Denis Rancourt vs. the U of O: the saga continues

Last week I and a number of members of Canadians for Accountability attended the mandatory arbitration hearing for Denis Rancourt, who was fired by the University of Ottawa in 2009. The reason given was his pedagogy – which, contrary to university policy, included a simple pass/fail system in which those who passed got an A+. This firing was unprecedented as Prof. Rancourt was a tenured professor with quite a record of accomplishment in his field. As to marking practices, the growing consensus is that the university violated the principle of academic freedom when they used it as a pretext to fire him.

The real reasons are considerably murkier, with evidence suggesting political motives and spitefulness by those whose egos have been bruised by his persistent criticism of the university’s administration. In particular, Allan Rock, former Liberal Cabinet Minister and now president of the university, has been singled out.

Evidence suggests a student was hired to spy on Prof. Rancourt, as well as other forms of academic mobbing so well described by Prof. Kenneth Westhues, an expert in the field.

It took some effort by Prof. Rancourt to get the union actively working for him, but now that they are committed they are reportedly confident that he will win.

In the first hearing in the spring, the university backed off on its request to ban cameras at the mediation. But now a ban was imposed anyway – by the mediator.

A number of advocates, including me, made statements opposing this position. Frankly, it violates the principle of transparency in a case of significant public importance – one which has garnered international attention.

But these arguments may mean nothing. My impression was that nobody wants this go any further. Having cameras may enable an appeal should Prof. Rancourt not win the day. The university definitely doesn’t want documentary evidence and testimony becoming public – based on what has come out so far, that could be incredibly damaging.

But I strongly recommend that you read some of the blogs below. They really hit home, and perhaps most tellingly, they have changed the behaviour of the university’s administration and lawyers. It’s quite amazing to see how terrible they look when captured on “film” acting like adolescents (apologies to adolescents).

There can be no question that Prof. Rancourt holds views many find contentious or even offensive – some of which Canadians for Accountability agrees with, and some which it does not -  and that he has been a thorn in the side of the administration of the University of Ottawa.  But what is of great concern to us is the lack of transparency by the administration in general, and Mr. Rock in particular, as well as evidence of abuse of authority in efforts to silence Prof. Rancourt and remove him and his supporters from the university. These methods are the polar opposite of the principles which universities are supposed to hold dear. Indeed, they are the reason tenure was developed in the first place: to encourage debate and open discourse.

——————————————————————————————————–

Judge OKs new evidence in Saudi doctor’s legal fight with University of Ottawa over firing
Ottawa Citizen, October 6, 2011
Summary: In a decision released this week, Superior Court Judge Michael Dambrot ruled that Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy can present new evidence at a judicial review of a Jan. 28, 2011 decision by the university’s Senate appeal committee upholding his dismissal in 2009. Typically, courts only consider the evidence record a tribunal had before it when they judicially review a tribunal decision. But Dambrot said leaked emails between senior officials in the university’s faculty of medicine, along with “troubling” information in documents obtained by AlGhaithy under Freedom of Information, were relevant and met the legal test for the admission of fresh evidence.

Lawyer Richard Dearden Attacks Self-represented Witness: Case of St. Lewis v. Rancourt
A Student’s-eye View (blog), September 11, 2011
Summary: On September 6, I attended a cross-examination hearing in U. of O. Professor of Law Joanne St. Lewis’ case against former U. of O. Physics Prof and critic of the university, Denis Rancourt.

Gowlings Partner Richard Dearden Suggests the U. of O. is Paying for the “House Negro” Case: St. Lewis v. Rancourt
A Student’s-eye View (blog), October 7, 2011
Summary: On October 6 and 7, I attended the next two sessions in the case, which were hearings on motions submitted by Dearden to force Rancourt to answer questions from the previous cross-examination, delay a motion to impose mediation on the defendant, and quash the defendant’s bid to begin “discovery” (evidence production) on the case (link).

Rancourt wrongful dismissal case::: Report on DAY-2 of hearings
U of O Watch (blog), October 15, 2011
Summary: The second day of binding labour law arbitration hearings into the University of Ottawa wrongful dismissal case of physics professor Denis Rancourt before Arbitrator Claude Foisy was held on October 12, 2011.

Open court principle does not apply to EDs
Slaw (blog), October 16, 2011
Summary: In the latest chapter of the online defamation case by UofO law professor, Joanne St. Lewis, the plaintiff proceeded recently with a motion to compel a response from undertakings and refusals. These motions are rather commonplace in civil litigation, except that the defendant, Denis Rancourt, sought to have a blogger accompany him to report on the proceedings.

 

Share
by on October 17, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Abuse of Authority, Dissent, Editorial, In the News, Reprisals against Whistleblowers and Dissenters, Workplace Harassment, Bullying and Mobbing
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
Posted by Ian Bron on October 17, 2011

http://canadians4accountability.org/blog/2011/10/17/denis-rancourt-vs-the-u-of-o-the-saga-continues/

Ontario’s experiment with self-regulating teachers is not going well

Today I want to comment on an Ontario issue. The Toronto Star has started a series on the teaching in Ontario (see the list below). In particular, it is focussing on the profession’s self-regulating body, the Ontario College of Teachers.

This is an issue close to me as I remain in good standing with the College, despite being out of teaching for number of years. It’s also close to me because one of the key members in our organization, Jim Black, was persecuted by the College for exposing the very thing the Star is covering – that is, the secrecy behind the disciplinary process and the tendency to allow abusive and exploitative teachers back into the classroom.

We attempted to intervene in his case, but were either rebuffed or ignored (see the case summary on our website).

We also attempted to alarm the Minister of Education, Leona Dombrowsky, about the reprisal and the underlying problem, but were rebuffed with a letter stating that there wasn’t anything she could do as the College has autonomy in the disciplinary process. This makes the (probably manufactured) outrage expressed by Premier Dalton McGuinty galling to us.

Just as galling is the response of the College’s Registrar, Michael Salvatori. His protests that he can’t speak to case specifics is pure hypocrisy given his own reaction to the public interest actions of Jim Black. Indeed, the process used to punish Mr. Black was Kafkaesque, with no real proof of the offence they accused him of – that is, divulging the name of a convicted molester reinstated to the classroom. In Mr. Black’s case, they wove a lengthy and disingenuous narrative justifying their actions and vilifying Mr. Black in the College’s magazine Professionally Speaking. Our rebuttal letter was never published.

Now it appears that the Premier and the Registrar are hiding behind the upcoming inquiry by Justice Patrick LeSage. They publicly declare that they will be looking over his shoulder or cooperating fully respectively. But anyone familiar with the architecture of a cover-up knows that the biggest and most important step is to hire someone to do an investigation – preferable someone reputable but known to be friendly – and then limit and manipulate the investigation and its findings so that no real misconduct is found. At worst, a scapegoat might be thrown to the wolves.

It is my concern that this is what is happening now. You see, as of today I have attempted to contact the College twice, asking how we might participate in the inquiry. Both times I went to voice mail. And so far, nobody has called me back.

Canadians for Accountability has concerns about self-regulating professions in general, and this case does nothing to improve our opinion. Far too often, personal connections interfere with justice and the public interest. The College only stands out in the speed and depth with which it descended to those levels.

——————————————————————————————————–

Stop shielding rogue teachers
The Star (Toronto), September 29, 2011
Summary: The police and courts have dealt with appalling cases of sexual predation, assault and pornography that have left a trail of wounded students in their wake. The college has named and shamed hundreds of offenders over the years in reports on its website and in its newsletter, and has revoked many licences. Even so, lesser cases that are veiled in secrecy inevitably raise concern that the college, which regulates teachers “in the public interest,” may be too prone to shield errant teachers. Is that degree of anonymity truly warranted? And just how clear are the rules?

Bad teachers: Ontario’s secret list
The Star (Toronto), September 29, 2011
Summary: Here are some of the people licensed in Ontario to teach your children.

Leaders outraged by expose on bad teachers
The Star (Toronto), September 30 2011
Summary: All three major party leaders reacted with outrage to the first part of the Star’s series on discipline for teachers that was published Friday.

McGuinty says parents have a ‘right to know’ about bad teachers
iPolitics, September 30, 2011
Summary: Ontario’s self-proclaimed “education premier” took a hard line against problem teachers Friday, vowing to out those who abuse their “position of trust.” Parents have a right to know when teachers misbehave and more should be done to warn them, Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty said at an election campaign stop in Brampton. What’s more, the profession’s watchdog, the Ontario College of Teachers, needs to be more open about how it deals with rogue teachers, he said.

Predator teachers: Students ruined by teacher sex assaults
The Star (Toronto), October 1, 2011
Summary: Predator teachers have left a trail of wounded students across Ontario. Teachers, mostly male but some female, have sexually abused young people. Broken lives are the result.

Police check to screen new teachers gives illusion of security
The Star (Toronto), October 2, 2011
Summary: In 2000, an investigation into teacher misconduct recommended that all new teachers receive a police check and a thorough background screening. The police check is an illusion of security that is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Sexting, cuddling with student, a teenage girl, did not cost teacher his job
The Star (Toronto), October 2, 2011
Summary: If you are a teacher, you can get away with a lot and keep your job. Toronto high school drama teacher Richard Burdett wrote more than 1,300 intimate, sexually charged instant messages to a female high school student, including a vivid description of how he had dreamt of performing oral sex on her.

Share
by on October 3, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Abuse of Authority, Accountability, Editorial, Ethics and Integrity, In the News, Reprisals against Whistleblowers and Dissenters
Tagged , , , , , ,
Posted by Ian Bron on October 3, 2011

http://canadians4accountability.org/blog/2011/10/03/ontario%e2%80%99s-experiment-with-self-regulating-teachers-is-not-going-well/

The real problem with the $90,000 per diem

Many Canadians will have heard by now that the federal government is hiring the firm Deloitte and Touche to do a review of its operations and look for ways to save money. The Opposition has expressed outrage at the amount being spent – $19.8 million for seven months of work, which apparently works out to about $90,000 a day.

I, too, am amazed by this contract, but not just because of the money being spent. Having worked in both policy and program evaluation, red flags are flapping in my face like crazy.

First of all, the sum. At a per diem of $2,000 (a fairly standard rate, averaged across the staff) that’s equivalent to 45 people employed full time.

Does is really take that much effort to write such a report? And how do you measure performance or value for money from such a contract? Other than the delivery of the report, you can’t. Even if the findings are completely rejected as ridiculous, even if it were entirely rehashed from previously written government reports, Deloitte would still get paid.

Secondly, this contract exposes the weakness in the contracting system in Ottawa. Deloitte does a lot of business for the government. A lot, and it wants to keep it that way. So what are the odds that it’s going to deliver a report that’s inconsistent with the government’s ideological and political preferences?

That’s right. Zip. But the consequences don’t stop with this contract.

Deloitte was hired not just because it’s a big firm with experience in this field. It was hired because it has a track record of telling the government (and the bureaucracy) what it wants to hear. It built that track record over years and years.

Large and small, other firms wanting to do business in Ottawa already know that this is the way the game is played. Those that don’t soon find out, or they go out of business.

My point is that a large contract like this – one so politically sensitive – actually has a corrupting influence on contractors. Instead of being independent and honest, they learn to simply write what they’re told to write.

Finally, the reasoning behind using a contractor is fundamentally flawed.

The government has tried to put sugar on this very sour pill by saying that $200 will be saved for every dollar spent. This is disingenuous – that is, a lie.

The money being saved is not dependent on Deloitte’s findings. That could be – and indeed, should be – done by the government itself. Despite Finance Minister’s Jim Flaherty’s words about “outside input”, the decisions to be made should all be policy ones. The idea that we are outsourcing this central function of government is, frankly, deeply disturbing.

Why, after all, should a private firm – with its own interests – be allowed to draft advice to Cabinet? Is this not the function of the bureaucracy? And should direction not come from politicians? The government could probably put together this report on its own, with the right team. The cost would be zero, as the employees would already be on the payroll.

In fact, you can be sure that there are dozens of similar reports already floating around in Ottawa. Every major department probably has one, with some possibly authored by Deloitte.

So why this expensive exercise? The most likely answer is the desire to give a veneer of validity, independence and authority to the findings. After all, it happens all the time in Ottawa (and, I’m sure, in Washington, London, Paris, etc.).

The government wants to be able to say, “Look, we don’t want to cut all these jobs. We don’t want to axe these programs. But the report says we have to.”

It’s like the character in the show Little Britain, who frequently turns down clients’ requests for help with the drawled words “the computer says no.”

This contract looks like an exercise in avoiding accountability for the very thing the government is supposed to do: make hard decisions based on sound policy. And when you think of that, $19.8 million looks less like an exorbitant sum and more like a slap in the face.

——————————————————————————————————–

Feds defend $90,000 a day hiring
The Chronicle-Herald (Halifax), September 21, 2011
Summary: The Harper government defended paying almost $90,000 a day to a big consulting firm for advice on how to save money, saying it can’t do the job properly by itself.

Tories expect $200 in savings for every $1 spent on consultants
Globe and Mail, September 21, 2011
Summary: Both the New Democrats and the Liberals took issue with the fact that the government is paying $90,000 a day to a management consulting firm, Deloitte Inc., to advise cabinet and senior officials on how to erase the federal deficit by 2014-15.

Feds hire outside tech consultant for key program in strategic cuts plan
Winnipeg Free Press, September 21, 2011
Summary: The Harper government hired an outside consultant to manage a key downsizing project even as it fended off criticism of a $90,000-a-day contract to another consulting firm.

 

Share
by on September 26, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Accountability, Editorial, In the News
Tagged , ,
Posted by Ian Bron on September 26, 2011

http://canadians4accountability.org/blog/2011/09/26/the-real-problem-with-the-90000-per-diem/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »