ask you to understand that there are executive members who felt that the business of the unit had to be conducted. Asking Richard to step away to facilitate this was difficult. This is what needed to be done. In no way does this mean that the need to rectify the situation is not understood and supported.

Is this mudslinging? I am agreeing that as it reads in section 87, the OLRA was violated. I too was surprised that the PE did not act. Also, I want to see an appeal process in place. I understand that not only must justice be served, it must also appear to be served. What I am asking is that in the aftermath of the decision, you recognize the situation in Halton. This is the consequence of a specific leadership style and Richard's refusal to disengage. As in all changes there is tension and conflict. It is not mudslinging for me to discuss the reality of the situation in Halton.

David Chiarelli said...

Hmmm. Neither Angelo nor I said the Action Directive should be withdrawn, nor the Discipline Panel motions deferred 4 study ....

Anonymous said...

Can the AGM vote down the referral of all Discipline Panel/Board/Decisions related AGM resolutions to a work study group/committee so that they can be openly discussed and voted on at next week's AGM like they should be and not next year? Why can this problem not be solved internally without the expensive outside court cases? Why will OECTA not admit a mistake? Explain why this democratic discussion cannot occur at the AGM? How is that in members' or the association's interests? What about free speech in a country as great as CANADA?

Anonymous said...

Correct. Neither of you said it should be. I understood you to have said this is the situation. Further I understood that you are not pleased with this. I apologize. I thought I made that clear.

Do you recognize my point? There are two issues here. One, the discipline/process and the other, the situation in Halton. They are related issues in that the discipline lead to all that has followed. However, at this point, although related, they are separate because the unit needs to continue to conduct business. Was I clear about unit business? The office was for a time paralyzed. There is a great deal more I could say about internal strife. I choose not to. It is not in anyone's interest. In your responses the reality of the situation in Halton is ignored. Who are you fact checking with? I commend your consistent defense of what you think is right. Can you consider what I am saying about the situation in Halton as an issue separate from Richard's appeal which I support. This has been difficult and is not helped by misinformation, half truths and Jesus/Pontius Pilate and Nazi references.

Anonymous said...

I think Angelo is making the point that it does not matter what happens to Resolution 132 or the referral to a task force. He is saying that the decision was and is illegal and the the DB had no authority no matter how you look at it. I have learned that Angelo sent two letters today to the PE and all the unit presidents that clearly makes these points.If someone has them can they post it here or even better on John Cafferky's new guest blog. I heard John may have been copied on them. Thank-you Angelo for being the courageous voice of reason and never wavering from supporting all the members. We need more like you.

David Chiarelli said...

I see the 2 issues. The internal issue at HE is separate and should be dealt with separately. My concern is that, love him or hate him, Mr. Brock, a staunch MOU fighter was removed through irregular procedures by an appointed Discipline Panel. That is the situation I have been focusing on since last August, as have most of the readers and indeed all the guest blogger contributions to this site.

I have looked into the HE internal situation, and to be quite frank, I have received quite divergent takes on what has been happening there. I have talked with parties on both sides of the issue. I ask for context, make up my own mind, and otherwise respect their anonyminity so that they can speak openly with me. It is the same as my background research with any issue being debated here on my site.

There are some very important issues that have to be dealt with at the AGM, neither of which directly deal with the internal unit politics of Mr. Brocks tenure as president. That was not the reason Brock was dismissed as per the minutes and verdict of the Discipline Panel decision that was released.

When it suddenly does become the issue, just as we also learn that the Action Directive will be withdrawn and the Discipline Panel motions deferred for study, it serves as a red herring to cloud that awful state of affairs. Are we to ignore or agree to that because Mr. Brock was allegedly a bad man in other respects? No, there are greater principles at stake here, and I think it is disingenuous to throw this into the mix now.

Afterwards the internal Brock issue can be dealt with separately, in a more appropriate manner and so as to not allow the travesty of justice we are now seeing unfolding prior to AGM to pass unnoticed, or be shrugged off because maybe there were other problems at HE suggesting he was a bad president in other ways.

Hope this helps!

David Chiarelli said...

Kindly forward the letters here as word files and I can post as blogs. No PDF's please,or fancy lettering or spacing. They screw up when posted.

Anonymous said...

God Bless You Angelo. Does anyone care about the truth anymore?

Anonymous said...

Thanks Angelo. You give us hope for a brighter future. Where do you find the courage to stand up for us when many are only interested in protecting a few elites or are afraid them. I wish that I could also say that I love OECTA. Right now I don't. You, however may be able to bring me back. Keep healthy and keep strong. They will come after you because they despise the bright light like vampires. Shine on my friend. Shine on.

David Chiarelli said...

Kindly note that I have all ready confirmed President Ryan was at the HE meeting and that the GS was following OECTA procedures. Other then that everything else about the meeting is unsubstantiated and open to dispute.

Anonymous said...

There are many motions going forward to the AGM on the discipline process. Some seek to broaden the scope and make it stronger; some seek to limit the scope and make it more merciful. It is unlikely any of the resolutions will get the 2/3rds vote necessary to carry. The compromise position is to set up a task force that will make recommendations that can be adopted by AGM 2015. Any changes to the process must also be able to withstand any legal challenges. Having good legal counsel on any task force will therefore be essential.

Anonymous said...

If you want a good legal mind on that Task Force then put Angelo on it. He clearly has a much better and objective understanding than any of OECTA's lawyers. He is trying to save us from a humiliating defeat as our own lawyers and elite bring us to the slaughter. I would trust and follow Angelo before agreeing with our lawyers and elite. The elite only care about themselves and the pay the lawyers to protect them. We do not matter when their personal agendas and advancements are being questioned. Than God for Angelo just thank God.

Anonymous said...

Having "good" legal counsel seems to be a large part of our problem actually.

Anonymous said...

Enough lawyers. Maybe more active member involvement is needed.

Anonymous said...

If the actions of the Discipline Board are unlawful they will be struck down by the courts. We all need to allow that process to happen. As far as all the Discipline resolutions in the handbook are concerned, my understanding is that there is a compromise in the works to send them to a task force that will complete a total review and overhaul of OECTA's discipline process.

My question that I will put out for discussion is who should sit on that task force and who should not?

Anonymous said...

The section of the OLRA that was posted earlier makes it illegal for OECTA to have imposed any penalty on Richard Brock and the Halton Elementary Unit Executive. We broke the law and now we are being told that there is nothing we can do about it. Give me a break. If a board disciplined a teacher and broke the law to do it then we would not be able to do anything about it? I guess we are setting a very dangerous precedent. Anyone who cares about justice should be alarmed. I would like to join those for thanking Angelo for doing the right thing and defending all of us. Angelo take care of yourself because they will try to silence you. There is a long history of shutting down those who dare speak the truth. You are a member of a small group who has the required courage. Do not let them push us off the cliff again. Like you say , the truth can defend itself. Just set it free. I do not understand how anyone can argue against any of the points you make. They can stand on their own merits.

Anonymous said...

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” JFK
I am glad you are not among their number Angelo. Your parents named you accurately!!! LOL

Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that only COP can force the Toronto units into the provincial LTD plan. This is by there own motion. Angelo stood up at that meeting and made this clear to everyone present. If the PE did this unilaterally then they would not be acting in the wording and spirit of the COP motion. The heavy handed and illegal approaches continue.

Let me keep the ball rolling and also thank Angelo for speaking the truth. I have heard him at many meetings and this is nothing new for him. Under the circumstances I find it interesting that the PE and the GS have not found some "illegal" way to fire him. That is what they do. Angelo must terrify them as they try to subvert the truth and justice.

PE members, you broke the law and did not follow your duty to act in accordance with the Handbook. The first step to reconciliation is to admit what you did was wrong. That would take courage which you do not seem to have. Maybe Angelo can lend you some.

David Chiarelli said...

Hi Illegal! Regret am not posting despite the Comments many interesting merits. Don't disagree with your concern but not sure is fair to anonymously name and make claims as such.

Anonymous said...

It is illegal for us to have imposed any penalty on Richard Brock. We have apparently good lawyers. If they are so good then why have we never heard about the section from the OLRA that makes the any penalty illegal. It does not take a tech for us to believe that it was kept from us. For us to find our from Angelo is great for Angelo but it makes our PE and our lawyers look incompetent.

I would like to keep the ball rolling and also thank Angelo for having the courage to speak the truth. Be careful Angelo because they will try to silence you. There is a long history of targeting and silencing those who would dare speak the truth. When some try to subvert the truth and justice, they fear the truth speakers.

Angelo, be wary.

I hope this makes the editorial cut.

Sincerely,

ILLEGAL

Anonymous said...

Who should be on the Task Force?

Provincial Executive - the President & 1st VP
Large Units - Beth Dowe & Sheila Brescia
Medium Units - Serge Cacoilo & Michelle MacDonald
Small Units - Angelo Ippolitto & Linda Gordon
Occasional Teachers - Steve Kirby & Carlo Palermo
Staff Resource - Marshall Jarvis & Independent legal counsel as selected by the task force

Anonymous said...

A task force?

Seems that the general direction so far is to never admit that OECTA made a mistake and violated the Ontario Labour Relations Act in its Discipline Decision against the HEU and its former Unit President.

Why should the average dues paying member of OECTA have any faith that a task force will investigate the decision and come up with an answer that might conclude that OECTA made a mistake?

More window dressing needed? NO.

Let the AGM rule the union and vote on all AGM 2014 Discipline related motions NOW not NEXT YEAR.

The time for effective leadership is now not later.

Anonymous said...

I find it very strange how offensive it is to some to refer to bygone historical periods or trends toward dictatorship and cruelty that are being repeated by the OECTA of today. The writer seems to be so overly concerned about all the past suffering but pays no attention to the suffering of teachers who had their banked sick days unilaterally stolen from them in the MOU of July. 2012 and are sick now; and the suffering of Richard Brock and his unit who are suffering now after a wrongful dismissal and the subsequent purge by OECTA provincial. There is something wrong with this reasoning. Apparently suffering is of no consequence if OECTA causes it directly in the present but the suffering of the past is very important and should not be mentioned or used in unflattering comparisons that seem to be very close to the mark to me;, perhaps too close to the mark for the critic.

Anonymous said...

Members of Halton unit who are experiencing problems have been directed to Elaine McMahon who is the liaison Officer for Halton. If past performance is any indicator she will do a great job in this position.

Anonymous said...

Reading some of these recent posts, one may conclude that all those people persecuted in the past deserved to be persecuted. Same in Oecta today.

Anonymous said...

The obvious point was that while we can do something about the suffering of today; we can do nothing about the suffering of the past obviously; unless OECTA has a working time machine! Maybe the GS has one and is keeping it a secret like all else in OECTA!

Post a Comment

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!