Nathalie Des Rosiers explains Policy 92

On July 7, 2009, former VP-Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers sent a message to the “University community”. The message is appended below.
..
The message states that Policy 92 was approved by the Board of Governors (BOG) in December 2007. In fact, the posted minutes of the BOG meetings show that Policy 92 was approved at the October 2007 meeting of the BOG [LINK].
..
The message goes on to recast Policy 92 as being only concerned with “fraud” and only in the context of “best practices in the area of good governance.” (See message below.)
..
The latter clarification is contrary to the language of the approved Policy which states: “Thoroughly investigate all allegations of wrongdoing … ‘Wrongdoing’ means any act, irregularity, misconduct or activity, real or perceived, that is dishonest, inappropriate or illegal … Wrongdoing of any kind is strictly forbidden … University staff members who engage in any wrongdoing of any kind are subject to disciplinary action …”
..
Ms. Des Rosiers’ message also states that “Before Policy 92 was approved, various stakeholders at the University had been consulted on the policy.” (sic) The consulted “stakeholders” are not named. Students and professors were not consulted directly or via their faculties and departments. Maybe some deans were consulted? Maybe members of the BOG were “consulted” before they were asked to pass the new policy in October 2007? There is no indication in the BOG minutes of any debate or objections, or of anything other than unanimous approval of the Administrative Committee’s recommendation.
..
For example, there is no evidence in the minutes of any BOG member’s enquiry about what the consultations had been for such a far reaching policy. Unfortunately, the October 2007 BOG meeting was held before the new BOG video policy came into effect, so there is no actual record of the proceedings.
..
Furthermore, the most recent Des Rosiers message (below) stunningly states that the June 9, 2009, message to all University staff was meant to announce the “implementation” of Policy 92, not simply the introduction of a commercial snitch line software to be used in conjunction with Policy 92.
..
The message goes on to explain that Policy 92 was never implemented and that its implementation will be further delayed by an additional six months.
..
How can delaying the implementation of this judged vital and BOG-approved policy (the text of which does not mention a software snitch line) by more than two years be consistent with the university’s “highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency in all of its activities?”
..
On the one hand, the policy is motivated by such vehement language of responsibility and ethics and on the other hand its implementation is delayed by university executives by more than two years after it becomes officially the law by decree at the BOG.
..
On the one hand, the policy is recast to address allegations of fraud in governance against the university’s highest executive officers, yet on the other hand the same executive officers can delay its implementation at their whim; having written the policy such as to explicitly include an unqualified clause allowing the Administrative Committee (made up of the President and the VPs) to except the policy’s application whenever it chooses: “23. No exception may be made to this Policy without the approval of the Administrative Committee.”
..
There you have it.
..
They’re just making it up as we go.
..
Policy’s passed by the highest governing body of the university and posted on the university’s public web site are retroactively not implemented until sufficient consultation is deemed to have occurred.
..
As per Des Rosiers’ memo (below), consultations will be held with “various groups” during the next two summer months… That should do it.
..
Let’s call it bulldozer governance, with a consultation trailer (or parade float?) hitched to the back.
..

THE JULY 7th MASSAGE:
..
Sent: Tue 7/7/2009 2:18 PM
Subject: Message from Nathalie Des Rosiers Message to the University community
..
In December 2007, the Board of Governors approved Policy 92, the University’s policy on fraud. The goal of this policy is to ensure the University remains at the forefront of best practices in the area of good governance. Before Policy 92 was approved, various stakeholders at the University had been consulted on the policy.
..
This policy is designed to protect individuals who may have witnessed a fraudulent act. Under the policy, these individuals can report their suspicions to the external firm responsible for carrying out investigations. A similar process is already in place at McMaster University.
..
The announcement made a few weeks ago indicating this policy was being implemented has generated a great deal of discussion, and people who were not heard two years ago have expressed their desire to be heard now. As a result, and because of the length of time between the consultations and the implementation of the policy, it seems fitting to allow everyone a chance to be heard on this issue.
..
Therefore, we will delay the implementation of the policy by six months to allow for further consultation. Please send your comments on Policy 92 to vp.governance@uOttawa.ca. We will also hold consultations with various groups on campus over the next few months.
..
Nathalie Des Rosiers
..
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa; Chairman of the BOG Marc Jolicoeur]

CanWest MEDIA REPORTS: LINK-ONE, LINK-TWO.

U of O's Policy 92 ensures the highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency for all its executives and officers

June 26, 2009
..
Nathalie Des Rosiers
VP-Governance
University of Ottawa
..
..
Re: Policy 92 disclosure of wrongdoing, university’s surveillance of professor
..
..
Dear Nathalie Des Rosiers,
..
University Policy 92 states that the VP-Governance, your office, will thoroughly investigate all allegations of wrongdoing. In this policy, “wrongdoing” means any act that is “dishonest, inappropriate or illegal.”
..
I hereby report wrongdoing by VP-Academic Robert Major. Other University officers and staff are also involved. Paragraph-16 of Policy 92 foresees that the written report of your investigation will be provided to the Board of Governors.
..
..
WRONGDOING
..
VP-Academic Robert Major and other University officers and staff practiced surveillance of two of my invited talks at other academic institutions in 2007 and 2008, while I was a full and tenured professor at the University of Ottawa. A description of evidence is given below.
..
As the officer responsible for Policy 92 investigations, you will recognise that such covert surveillance by the university is contrary to the “the highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency in all of [the university’s] activities.”
..
As the designated General Counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), you will recognize that such surveillance by a corporation of one of its employees is contrary to responsible behaviour in a free and democratic society.
..
As an academic, you will recognize that such behaviour by a university is a violation of the legally established principle of academic freedom.
..
As a lawyer, you will recognize that this type of personal information gathering and use is against the law. Specifically, it is against the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) of Ontario to which universities in Ontario are bound and against the Employment Standards Act of Ontario.
..
..
ADDITIONAL WRONGDOING
..
In addition to the surveillance itself, there has been an attempt by VP-Academic Major and other officers of the University to avoid the issue. The VP-Academic and the University have not acknowledged my direct enquiries of October 16, 2008 (with the President, Secretary, and APUO in cc), and December 9, 2008 (with the President, Dean of the Faculty of Science, the APUO, the Head of Human Resources, and yourself in cc) in this matter.
..
..
EVIDENCE
..
Using Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) requests, such as my request dated August 7, 2008, I have established that the University, via Mr. Major and other offices, has used the services of a private reporter to monitor an invited academic talk I gave at the Studies in National and International Development (SNID) group at Queen’s University, some 200 km from Ottawa, on October 18, 2007.
..
The respondent FIPPA records are unambiguous regarding the act of surveillance of me.
..
The University used a private reporter a second time to monitor my invited contribution at the Association Canadienne Française pour L’Avancement des Sciences (ACFAS) conference in Quebec City, some 450 km from Ottawa, on May 7, 2008. See my FIPPA request dated May 8, 2009 (addressed to you) and the related Appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) dated June 10, 2009.
..
You have my permission to use the relevant FIPPA records respondent to my FIPPA requests and my requests in your investigation. These records are available in the office of the University’s FIPPA Coordinator.
..
..
NEED TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE
..
According to my FIPPA inquiries, in the past, the email records of leaving university officials (e.g. VP David Mitchell) have not been preserved. Since VP-Academic Major is leaving the University at the end of the month and since your investigation may take some time, I ask that all of Dr. Major’s records relevant to this matter be preserved.
..

Please acknowledge receipt of the present disclosure of wrongdoing. Please confirm that your office will investigate.
..
..
Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt
..
Cc: Marc Jolicoeur, Allan Rock, Robert Major, Andre E. Lalonde, Louise Page-Valin, APUO, CAUT, CUPE 2626, SFUO, GSAED, CCLA, made public.
..
RELATED POST: 1984 coming to a campus near you
..
[photo credit: University of Ottawa; VP-Academic Robert Major]

1984 is Coming to a Campus Near You

The University of Ottawa’s Allan Rock administration has sent out this (below) remarkable memo to all U of O staff, conveniently at a time when students are off working.
..
In the face of decades of legal precedent-setting decisions that have established the collegial governance principles that apply to North American universities, it has done this without any of the required department-faculty-and-senate consultations and evaluations.
..
The memo (below) describes the immediate implementation of a new surveillance and reporting managerial system in which all university members are required to participate.
..
The system is akin to the reporting protocols systematically implemented at community levels in totalitarian states. History shows that such systems have a chilling effect on dissidence and reinforce a culture of deference to authority that is antithetical to academic freedom.
..
Barely a year after the university’s failed attempt to install a “student code of conduct,” “Canada’s university” becomes possibly the first academic institution in North America to implement such a policy.
..
The memo (below) has a distinct 1984 feel and substance and is signed by the Rock administration’s VP-Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers who, in what can only be interpreted as exceptional circumstances of irony, is the designated General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
..
In the new system, anonymous “disclosures” of “any incidents of wrongdoing” are sent “directly to the Office of the VP-Governance” and “it is the duty of each employee to immediately report any incidents.” The note (below) states “we are all responsible for promoting ethical behaviour…”
..
Strange, when, on this blog, I reported with documentary evidence various university executives lying, fabricating student complaints, falsifying documents, supporting state war crimes, and protecting those who committed these wrongdoings, I was threatened with a lawsuit by the university, disciplined for using the university images of the executives (see VIDEO), and ultimately fired.
..
It seems to me, that if the University of Ottawa were serious about “provid[ing] the tools” to “encouge[] ethical behaviour in all [its] spheres of activity,” it would, for example:
..

• encourage informed and signed whistleblowing, supported with strong whistleblower protection for all its staff and students,

• post its CURIE insurance policy on the web and make the additionally insured fully informed of their coverage, e.g. regarding SLAPP suits,

• make representations to have Ontario universities fall under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Ombudsman and voluntarily submit itself to this jurisdiction,

• follow the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rather than regularly have requests appealed, Orders emitted against it, and Complaints filed and retained,

• disclose all of the financial and administrative reports of the University of Ottawa Foundation and host a public forum on the Foundation’s mandate,

• make all of its corporate and private contracts public, including those with donors involving building names and other exchanges,

• not name buildings after CEO’s who have participated in any questionable corporate behaviours at home or in other jurisdictions, and publicly review building name attributions in the light of any public disclosures of such questionable activities,

• make all research grants and contracts public

• install a strict policy disallowing all non-token gifts to executives, such as “cultural” trips to explore potential exchange programs with states involved in on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions and persistent disregard for UN resolutions,

• install a Board of Governors membership policy that disallows media bosses and all private sector leaders that could be perceived to represent potentials for conflicts of interest in a democratic society with a free press,

• have all its appointments of top officers and full professors be subjected to public scrutiny and approval by referendum of the entire university community,

• have all its faculty deans be assigned by elections, with 50% student voices, as is done in many countries,

• pay all student representatives on all committees and councils the same average wage value as the professors for their work on these governance bodies,

• immediately disclose its contracts and agreements with the developers and owners of the surveillance software ClearView Connects™ (see below).

..
MEMO:

From: UOStaff-l en francais on behalf of Communications uOttawa
To: UOPERS-L@LISTSERV.UOTTAWA.CA
Sent: Tue 6/9/2009 10:49 AM
Subject: Règlement 92 sur la fraude et la divulgation d'actes fautifs / Policy 92 on Fraud and Safe Disclosure
..

Honesty, integrity and transparency are the values that inspire confidence and the constituents of good governance.

In keeping with best practices in place at public sector organizations, an institution of the scope of the University of Ottawa must provide the tools the University and its employees need to respect these values, maintain the quality of the work environment and protect the University’s resources.

As employees of the University, we are all responsible for promoting ethical behaviour and for respecting for the laws, regulations, polices and procedures necessary for the proper functioning of our institution.

With this in mind, the Board of Governors has approved Policy 92, Policy on Fraud and Safe Disclosure. This policy is to be administered by the Office of the Vice-President, Governance and applies to all University employees, including members of the Board of Governors and persons acting on behalf of the University.

Under Policy 92, it is the duty of each employee to immediately report any incidents of wrongdoing related to University activities. To assist with reporting, we have introduced ClearView ConnectsTM, a tool that allows employees to report quickly, anonymously and in complete confidence any incidents of theft, misappropriation of funds, falsification of documents, vandalism, unethical behaviour, etc.

ClearView ConnectsTM is available 24/7 online or by phone. The system forwards the disclosure directly to the Office of the Vice-President, Governance, which will deal with it as soon as possible and in accordance with Policy 92.

To obtain more information on the reasons behind Policy 92, its scope, the responsibilities of members of the University community, reporting procedures, investigation procedures, ClearView ConnectsTM or any other related matter, please visit www.uOttawa.ca/disclosure.

Your cooperation is essential in order to maintain an organizational climate that encourages ethical behaviour in all our spheres of activity. We are fortunate to work in an exceptional environment, and, with your help, the University of Ottawa can continue to experience the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Nathalie Des Rosiers
Acting Vice-President, Governance
..
..
LINK TO FIRST MEDIA REPORT:
..
Ottawa Citizen - Academics blast university snitch line