Sophistry 101 -- Allan Rock on what is not an "academic program"

When lawyers run the world... It's not every day that the president of "Canada's university" overtly manufactures a novel mental construct to circumvent the statute (law) that defines the mission and governance structure of the institution.

There you have it, as reported by Student's-Eye View:

Video of Allan Rock Interview with La Rotonde

November 17, 2014

by Student's-Eye View

 

La Rotonde has posted a video (in french) of its recent interview with University of Ottawa President Allan Rock.

At 1:40 in the video, Allan Rock is asked why the university’s new Security and Policy Institute (SPI) program was not approved by the university Senate or Board of Governors.

An English translation of this segment of the video (beginning at 1:40 and ending at 3:34) is as follows (free translation):

LR: Our next question is about the Security and Policy Institute.
Rock: Yes.
LR: So, since the Board of Governors and the Senate were not consulted, we would like to know who approved the program and why there were no consultations?
Rock: Yes. Generally, when we launch a new program, whether it’s in Science, or the Faculty of Arts, or somewhere, we have a consultation and then we also have an analysis and discussions at the level of the Senate and its committees. In this case, we are talking about a program that is non-academic, in the sense that it’s not credited, it’s a program which is offered to people who are implicated in the domain, so that they can perfect their skills, in the professional sense. So, given that it’s not an academic program, we don’t need approval from the Senate and we did not initiate a consultation like we would do with an academic program. The Continuing Education Centre exists in order to give people who are already in the job market a means of improving and perfecting their professional skills — we hire people mostly from outside the university as teachers — so it’s not an academic program as such. We use the framework of the university to offer professional programs, and we also hope to generate additional revenue for the university.

Video by La Rotonde:

Student's-Eye View reports Allan Rock sham to circumvent Senate and BOG

Only a former politician could devise such a sham at a university: "our 'professional training' here is not an 'academic program'... it's just a money-maker to support our academic mission..." ah hummm.

New Interview with Allan Rock

November 10, 2014

by Student's-Eye View

La Rotonde has published a new interview with U of O President Allan Rock (see here).

Security and Policy Institute (SPI)

The university’s new “SPI” program was unveiled at a posh reception at the end of last summer, and has been criticized as a project of geopolitics and globalization, in part due to its funding that comes from Symantec, a major U.S. company with military ties in the U.S. and Israel.
La Rotonde asked President Rock why the SPI program was not presented for approval to the university’s Senate or Board of Governors. His reply is as follows (free translation):

“It’s a service offered by the Centre for Continuing Education. The Centre’s objective is to offer non-credited professional training. Programs are not approved by the Senate because the programs are not academic. It’s not an academic activity in the sense that it would have to have approval of the Senate because a degree is awarded. [The training] is aside from the central mission of the university and it’s a means of generating revenue to help us in our main mission, which is the academic programs. According to us, we don’t need approval from the Senate or Board.”

Rock further explained that the upper administration of the university approved the SPI program.
One would think that programs that are not academic do not belong in a university, but then again one might think the U of O is not much of a university.
For comparison with the President’s statement, S. 17 of the University of Ottawa Act, 1965, the Ontario statute that governs the U of O, establishes that the university Senate is “responsible for the educational policy of the University and… has power, (a) to control, regulate and determine the educational policy of the University…; [and] (b) to determine courses of study…”

Student Code of Conduct

The spectre of a student code of non-academic conduct has returned to U of O.
La Rotonde asked for Mr. Rock’s comments about the possible re-introduction of a student Code. His response (free translation) was as follows:

“It’s up to the Working Group to decide exactly what they will recommend. I think it was in 2007-2008 that the university proposed the code of conduct, and it was not well-received. There were inadequate consultations, and all that, but I would rather not prejudge the Working Group’s report. It’s up to them to decide what their judgment is concerning the appropriate steps at present. And I imagine it’s possible that they will recommend a code of conduct, but we will have to wait for the report.
I think the most appropriate thing for me to do is wait for the Working Group’s report and to not influence their analysis or pre-judge what they will recommend. It’s up to them [the members of the Working Group] to analyze the current situation and come up with their recommendations. And naturally, we will make their report public, and we will have a discussion — we will decide what to do, but it’s not up to me to judge. I will wait for their report.”

Meanwhile, the SFUO has begun organizing to oppose the re-introduction of a student Code, according to a recent article in The Fulcrum.

Some U of O students shut down the BOG over tuition fees: So very lame

Video reports about the recent student action to shut down a meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa are HERE, and HERE.

This student action was so lame. Let me explain how and why it was lame.

The "action" is solely a complaint, nothing more. Students were passively asking to be oppressed fairly. There was no hint of wanting to take over to better manage the institution. There was no offense in the tactic. Instead, it was purely a complaint about the quantum of fees.

Meanwhile administrative costs and executive globalization projects are skyrocketing...

Hey students! Here is a hint: Make a graph of total executive and executive support staff salaries (on the y axis) versus time (on the x-axis), for the last 15 years or so. Express y as a fraction of the total operating budget if you like, to account for student population and overall budget growth. Oh, and get your own numbers, not any spin from the corporate spin doctors.

Have you noticed the growth of the media relations and communications offices in recent decades...? Or just look at the president's salary for the last 20 years... That's quite a historic break!

Now I know that most of you are only around for 4 years or so, but you can research what happened before you arrived...

Corperatization and globalization are not solely about vanity buildings and brand name coffee.  They are about the institution being taken over by corporate and global interests and being run by those interests. This includes:

• the massive drives to recruit foreign students paying large tuition fees (diploma mill economics)
• the president's trips around the globe (notice how he's always out when something happens?)
• top-down academic exchange programs with Israel (why Israel?)
• "responsibility to protect" talks on campus (whose ideology?)
• increasing "security" (cameras, lock downs, campus police...)
• the institution's image propaganda machine (resource allocation for brand maintenance...)
• technology and buildings being more important than quality teaching (do you like Power Point?)
• blotted salaries of upper tier research professors (do the math)
• poverty wages for everyone else (temp staff, undergraduate students)
• loss of participatory collegial governance (you don't even know what that is, right?)
• centralized control of all resource allocations (try getting a room for a student event...)
• centralized control of all messaging (try putting up a poster)
• costs of centralized control...
• skyrocketing institutional legal fees (discontent students and employees sue... more lawsuits and grievances than you can count)

The list goes on.

If professors were made responsible to educate or took that responsibility, instead of being buried in or hiding behind their high-paying assembly line jobs, then you could have an education at a small fraction of the present cost, if you cared to take it.

And, um, did you consider that you are adults being forced to finance your productive work for society...? I mean does that ever cross your mind, that if you are going to be institutionalized into forced work, then you should at least be salaried?

Negotiate a salary, and impose student governance leverage on the actual management of the outfit. Grow up.

Lame. Access...? Lame.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Update on the Defendant's "champerty" motion

The last update on the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit on this blog was the February 24, 2012 post.

Justice Robert Smith, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, recently summarized the current status of the lawsuit this way (LINK):

[1] Denis Rancourt (“Rancourt”) is a former professor at the University of Ottawa who publishes a blog. He is being sued by the plaintiff, Joanne St. Lewis (“St. Lewis”), for libel for statements he made in his blog, criticizing the University of Ottawa.

[2] St. Lewis is also a professor at the University of Ottawa who prepared a report which concluded that there was no systemic racism in the University of Ottawa’s treatment of visible minority students. Her legal fees for her libel action against Rancourt are being paid by the University of Ottawa (“University”), which Rancourt alleges constitutes champerty.

[3] Rancourt seeks leave to appeal the decision of Beaudoin J., acting as a case management judge, wherein he refused to allow him to bring a motion (the open court motion) to allow members of the public to attend the cross‑examinations on affidavits that were filed in his champerty motion.

At this time, Rancourt has moved that the action be dismissed for abuse of process ("champerty" motion). That motion hearing will be on August 29, 2012, in open court. The reason alleged is that the University of Ottawa is funding the Plaintiff's entire legal costs with improper motive and stands to benefit from proceeds of the action.

Since the previous update, many events have occurred in the action, including:

• the motion for Leave to Appeal the Court's decision to deny Rancourt's Open Court motion to make cross-examinations public was heard and decided - Decision (LINK);
• a motion by student Joseph Hickey to intervene in the Leave to Appeal motion of Rancourt was heard and denied (no written decision was provided);
• legal costs were ordered against Rancourt for his Leave to Appeal motion - Costs Decision (LINK) 
• legal costs were ordered against student Hickey for his motion to intervene - Costs Decision (LINK)
• a seven-hour discoveries examination of the Plaintiff by the Defendant was held;
• a seven-hour discoveries examination of the Defendant by the Plaintiff's lawyer was held;
• the Chair of the U of O Board of Governors, Robert Giroux, was cross-examined as a witness by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the examination (LINK)
• the President of the U of O, Allan Rock, was cross-examined as an affiant by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the cross-examination (LINK)
• the Plaintiff, U of O law professor Joanne St. Lewis, was cross-examined as an affiant by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Trancript of the cross-examination (LINK), Exhibits at cross-examination (LINK);
• the Dean of the U of O common law faculty, Bruce Feldthusen, was cross-examined as an affiant by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the cross-examination (LINK);
• a lawyer for the U of O (in the Rancourt dismissal arbitration case), Celine Delorme, was cross-examined for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the cross-examination (LINK), Exhibits at cross-examination (LINK);
• Both the University and the Plaintiff declined to cross-examine the Defendant on his two affidavits in the "champerty" motion - First affidavit (LINK), Second affidavit (LINK);
• Rancourt filed a refusals and productions motion to seek orders compelling the witness and affiants to answer refused questions in the "champerty" motion examinations;
•  The first day of hearings for the refusals and productions motion in the "champerty" motion was held on June 20, 2012, continuing on July 24, 2012 in open court.

In cross-examination, U of O president Allan Rock testified under oath that he made the decision to entirely fund the Plaintiff's litigation without a cap (no spending limit) from the University's operating budget. This decision to fund, according to the Plaintiff's testimony, occurred before the Plaintiff researched or contacted her counsel for the action.

The chosen counsel had been suggested by the Plaintiff's Dean, Bruce Feldthusen, who, according to his testimony, made a strong appeal to Rock that the University had a responsibility to fund the litigation (to sue Rancourt).

The Chair of the Board of Governors provided sworn testimony establishing that Rock had never informed the Board about the fact that the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim sought $125 thousand for a university scholarship fund (that St.Lewis had spearheaded). The Chair learned this fact for the first time at the April 18, 2012 examination of him by Rancourt.

All transcripts and many of the court documents are provided as links HERE.

Professional ethics complaint against former BOG Chairman Marc Jolicoeur

The former chairman of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa, lawyer Marc Jolicoeur, BLG law firm, was ultimately responsible for the final decision to fire former tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt and then the law firm that he directs in Ottawa accepted legal work representing the University against Rancourt in a matter that arose as a result of the firing.

Not surprisingly, this is explicitly against the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC).

Rancourt filed a formal complaint against Jolicoeur on February 26, 2011, HERE.

The LSUC has received the complaint and assigned it LSUC File Number 2011-95023, HERE.

The LSUC must decide if it will refer the file to its disciplinary process. It may also be necessary for the LSUC to do an in depth investigation of the complaint involving interviewing various parties.

Ontario's IPC practicing unwarranted secrecy, procedural machinations, and condoning unethical practice

September 18, 2010

Ann Cavoukian
Information and Privacy Commissioner / Ontario
2 Bloor Street East
Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario
M4W 1A8

(By email)

(E-mail CC: Work Ethics Watch; Democracy Watch; Canadians for Accountability; Canadian Association of University Professors; Ontario Ombudsman; and made public)

IPC PRACTICING UNWARRANTED SECRECY HARMFUL TO SOCIETY,
TERMS OF REFERENCE MACHINATIONS,
AND POSSIBLE CONDONING OF UNETHICAL PRACTICE

(Reference: IPC files PA08-149, PA08-224, PA08-245, PA08-97-2, PA08-158-2.)


Dear Dr. Ann Cavoukian,


Unwarranted secrecy

I have recently received two letters dated September 13, 2010, signed by IPC Adjudicator Catherine Corban (PA08-97-2, PA08-158-2). These are cover letters inviting my submissions for IPC inquiries.

In the recent past (October 29, 2009) I have received three such notices signed by IPC Adjudicator Colin Bhattacharjee (PA08-149, PA08-224, PA08-245).

The October 2009 notices stated:

“Please find attached severed copies of the University’s representations… Portions of these representations have been withheld because they fall within this office’s confidentiality criteria on the sharing of representations.”

Whereas the September 2010 letters state:

“Please find attached the non-confidential representations of the University. Please note that portions of the University’s representations have been withheld due to confidentiality concerns.”

Contrary to the October 2009 stated IPC policy, the September 2010 letters describe an unwarranted application of secrecy consisting in the IPC not disclosing the University of Ottawa’s submissions consistent with the IPC’s own established practice.

This is of concern to me because it appears to function in a way that is contrary to the IPC’s societal mandate regarding transparency and disclosure. It also harms my ability to respond in my submissions to the IPC.

I request an explanation regarding the IPC’s change of position.

I ask to be given the full representations following the IPC’s own confidentiality criteria on the sharing of representations.

I add to this my continuing concern that the IPC is anomalously not itself subject to the conditions of the Act (FIPPA) and that your office has not lobbied to bring the IPC under the purview of the Act. In this regard, your office has not been a model defender of transparency for societal institutions. Other provincial “IPC” offices are rightly subjected to the conditions of access to information laws.

Terms of reference changed in mid-inquiry

I am also concerned that the terms set out in the original IPC Notices of Inquiry for inquiries PA08-97-2 and PA08-158-2 were changed between the times the University was asked to make its submissions and now when I am being asked to make my submissions. The September 2010 letters sate:

“I am enclosing a Notice of Inquiry which summarizes the facts and issues in the appeal. This Notice has been modified to reflect matters arising from the representations [which I am not being allowed to see] of the University.”

It is difficult for me to understand why the IPC’s terms of reference on the “facts and issues” for the inquiries in question would need to be changed. I ask that you explain this.

Possible ethical breach in University’s use of the BLG law firm

Finally, I wish to inform the IPC of the following.

The recent University submissions (PA08-97-2, PA08-158-2) were prepared by the Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG) law firm. The former Chairman of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa, Mr. Marc Jolicoeur, is the Regional Managing Partner of the Ottawa office of BLG. He stepped down as U of O BOG Chairman in mid June 2010.

Mr. Jolicoeur participated in the administrative process that led to my April 2009 dismissal from the University, as is publicly documented. My dismissal as a tenured professor has not yet gone before a labour law arbitrator. Mr. Jolicoeur’s law firm is now working at profit to bar access to records that relate to my dismissal.

To the extend that this situation is an ethical breach for the University and for BLG, and now that the IPC has been explicitly informed, continuing to allow the involvement of BLG will constitute condoning and collaboration by the IPC.

I ask that the IPC disallow the participation of BLG in all IPC inquiries involving me.

Need for a quick response

Please respond immediately as the inquiry process imposes deadlines for my representations.

Please acknowledge receipt of the present communication.

Yours truly,

Denis Rancourt
Former physics professor, University of Ottawa

RELATED POSTS:
BLG's previous involvement and link to Jolicoeur
Jolicoeur leaves U of O BOG in silence

U of O's previous attempt to use IPC to deny access: covert surveillance (several posts)

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?

Did Allan Rock lie to the Board of Governors on April 27th?

University of Ottawa president Allan Rock has publicly used the recent global financial crisis as an excuse for the administration's initially projected coming yearly deficit of 25M$, while refusing to provide details about its projection.

This was critically challenged in the media on April 15, 2010 (Citizen article HERE).

Only following the latter media report did president Rock respond on April 17th - to the media rather than to the university employee unions and student associations - with a revised deficit projection of 19M$, without any explanation of the 6M$ loss (Citizen response HERE).

Then on April 27, 2010, at a university Board of Governors meeting scheduled to approve a tuition fee increase, Chairman of the Board Marc Jolicoeur introduced Rock as "our Rector" and asked him to provide the context for the tuition fee increases.

In answer, Rock stated the projected deficit of 25M$ as a key element.

That's right. The media gets a revised 19M$ while the Board that rules on approving budgets gets a 25M$ figure as part of the foundational context it receives in order to make an "informed" decision...?

See video of the full April 27, 2010, Board meeting HERE.

This was too much for former Teacher Assistant union (CUPE, Local 2626) president now graduate student association executive Sean Kelly to take. At the break in the April 27th Board meeting, Kelly confronted Rock and explained that the president ("our Rector") had lied. Kelly has since made this public on CHUO 89.1 FM.

Only on return from the break in the April 27th Board meeting and minutes before the final vote did Rock acknowledge Kelly's criticism and correct the projected deficit number, while explaining that "this was not just something that Allan Rock and [VP-Resources] Victor Simon made up".

To lie is to knowingly make a false or deliberately misleading statement.

The U of O president was asked to respond to Mr. Kelly's allegation for the present blog report and did not acknowledge the request.

This Board episode and the entire "financial crisis" fabrication appear to add to the thesis first advanced in the mainstream media that Mr. Rock is "ethically challenged." Something the Board should seriously consider investigating... Some of the background research has already been done (HERE).

Rex Murphy tears the U of O a new asshole

Yup, here is the video clip from CBC's The National: LINK-TO-VIDEO.

What could the Allan Rock administration do for the U of O that is worse than degrading the school's reputation to this degree across all print, radio, and TV media in the country?

From gun registry accounting, to tainted blood reparations, to giving Brian Mulroney two million dollars of taxpayer money, to reversing Canada's position on Palestine at the UN... and now this wholesale destruction at "Canada's university"...

Time for the Board of Governors to consider letting Allan Rock go?

Time to go again? It's in the hands of the Board.

RELATED POSTS:
Allan Rock's direct involvement in the Coulter matter
All posts about Ann Coulter at the U of O

All posts about Allan Rock's work at the U of O

On Rock's corporatization of campus governance

The University's President Allan Rock has boasted to student media about his role as CEO of the corporation that is the University of Ottawa. He stated that this was his first posting as CEO of a corporation and that he took setting up his new executive team as an important challenge...

The following is a letter to the editor that appeared in the October 28, 2009, issue of the student newspaper The Fulcrum.


On the important question of corporatization

THE ROCK ADMINISTRATION has initiated and is hosting panel discussions on corporatization of the university, in view of presenting a policy on corporate donors in the coming weeks (HERE!). Free world bosses and their propagandists have learned that it is more effective to give the illusion of an open discussion than to disallow discussion.

What is important about Rock’s corporatization panels is what is not said. The best way to control discussion is to define its terms, by de facto excluding the real questions. What is not said is that the overarching problem of campus corporatization is a university executive that adopts a corporate-style management ethos in which the president is the CEO of Corporate U, the VPs are his executive officers, and the Senate and BOG are manipulated and directed by executive committees that make the meeting agendas, pre-determine priorities, and delimitate the discussions.

The latter is opposite to the text and spirit of the University of Ottawa Act, 1965, in which the executive officers are servants of the Senate (for academic matters) and BOG (for financial and resource matters), named only to provide efficient administration, not direction. Corporate executive takeover is a hijacking – whether it is in a profit-defined corporation which serves its executive class rather than its shareholders or on a campus in a public-service corporation where collegial governance is decapitated.

All the other problems of campus corporatization follow from the latter takeover: Ego service to other corporate executives, using the institution for broader projects (corporate collaborations) than its original mission to serve citizens and community, integration into a corporate-run economy, legitimization of external corporate and geopolitical projects, etc.

Today’s corporatization under the Rock era at U of O is exactly the corporatization that Mario Savio denounced on the Sproul Hall steps at Berkely on December 2, 1964 (Google “Mario Savio YouTube”). This Berkely Free Speech Movement (denounced by the student union of the time) and many movements like it were followed by decades of activism and legal precedents that established the legal principle of collegial governance on North American campuses and led to the United Nations UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, 1997, adopted by Canada.

Now the pendulum is swinging back towards a corporate management world in which students sell their freedom and their souls for a place on the management team. Go team go.

Denis Rancourt
Former U of O physics professor

[photo credit: University of Ottawa; CEO Allan Rock]

Related LINKS:
March 2011 update: "Donor policy" a Rock farce
All UofOWatch articles about corporatization
John McMurtry on university corporatization

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.

Green Campus Undone: BOG member works to sabotage U of O’s eco-leadership

On the one hand, the University of Ottawa works hard to give itself an eco-veneer, with its Sustainable Development Office, its Institute for the Environment, and its Green Campus student club, but on the other hand, on the power hand…
..
Contributed by Kevin McLeod
..
The Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada's online registry of lobbyists reveals that V. Peter Harder, a member of the University of Ottawa's Board of Governors, lobbied the government of Canada on behalf of Crowflight Minerals last year regarding the firm's desire to dump toxic mining waste in Manitoba's Bucko Lake.
..
According to Harder's registration the subject of his lobbying was "Policy or Program Government of Canada approval for the federal environmental assessment of Bucko Lake Tailings Impoundment Area”. Harder's registration's states that the government departments he lobbied were the Treasury Board of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Natural Resources Canada. The lobbying was done from April 21 2008 to the end May of 2008.
..
According to Mining Watch Canada's renowned researcher and mining critic Catherine Coumans,
..
"Crowflight Minerals is very much on our radar screen because this company wants to destroy a natural water body “frequented by fish” (as per the Fisheries Act definition) by using it as a cheap disposal site for its mine tailings. The water body is Bucko Lake.
..
In 2002 a regulatory amendment of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) led to a schedule being added called Schedule 2. This Schedule redefines whatever natural water body that is placed on it as a Tailings Impoundment Area. Through this regulatory sleight of hand all protections that exist in the Fisheries Act and the MMER that would normally make it illegal to dump mine waste into a natural water body no longer apply to the targeted lake or river."
..
Many U of O students would be appalled to learn that when he's not supporting drastic tuition increases BOG member Harder is busy lobbying the government of Canada to allow a mining firm to destroy a pristine body of water because it’s convenient and saves millions for the firm. Harder, a BOG member appointed by the Ontario government, was not voted to the BOG by University of Ottawa staff or students and like a majority of the BOG's members is clearly out of touch with the needs and interests of university students. Harder's presence on the BOG is a reminder of how unrepresentative and undemocratic the BOG really is.
..
You can visit the Commissioner of Lobbyists online registry by going HERE.
..
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa: V. Peter Harder, BOG member]
..
ECO LINKS (Further reading)
Social Justice versus Eco-Lard
Climate Guy
Truth or Dare?

Thuggery in the Upper Administration

The Student Federation University of Ottawa (SFUO) has just released a public letter addressed to U of O President Allan Rock. The letter is entitled “Flagrant Mistreatment of Students and Disregard of SFUO Nomination Rights”.
.

The letter demands that Rock redress two recent and most blatant abuses of power practiced by the university against its students. The letter describes the cases of international student Ting Ting Wang and physics student Marc Kelly.
.

The SFUO also demands that the U of O administration accept the SFUO’s nomination of Mark Kelly to the Senate Appeals Committee.
.

The Senate Appeals Committee is the committee whose members refused to identify themselves to grieving students, until the SFUO pressured the University administration by public exposure.
.

The SFUO letter makes public that VP-Academic Robert Major illegitimately interfered with Kelly’s nomination to the Senate Appeal’s Committee. The letter states that Major practiced a defamatory character assessment of Kelly, which Major is alleged to have communicated to an SFUO representative in an effort to discredit Kelly’s nomination.
.

VP-Academic Major is alleged to have advanced that student Kelly is mentally unstable, in supporting the VP’s rejection of Kelly’s nomination to the Senate Appeals Committee. This is the same VP-Academic Major whose views on gender equity and representative democracy are well known.
.

On a sane campus, in a sane world, and on any other campus in North America I would advance, the Board of Governors (BOG) would (would have already) promptly extract(ed) Robert Major’s resignation.
.

Is Canada’s university sane? Will it be fixed? The answer is in the hands of the BOG, while the President appears to be watching from the sidelines of international development.
.

President Allan Rock was repeatedly questioned by students and professors about the Kelly nomination at his October 24, 2008, address in the Agora, but he did not budge from his position that “we are entitled to have concerns”.
.

In addressing the students, Rock appeared to be oblivious to the asymmetry in the fact that students are not entitled to have concerns regarding the nominations of professors and executives to the Senate Appeals Committee.
.

[Photo credits: University of Ottawa; Allan Rock, Robert Major.]

Reparation is due at U of O - Grievance filed

October 7, 2008

.
Louise Pagé-Valin

Associate Vice-President

Human Resources Services

University of Ottawa

Tabaret Hall

550 Cumberland Street

(delivered by hand)
.

Re: Grievance G-19 (my code) – EBOG UofOWatch decision.

.

Dear Mrs. Pagé-Valin:

.

This is to grieve the September 11th decision of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG) regarding my UofOWatch.blogspot.com blog.
.

The Dean admitted in writing that if my articles had not been critical of the University, then I would not have been punished. This is a blatant violation of academic freedom. It also represents undue interference with my work.

.

In addition, in an email to Secretary of the University Pamela Harrod dated September 28, 2008, I expressed concerns about significant procedural anomalies in the EBOG’s September 11th decision. I have not yet received a response. I ask that you immediately provide written clarifications regarding my concerns expressed in my September 28, 2008, email to Pamela Harrod and immediately provide a copy of the (appropriately severed) minutes of the September 11th EBOG meeting, showing which EBOG members were present.
.
I ask that the discipline be reversed and that reparation be made, with interest. I want a written apology co-signed by all members of the EBOG which were present at the September 11th EBOG meeting. I want a written apology from the Dean. I ask that a new text of the policy for University copyrighted images be adopted which explicitly permits criticism of and/or fair (legal) commentary about the University in the use of University web images by professors, media, and students in any academic or journalistic work.

.
Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt

(Professor)
.

Cc: Posted to UofOWatch blog, BOG, APUO, Dean of Science..

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa; Louise Page-Valin, Dean Andre E. Lalonde]

It’s Unanimous! The University’s Intellectual Property Must Be Protected

In a letter dated September 23, 2008, the dean of the Faculty of Science, André E. Lalonde, informed Professor Denis G. Rancourt of the September 11, 2008, decision of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG) in the matter of discipline for having robed the University’s intellectual property.

.
See uTube video HERE.

.

The dean proudly announced “The Executive of the Board of Governors accepted the Dean’s recommendation [to discipline Rancourt]. The decision was unanimous.”

.

Bloggers and news media beware: The University of Ottawa will take whatever means necessary to bar the use of its pictures that it makes public on its web site.

.

In this case, it has disciplined one of its own professors with an unpaid suspension for having posted properly-credited uOttawa.ca images on his (this) blog (UofOWatch), even though the blog is part of the professor’s work for the University.

.

Just think of what the University will do if you are not one of its professors using the images for University work…

.

If the blog were not part of the professor’s work, then the University could not have disciplined the professor using labour law but would have needed to sue the professor under copyright law.

But wait. All the pictures are still up on the blog? The University has not protected its intellectual property. By its own logic, the University has no choice but to discipline Rancourt further and more severely for continuing to rob the University’s intellectual property. But is the University willing to push its insanity further…?

The University had given Rancourt permission to use its copyrighted images “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa” but then agued that UofOWatch is not “positive.” (LINK) Rancourt explained that the best way to make-positive negatives (such as VPs and deans lying or falsifying documents: LINK, LINK, LINK) is to report the mistakes, and to criticize, so that those who need to learn from their mistakes do. Rancourt explained that criticism is positive, as is being seen to allow criticism, and that, therefore, the images are being used “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.”

In addition, the UofOWatch blog itself is a positive activity of the University of Ottawa and the pictures positively promote the UofOWatch blog.

Hello… The University is adopting a copyright practice regarding its web pictures that is straight out of Orwell’s 1984. “Canada’s university,” that bastion of freedom of expression, intellectual inquiry, and critical discourse, is limiting its copyrighted resources to those who can wear plastic smiles and who are willing to serve its Communications Office.

For some reason, the student and mainstream media have not caught on to these subtleties in their coverage of Rancourt’s EBOG adventure. (LINK) To be fair, these subtleties also unanimously escaped the EBOG members, the Dean, and the University Legal Counsel, to name a few.

The unanimity of thought within the University administration suggests that only individuals that are capable of incisive analyses in complex cases attain the higher positions within the institutional hierarchy. (LINK) Not.

The Dean’s letter [POSTED HERE] made no mention of which of the twelve EBOG members were present at the September 11th meeting or whether President Allan Rock (Vice-Chair, EBOG) was in the room or how many of the members were present in addition to Secretary Pamela Harrod.

.

The public was banned from attending the EBOG September 11th meeting and Rancourt was not allowed to address the committee, not even to obtain clarification of his procedural concerns. The letter and email exchange between Rancourt and EBOG Secretary Pamela Harrod is POSTED HERE.

Security guards and locked doors were used to keep Rancourt and the public from entering the board room: See a report and a video HERE.
***

U of O EBOG Members:

Yves Tremblay, Chair
Allan Rock, Vice-Chair
Pamela Harrod, Secretary (non-member)
Jeffrey M. Dale
Ruth Freiman
Abdo Georges Ghié
V. Peter Harder
Marc Jolicoeur
Richard L’Abbé
Louise Lemyre
Julia Morris
Louise Tardif
Carmen Prévost Vierula

.
[photo credit: University of Ottawa]

LINKS to media:

Ottawa Sun feature 2008
La Rotonde news article
Ottawa Sun feature 2007
Ottawa Xpress feature 2006

UofOWatch Blog Too Much for UofO – Board to Decide on Suspension of Professor

This very blog, which should be celebrated by the University of Ottawa as an example of open self-criticism and vibrant discourse (e.g., see Professor St-Amant’s many contributed comments to the previous post), has in fact been threatened with legal action on two counts and its creator, Professor Denis Rancourt, has been disciplined and is now under review for suspension.
.
Professor Rancourt’s final supplementary brief (posted HERE) in the matter of his suspension for the blog was deposited today. The Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa has 40 working days to provide its decision and its reasons therefor. BOG meetings are public.
.

A brief history of the University’s reactions to the UofOWatch blog is as follows.
.
First, on August 20, 2007, University of Ottawa’s VP-Resources Victor Simon initiated a “private” action against Rancourt using the third largest national law firm in Canada, Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG), which is known to specialize in libel and defamation cases. The Chairman of the BOG of the University of Ottawa is a Partner in BLG.
.

The BLG letter of threat “Notice under the Libel and Slander Act” is posted HERE. It is signed by BLG Partner J. Bruce Carr-Harris who has been involved in high-profile fund raising activities for the University.
.

The letter states:
.

“Mr. Simon hereby demands that you immediately remove the two blogs [THIS ONE and THIS ONE] … from your U of O Watch blog, failing which we expect to receive instructions to commence the requisite legal proceedings to do so.
.

In addition, we require a full, absolute, and unequivocal and fair apology and retraction of all defamatory statements…”
.

Similar letters of threat of legal action, in this matter of Victor Simon and UofOWatch, were sent to graduate students Jean-Paul Prévost and Severin Stojanovic (for allegedly providing material support) and to three (student) staff members (Editor-in-Chief, Director General, and the journalist covering the Victor Simon matter) of the student newspaper La Rotonde (presumably to intimidate the paper away from publishing on the matter).
.

La Rotonde bravely published a full spread on September 10, 2007, with copies of some of the BLG letters. Rancourt did not budge, trusting truth as the ultimate defence. The lawsuits never materialized.
.

Next, on August 28, 2007, came a letter from the University of Ottawa’s Legal Counsel (Michelle Flaherty). This letter is posted HERE and states: “the University of Ottawa hereby requires that you immediately remove the images of Tabaret Hall, of the President of the University of Ottawa with Mr. Telfer and of the President of the University of Ottawa and Mr. Lau from the U of O Watch blog site … If you fail to remove these images by August 31, 2007, the University of Ottawa may take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its intellectual property rights.”
.

The Flaherty letter explained that it is University policy that the images “may be used by faculty, staff, students, and the news media solely for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.”
.

Having been informed of the University policy, Rancourt responded by making more widespread use of copyrighted University images, which greatly enhanced the blog.
.

The Dean of the Faculty of Science, André E. Lalonde, next enthusiastically took on the job of “protect[ing] [the University’s] intellectual property rights.” The Dean initiated his own investigation on November 23, 2007 (see letter posted HERE). In his letter, the Dean explained “I am concerned that your refusal to remove the copyrighted images from the U of O Watch website constitutes insubordination.”
.

What followed was a long series of meetings, exchanges of letters, and procedures (see Rancourt’s brief HERE for a summary) in which Rancourt tried to explain to the dean that both criticism and allowing criticism were positive and that, consequently, the University policy was not being violated.
.

The Dean disciplined Rancourt and warned of more discipline if the images were not removed. The Dean then appealed to the good judgement of VP-Academic Robert Major to ask that Major schedule the continuation of the investigation in order to pursue a suspension of Rancourt. Major obliged – leading to the present evaluation by the Board.
.

The Executive Summary of Rancourt’s BRIEF to the Board reads as follows.
.

The University of Ottawa has a stated policy of allowing professors to use its copyrighted images from its web site “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.” (See Legal Counsel’s letter to Denis Rancourt dated August 28, 2007.)
.

Denis Rancourt uses credited copyrighted images from the University’s web site in the UofOWatch blog that he manages (see attached item-1).
.

The UofOWatch blog features commentary and critical articles about activities of the University of Ottawa (see attached item-1).
.

The credited copyrighted images from the University’s web site significantly enhance the UofOWatch blog (a picture is worth a thousand words) and show a positive image of a university open to self-criticism.
.

University professors have academic freedom in their research and communications, including in criticisms of the university itself. The university has a duty to support the work of its professors, within the usual limits of resource constraints.
.

The University has disciplined Professor Denis Rancourt (Letter of Reprimand dated February 5, 2008) for not removing the copyrighted images from the UofOWatch blog.
.

Dean André E. Lalonde presently seeks further discipline (a one-day suspension) to be approved by the Board, before a grievance (filed on February 24, 2008) against the first discipline has been heard.
.

The University’s discipline and the on-going attempt to further discipline are not legitimate and appear to constitute attempts at ideological (political) censorship. The actions of the dean (and of Legal Counsel) appear to be petty and contrary to fostering a vibrant and critical university intellectual environment in a free and democratic society.
.

In addition, there are many procedural anomalies that point to serious problems in ethical and responsible management. These include illegal gathering and use of personal information and unwarranted legal threats.
.

In wrapping up his BRIEF, Rancourt states:
.

“Criticism is positive, healthy, and necessary to produce change. Congratulatory niceties only support the status quo. Not exposing known problems encourages their continuation. Criticism is vital work that needs to be encouraged rather than censored and attacked.”
.

Let us hope that the Board, in its collective wisdom and mandated fairness, will find a way to celebrate freedom of expression and inquiry at the University of Ottawa.
.

[Photo Credit: University of Ottawa. Mr. Marc Jolicoeur, BLG Partner and Chairman of the University’s Board of Governors.]