Read Allan Rock's mail to Stephane Emard-Chabot -- access to information documents made public

Student's Eye-View has published a large cache of University of Ottawa emails between president Allan Rock and his then chief-of-staff Stephane Emard-Chabot: LINK.

The university vigorously opposed transparency. The disclosure follows two Orders of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario in an on-going appeal (link).

Here are snippets from the 318 pages that were ordered disclosed to date:

"I was wondering whether you might be in a position to contribute a modest sum from your 'secret fund' to our extended international human rights series."
--Roland Paris (research chair, and "Global Ethics Fellow") to Allan Rock (record 192)

In this email to Allan Rock, then VP-Academic Francois Houle is pissed at Rock for not trusting his capacity in his functions as VP-Academic:

"Allan, ce mémo détaillé (avec des CC a tous les membres du CA), tout comme celui sur le VRA international, et le fait que tu penses qu'il était important pour toi de communiquer avec Britta apres qu'elle eu décliné l'offre que je lui avait faite m'amenent a m'interroger sur ton niveau de confiance envers mes capacites a remplir le poste de vice-recteur aux études. On devrait en reparler a ton retour de vacances. Francois" (record 87)

(That provides some insight into possibly the true reason that Houle suddenly resigned using a rather unbelievable pretext -- Rock did not trust his ability further than he could throw an overweight dean. Ann Coulter fallout?)

This is how Allan Rock explains to his chief-of-staff why he wants a 10-minute meeting with the Chair of the Board of Governors:

"It is to bring him into the picture about the CAPEA project. [...] We won't commit to that of course without Board approval. But in the meantime, we are spending $585,000 in incremental costs up to September 1 to prepare plans for 5 stories instead of 3 stories. It is that expense that we are incurring as a matter of management authority, but for my own comfort I want the Board Chair to be aware. If we find the $19 million in additional financing, of course, the $585,000 will have been well spent and not a penny wasted." (record 257)

(Sounds like rubber-stamping heaven to me -- Management authority to spend more than half a million to study a project that has not been considered or approved by the Board...?)

Christian Detellier suddenly departs after a single term as second boss man at U of O

The July 8, 2015, uOttawa Gazette announced after-the-fact that Christian Detellier's mandate as VP-Academic (second in command below Allan Rock) ended on June 30, 2015: LINK.

Allan Rock will have seen four (4) different second boss mans during his watch: Robert Major, Francois Houle, Christian Detellier, and whoever Rock will name next.

This is the second unannounced sudden departure of a VP-Academic under Rock. Houle was suddenly paid out in mid-mandate over a dispute about the institution's bilingualism, and following the Ann Coulter media fiasco in which Rock hid the truth that he had asked Houle to write the controversial letter of threat to Coulter, until everything was disclosed via access to information as reported by the National Post.

The VP-Academic position tends to be the only position in which Rock can't simply parachute someone in from outside the institution, as he has hand picked everyone.

Detellier's sudden departure, without a search for a new VP-Academic having been announced prior to the departure, follows a June 9th CBC News report that Christian Detellier may have been unfair to students: LINK.

Detellier said: "I have research grants and contracts, including an NSERC Discovery grant, until July 2017, when I will retire." (Gazette)

In any case, word in the halls has it that Detellier was not particularly on top of things, and that the real doer was his chief of staff Ms. Rachel Ouellette.

U of O in the news::: Houle, Berger

• VP-Academic Francois Houle is being escorted out by Allan Rock:

François Houle quitte l'Ud'O

The VP-Academic represented institutional memory under the Rock outside administration. The move is sudden and rather quiet (no press release, no party). Who will Rock name to replace Houle?

• Dean of Education Marie-Josee Berger is on the short-list of two to be the next president of the University of Moncton (New Brunswick):

Nouveau recteur de l'U de M: deux candidats en lice

Does Francois Houle know how to use English?

As the present post shows, this is a fair question.

In a May 20, 2011, message to student university senate member Joseph Hickey University of Ottawa VP-Academic Francois Houle wrote:

"At this point in time, we expect that the draft policy, which was submitted to the University Community for consultation as of August 2010, will be presented for approval at the June meeting of the Board."

Hickey responded to Houle and all senators and made the exchange public on his blog about senate HERE.

Houle's sentence is in English and it is clear. It means that the draft policy submitted in August 2010 will be presented for approval.

Understandably, the many groups who had asked for changes to the draft were concerned than none of their studied and expert criticisms would be taken into account.

Then on June 2, 2011, as resistance mounted to the administration's rushed plan to push through a half-baked policy, Houle responded to Hickey:

"I do not understand why you concluded that the policy that will be submitted for approval will be identical to the August version."

Following this, at the June 6, 2011, meeting of Senate, Houle again went on about how he did not understand why so many emails were based on concluding that the administration was plowing ahead with the draft policy...

Well, it's called English...

Or is it a memory problem? Or a problem of juggling too many contradictory positions? Or what? After all, this is a man with a Ph.D. who is second in command of a self-proclaimed leading Canadian university. Can we not expect that he understand what he says?

It's an echo of when Mr. Houle did not understand that his letter (approved by Allan Rock) to Ann Coulter was a threat of legal action about what she might say on campus before she even opened her mouth, leading to a predictable international media frenzy (LINK).

In the end -- after irresponsibly announcing to the media (before the Senate and Board had even heard of the policy) that it would approve its policy on discrimination and harassment in June 2011 -- Houle explained today at Senate that there would now be a consultation over the summer to re-table a new draft policy at Senate in the Fall...

What a zoo. And where is Mr. Rock? Bringing the U of O to the world?

It took 163 years: U of O Senate to consider adopting rules of procedure

Until recently there has been no need for debate...

by Denis G. Rancourt

I attended a grand meeting of the Senate of the University of Ottawa today in Tabaret Hall, U of O campus, Ottawa, Canada. The Senate is the highest governing body on all academic matters by virtue of the University of Ottawa Act, 1965. The university was founded in 1848.

President Allan Rock was absent. VP-Academic Francois Houle (of Anne Coulter fame) presided. VP-Governance Diane Davidson attended by speaker phone from home.

Dean of the Faculty of Science Andre E. Lalonde came into the boardroom before the start of the proceedings just to say hello to me and then left and never came back; despite being slated to present the new Financial Mathematics and Economics Undergraduate Honours Program?

For several months now student member of Senate Joseph Hickey and others have been trying to clarify what the rules of procedure might be. Hickey reports this on his blog about U of O Senate (LINK).

The matter arose in part because Hickey believes that discussion on key points (such as the procedures for rewarding friends of the university administration with honorary degrees) is too often arbitrarily curtailed by the chair or allowed to be curtailed in order to pass items proposed by the administration.

In a previous discussion, when Houle stated that he would arbitrarily invoke Code Morin rules of procedure at will depending on the circumstances but not at other times, Hickey became particularly concerned.

Hickey and student Senate member Martin Schoots-McAlpine have been pressing the administration to state the rules of procedures for Senate.

Remarkably, no one in the institution knew if rules of procedure had ever been adopted by Senate or what the rules might be. A detailed search of the university archives had to be undertaken in preparation for today's meeting.

It appeared today that Hickey is making significant headway towards adoption of the novel idea that "Canada's university" (as the branding slogan goes) would have rules of procedure at Senate.

Davidson reported that the U of O Senate (back to 1930 according to Davidson) has never adopted rules of procedure.

Davidson further reported that she had thoroughly investigated the matter and found that all other university senates in her sample (in Canada) have written rules of procedure (surprise!), based on the Code Morin, Robert's Rules, other codes and often in-house adaptations of existing codes.

We conclude that the U of O really is unique. Hickey takes this to be a sign that there has never been debate at Senate (LINK).

Davidson's stated recommendation to Senate, based on her study, is the status quo - no written rules and the chair (the university president) decides. It's called "established practice" but nobody could remember what the practice had been, not even whether or not rules of order had even been adopted by Senate.

Davidson explained, and this was echoed by Houle, that the procedure has been "consensus". So it appears that the Senate has always been in "consensus" with motions put forward by the administration.

No mention was made to define "consensus" which was said to be the venerable past and now recommended practice. If a majority of student senate members disagree is that "consensus"? If two members who are experts on the matter vehemently disagree is that consensus?

I asked senator Linda Pietrantonio (Vice-Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences) what this "consensus procedure" was that Davidson and Houle kept parroting. She said "No idea!".

At a next meeting the Senate will attempt to decide (following as yet unknown rules of order) how it will study the possibility of proposing rules of order.

That's progress.

Rock squeezing democracy out of university Senate

The University of Ottawa has always and explicitly used the Code Morin rules of procedure in all its governing body and committee deliberations.

Allan Rock chairs the university Senate and was asked at the September 13, 2010, senate meeting by student senate member Martin Schoots-McAlpine what the rules of procedure were. Rock answered that there were no written rules and that it was based on practice or tradition.

This amounts to saying "what we do is the rule".

At the following Senate meeting, Rock was absent and the meeting was chaired by VP-Academic Francois Houle (of Ann Coulter fame). Houle explained to student senator Joseph Hickey that now the Chair (himself) had to resort to the Code Morin in order to stop Hickey from discussing the administration's agenda of the moment... (to reward its friends with honorary degrees without needing Senate approval).

Hickey reported this stunning logic of on/off rules in a letter to the student newspaper HERE.

These remarkable developments can also be followed on Joseph Hickey's new blog about his university Senate experiences:
http://studentseyeview.wordpress.com/

And all Senate meetings are now filmed and posted by the university, thanks to student activism for transparency and accountability: LINK.

RELATED POSTS:
Partial list of Allan Rock ethical breaches
All posts on Francois Houle
Example of an honorary degree sham

Rock admin trashes another voice for social justice - Dr. Agnes Whitfield canned

The Rock administration of the University of Ottawa has collaborated with Carleton University in deposing the endowed Joint Chair in Women's Studies Dr. Agnes Whitfield after only one year of the position.

Dr. Whitfield had been critical of both administrations concerning how the chair was being badly administered and had asked to see the financial record of the chairship.

U of O's VP-Academic Francois Houle (of Ann Coulter fame) stated to the student newspaper (Fulcrum, September 23, 2010, issue) "The problem is that the endowment is not rich enough and the rate of interest now is so low that it cannot [properly] finance the chair."

Whose interest?

So these universities turf inconveniently outspoken professors when interest rates on endowments go down while spending hundreds of thousands collecting information to have activist students jailed and to block access to information requests using teams of corporate lawyers...

Nice.

Why not free up one campus police agent on each campus and keep the Chair in women's studies? Is that a fair question?

(U of O campus police showcasing their skills.)

Allan Rock is a moose - National Post

"Worse yet is that Mr. Rock fudged when initially questioned about the letter. He stated that “it was sent with my knowledge” – when the truth is it was sent at his instigation. When it blew up into a controversy, he let Mr. Houle take the brunt of the heat. Talk about the boss hiding behind his staff."
--National Post

Part of a pattern when one is "ethically challenged" (LINK).

True face of the Rock administration - Ann Coulter ATI fallout hits the news

UofOWatch readers will recall that we followed the March 2010 U of O Rock-Houle-Coulter fiasco in some detail: See THIS series of posts.

Well the Canadian media made an access to information (ATI) request under the Ontario FIPPA legislation and the results hit the news today: HERE and HERE.

Here is an example of Mr. Allan Rock in action, leading "Canada's university". Rock to VP-Academic Francois Houle on March 18th:

"Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foul-mouthed poltroon... She is 'the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind'."

"She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times."

Oh la la, nice example of respectful and measured administrative conduct for our students. According to his own account, Rock affirms all of this to be based only on a quick web search, having had no previous knowledge of Coulter (see Senate video).

It appears Mr. Rock is a quick and self-assured judge of character (and intelligence) and that he has extraordinary faith in the web as an unsubstantiated source of information. No verification was needed. (We note that dean of science Andre E. Lalonde has similar abilities for psychological evaluations on the fly, LINK, LINK.)

Rock casts Coulter in this light (presumably because Houle can't use Google or make up his own mind?) in instructing Houle to write their idiotic letter.

"You, Francois, as Provost, should write immediately to Coulter informing her of our domestic laws. ... You should urge her to respect that Canadian tradition as she enjoys the privilege of her visit."

A sure way to protect freedom of speech... In this light, the now famous resulting letter is no longer surprising.

What is most surprising on the face of it, however, is that Rock, an experienced statesman and lawyer, approved the letter and found it "excellent":

"Quel excellent message! Merci et felicitations. I am sure she has never been dressed down so elegantly in her life!"

It's like Rock wanted to jab Coulter. He seems to know a lot about Coulter's life for having only briefly visited her on the web. Also, this account is contrary to Rock's claim at Senate that he "recognized when he approved the letter that such a letter sent only to certain speakers could represent discrimination and could have a chilling effect on a potential speaker" (see HERE).

The letter ended up being the University of Ottawa's worst image and reputation catastrophe in its history, with print, radio and TV echos on several continents (LINK).

All too reminiscent of the string of blunders that ended Rock's political career - see short history HERE.

It is also revealed that Rock hid out from the media and from his public responsibilities using the communication director's advice as an excuse:

"I think that you should stay under the radar for the next weeks especially attending events where there is media."

"I am going to follow Andree's advice," explained Rock.

Yet another blunder. The media rightfully blasted Rock for "crawl[ing] under one" (LINK).

In conclusion, the U of O Rock-Houle-Coulter fiasco now appears to primarily have been of Rock's making.

What emerges is an unflattering picture of a failed and ethically challenged politician (LINK) who appears to have used Houle as a cover to send a bomb of a letter to a speaker he decided he despised and then to have used his communication director's advice as a pretext to hide from the mess.
.

Another one bites the dust at U of O -- Jolicoeur out Giroux in -- (with VIDEO analysis)

Meet the new Chairman of the Board of Governors of the University of Ottawa, Mr. Robert Giroux.

No mention of the last guy...?

It has become commonplace under the Allan Rock reign at the U of O for top executives to be removed or demoted or to leave without any explanations or public thank yous.

Former president Gilles Patry fell off the edge of the earth and has been nowhere to be seen in public life. His acclaimed talents for running a top Canadian university or any similar corporation seem to be going entirely to waste.

VP-Governance (then Secretary) Pamela Harrod was suddenly demoted to "special" assistant to the president doing routine access to information legal work, to then suddenly leave under early retirement.

VP-Governance interim Nathalie Des Rosiers was never formalized and took administrative leave to head the Canadian Civil Liberties Association but is now leaving that post under questionable circumstances.

VP-Academic Robert Major could barely be convinced to stay one year into Rock's mandate and left without a public thank you after being a pillar of the institution for decades.

Major was replaced by Coulter-fiasco Francois Houle at the same time that the position of VP-Academic was downgraded from second-in-charge to "just another VP cause we need at least one from academic ranks" while the newly renamed position of VP-Governance was given to outside hack Diane Davidson and upgraded to second-boss-man.

The underlings feel it also. The turn-around in staff at media relations (Marketing Service and Communications Office) is legendary, to say the least. Must be a nice work environment in that department?

And now the latest...

The University simply put out THIS June 16, 2010, press release announcing:

"The University of Ottawa has appointed Mr. Robert Giroux as chair of its Board of Governors."

The press release makes NO mention of Marc Jolicoeur or his many years of service and gives no indication as to why a new Chair of the BOG was appointed. No search had been announced, no search committee formed, nothing. Quite remarkable really.

The celebrated Chair of the Board of Governors, Marc Jolicoeur, is being replaced without any explanation or public thank yous?

Jolicoeur remains the Regional Managing Partner of the Ottawa office of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG Law), the same law firm that threatened to sue UofOWatch some time ago and that appears to have used illegally-obtained personal information to threaten lawsuits against students for client VP-Resources Victor Simon, well known for his respect of academic freedom.

This is all the more surprising given the intellectual and legal stature of Jolicoeur, as can be ascertained in this video in which he explains the democratic nature of the BOG to an interested student:

Did Jolicoeur quit?
Why would he quit?
Did he not want to be thanked publicly?
Will there be a thank you reception later this summer?

Coulter aftermath: Allan Rock "comes clean" three weeks later

THIS video and THIS media report establish the official blame sharing scheme worked out at the University of Ottawa some three weeks after the canceled Ann Coulter event:

1. Allan Rock alleges to have pre-approved the boobanesque Francois Houle letter to Coulter, as the official institutional response to her planned visit.
2. Allan Rock alleges to have recognized when he approved the letter that such a letter sent only to certain speakers could represent discrimination and could have a chilling effect on a potential speaker.
3. Allan Rock alleges that he refused to accept the student union request to ban the Coulter talk from campus based entirely on his responsibility to defend free speech.
4. Allan Rock continues to allege that the University of Ottawa has always been and without exception a vigorous defender of free speech.
5. Allan Rock proposes that the U of O now needs to develop a consensus policy of freedom of expression?
   

[We are not making this shit up. He wants an institutional consensus view about freedom of expression. Watch the VIDEO.]

There you have it, in five-point format. No sophistry or contradictions in them there words. That should wrap it up nicely. Try taking me to the human rights tribunal now. Took away your bang didn't I? "I did it." "The institution is wise and pure." "I did it." "You have to go after me, not just Franky."

Meanwhile, Franky Houle sat beside his boss and did not utter a peep (see VIDEO). Now we know what it means when a VP signs a letter at the U of O.

Rock's CEO career ambitions and professional reputation are over if he continues to take U of O down the tubes as he is doing, so it was time for him to take some hits in an attempt to salvage the wreckage. Historians are already penning the sequence of consecutive professional fiascoes:

• Gun registry cost overshoot by $1B
• $2M of taxpayer cash paid to Brian Mulroney for no known reason
• Tainted blood victim discrimination
• Canadian UN position on Israel
• Intimidation of student politicians, banning of student poster
  
• Police-state style persecution of student Marc Kelly
• Cover up of an extensive on-campus covert surveillance campaign
• Trashing of a major school's reputation internationally
  

Maybe some people just aren't meant to have responsibilities beyond student government?

RELATED POSTS:
Allan Rock lied about freedom of expression at U of O
All UofOWatch posts about Ann Coulter matter
All UofOWatch posts about Marc Kelly
All UofOWatch posts about covert surveillance and cover up
Rock corporatization of U of O (in a bad way)

CAUT to U of O: Franky is a boob - Rock administration needs to apologize

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has written THIS LETTER to University of Ottawa Vice-President Academic Francois Houle, in the matter of the Coulter scandal at the U of O.

In a PREVIOUS POST we suggested that the U of O's VP-Academic was a genius for intervening to protect decency on campus. This suggestion has been unambiguously contradicted by freedom of expression lawyer Douglas Christie (HERE), by the General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) (HERE), and now, we discover, by the CAUT also (HERE).


Looks like only President Allan Rock does not agree that Houle's move was a violation of the fundamental mission of a university - but we have established that Rock was being a spat disingenuous (HERE).

Funny how the CCLA has not written Rock a formal letter about this matter asking him to do better than his shameful press release...? Could THIS be the reason?

Barring Rock, therefore, the right, the left, and the center, agree: Franky is a boob, judging from his first considered public intervention in his new functions as VP-Academic. Only the brightest and fittest serve in the newly formed Rock executive team?

The CAUT has asked for reparation:

"We feel you owe an apology to Ms. Coulter and, even more importantly, you owe the University of Ottawa community an assurance that the administration of the University strongly supports freedom of expression, academic freedom and views the role of the university as fostering and defending these values."

Will the Rock administration do the right thing? Or will it stick to its shameful and disingenuous press release? (SEE HERE)

How much longer do U of O students need to wait before the administration stops acting like an image-managing political party and starts spontaneously and authentically recognizing and repairing its mistakes? How much longer does the reputation of the University of Ottawa need to be dragged in the mud by an autocratic and detached administration?

The right is racist, the left is stupid, and Allan Rock lied

Ann Coulter madness brings out the truth in people

Following the Ann Coulter fiasco at the University of Ottawa (see extensive national and local media coverage) the institution stooped into damage control mode by practicing the opposite of open discourse and transparency: It put out a PRESS RELEASE that ends

"Please note that this is the University of Ottawa’s official statement and no further comments will be issued."

In the press release President Allan Rock is quoted as:

“Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted,” said Allan Rock, President of the University.

So Allan Rock said that the university has always promoted freedom of expression.

Let us examine if this is true.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) is of the firm professional opinion that this is not true.

In fact, the CCLA wrote directly to Allan Rock on February 26, 2009, to EXPRESS "deep concern" that the University of Ottawa had actuated "a radical departure from the traditional mission of the university" by banning a student poster and asked Allan Rock that this "be rectified:"

"Specifically, we urge you to reverse the ban of the poster, as well as issue a public statement reassuring students that they will not face official sanction or discipline for expressing highly controvertial political views."

Allan Rock did not comply with the request.

Fast forward to the present. On March 24th the new General Counsel of the same CCLA (and Full Professor at the University of Ottawa) Nathalie Des Rosiers is quoted in the Globe and Mail as making these statements in response to the Rock administration's LETTER to Coulter from VP-Academic Francois Houle:

Civil libertarians decried the University of Ottawa’s treatment of Ms. Coulter, saying it’s out of line for an educational institution to be telling people to watch their words.
“It could be interpreted as an attempt to curtail speech,” said Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Des Rosiers (unless misquoted) went on to defame Coulter:

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to warn speakers. Regardless of how bigoted and terrible a speaker she is, she’s entitled to freedom of expression and Canadians have a right to hear her views.”

Now on the question of who is more able to recognize a breach in promoting free expression, we can safely go with a national civil liberties association rather than with a former politician who was not known for his good judgment. We conclude that the University of Ottawa has NOT always promoted freedom of expression.

Furthermore, since the CCLA letter of 2009 was addressed directly to Mr. Rock and since Mr. Rock's communication department reads every major media article about the U of O and promptly informs Mr. Rock, we must conclude that Mr. Rock knew that the the University of Ottawa has NOT always promoted freedom of expression.

Since, lying involves both falsehood and intent, and since it is generally known and accepted that Mr. Rock does not suffer from dementia, we can conclude that Mr. Rock lied when he said "Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted."

We conclude that Allan Rock lied.

The next logical question is the question of motive. It would appear that Mr. Rock sees his job as protecting the reputation of the University of Ottawa, and therefore his own reputation, even if this involves lying.

This example suggests that it is not illogical to ask how often University of Ottawa press releases contain lies and what those lies are meant to accomplish.

Breaking UPDATE: Houle - Genius or idiocy at U of O?

Contrary to the PREVIOUS POST suggesting genius, freedom of expression lawyer Douglas Christie suggests that

"stupidity ... is well underway at the University of Ottawa."

In his own words:



and some vintage material (from the Canadian TV show Crossfire) on this "complex" question of freedom of speech:



In any case, it seems the concept of freedom of speech is also too complex for the highly educated administration of the University of Ottawa and for the University's elected student representatives...

It's Oooooofficial: The new VP-Academic at U of O is a genius!

You thought the last one was a number huh: LINK-1, LINK-2, LINK-3.

That was former University of Ottawa VP-Academic Robert Major.

Meet the new University of Ottawa VP-Academic named under President Allan Rock: His name is Francois Houle and he is a genius.

Here is the proof.

VP-Academic Francois Houle sent THIS EMAIL to Ann Coulter; basically threatening Coulter with criminal charges for a speech she has not yet given. Coulter will deliver a talk at "Canada's university" tomorrow, Tuesday March 23rd.

This is perfect. That way Coulter is informed about Canadian law and the benefits of freedom of speech all in one tactful message.

And as a side bonus, "Canada's university" gets loads of free media publicity:

National Post
Ottawa Citizen
Globe and Mail
National Post again
CBC...

Nice job Rock team!

[Note that Houle's boss may well have encouraged the youngin on this brilliant path to censorship: LINK?]