UofOgate::: Identity of student spy disclosed by court order

The University of Ottawa's UofOgate spy cover up scandal is not going away.

After Indy Media broke the story (HERE, HERE), in January to March 2010 there were nine articles in student newspapers across Ontario about the matter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and see here), with numerous letters (HERE). It was covered in Macleans OnCampus (M1). It appeared in Academica's Top Ten media stories (HERE). And it was featured in an in-depth report by Canadians for Accountability (HERE).

The university response has been an extensive cover up (HERE) involving top corporate executives, a former VP-Governance (now director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association), a former Legal Counsel (now a judge at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario), the present VP-Governance (HERE), and many more. The university and president Allan Rock are illegally stonewalling a labour law grievance on the matter (G25-HERE). The student newspaper The Fulcrum (where the student spy was a journalist/editor) fired its ombudsman in mid-investigation over the matter (HERE, HERE).

On the legal front, former physics professor Denis Rancourt - who had been spied on along with several other university employees and students - filed a formal labour law grievance (HERE) and appealed his access to information (ATI) request to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario; whereas members of the teacher assistant union (CUPE 2626) filed a collective grievance and settled with the university before arbitration (HERE).

Rancourt's grievance was illegally stonewalled by the University of Ottawa and president Allan Rock. This matter therefore was taken to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) by Rancourt and is now awaiting a tribunal hearing: HERE. The first item to be heard by the OLRB tribunal will be a motion by Allan Rock to be removed as a responding party (HERE).

The appeal to the IPC on the other hand has now concluded (IPC Order PO-2951 dated February 9, 2011) and the University of Ottawa was ordered to disclose a key record by March 16, 2011.

Although Rancourt's original ATI request was for all communications involving student journalist Maureen Robinson and resulted in an index of many communications with the university's Legal Counsel, Robinson has always denied (to the media) that she was involved in the covert information gathering campaign (2006-2008) described in the university's representations to the IPC tribunal (made public by Rancourt, HERE).

In IPC parlance, Rancourt was the Appellant, the university was the Institution (which has the burden of proof when not disclosing personal information of the Appellant), and Robinson was the (only) Affected Party.

The newly obtained document ordered disclosed by the IPC is posted HERE. It is an email from the Affected Party to the dean of the Faculty of Science (Andre E. Lalonde) and to the Legal Counsel (Michelle Flaherty, now a judge with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario). It is signed "Maureen".

In this case, Maureen is forwarding an email that she has obtained under false pretense at a time when she was a student journalist.

Maureen's identity is also disclosed in a second document recently obtained in a separate ATI request for documents in the dean's office: HERE.

The latter document is disturbing in many regards.

Note how the dean Andre E. Lalonde (who is not known for his strict adherence to ATI law) makes special efforts to circumvent ATI law: (1) Rancourt is referred to as "Professor R" to avoid keyword searches, (2) the dean suggests that since Legal Counsel would have received a copy of a sensitive CD (which he also has) that the CD would be excluded from ATI access (by virtue of solicitor-client privilege), and (3) the dean specifies that a previous communication was "privileged and confidential", again abusing the cover of solicitor-client privilege.

The document (HERE) also establishes that the university was in possession of a voice recording (two CD copies in fact) that it did not disclose to the IPC as required by law (as the dean acknowledges in this message to former VP-Governance Pamela Harrod, HERE).

Possibly most disturbingly, IPC Adjudicator Frank DeVries participated in this illegal information practice by not requesting the sound recording that was surmised to exist, despite the Appellant's explicit request under Representations that the Adjudicator do so, following presented evidence that the search had been "incomplete" regarding the existence of a voice recording.

Finally, another document also now conclusively identifies Maureen Robinson by her full name as the Affected Party: HERE. The latter document is a letter from the IPC Adjudicator to the Affected Party addressed to "Maureen Robinson" at her address in Australia at the time.

It is now impossible for Maureen Robinson to credibly deny being the student at the heart of the covert information gathering 2006-2008 campaign described in some detail by the university in its representations to the IPC Adjudicator (see the full documents and reports HERE). The lie is up.

RELATED LINKS AND POSTS:
AF.ca reports on the 2006-2008 covert surveillance campaign
University stonewalling of grievance G25 and OLRB legal action
All UofOWatch articles under label "covert surveillance"
All UofOWatch articles under label "Maureen Robinson"

U of O and student union settle grievance about covert surveillance

This is What Erosion of Civil Rights Looks Like

(Historians take note)

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) has recently (see as-received press release below) collaborated with a major university in Canada to legitimize a university's covert surveillance and covert information gathering against students.


In a classic sophistry of compartmentalizing civil and employee rights (reflected in the popularly recognized oxymoron "department of justice"), CUPE Local 2626, with the help of its provincial representative and a major labour law firm, signed a ludicrous "memorandum of understanding" with the University of Ottawa whereby the university is explicitly allowed to spy on student employees in their student and political activities.

The original grievance had arisen from documentary proof obtained via access to information (ATI) that the university had covertly spied on students, both in activist groups and in student institutional politics.

This CUPE-uOttawa aberration violates:

• The UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personel, with Canada has signed
• The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• The legally established principle of academic freedom in the university workplace
• And established world-wide norms of civil rights in free and democratic societies
  

This appears to be an illustration of how eager the managements of some unions are to avoid confrontations with employers on broad systemic issues relating to the dignity and political dimension of the employee.

The students themselves are largely responsible for allowing the union to subvert their rights in this way but all of Canadian society suffers the consequences. The graduate students at the University of Ottawa condone the degradation of Canadian society by their inaction. They will inherit the society and professional environment that they deserve.

See all posts about U of O covert surveillance

As-received press release from physics graduate student Joseph Hickey:

Ottawa, October 21, 2010.

U of O and student union settle grievance about covert surveillance

CUPE Local 2626 informed its members (memo attached) that it had arrived at a legal settlement with the University of Ottawa in a “Major Grievance” involving alleged covert surveillance by the university against several of its members.

Graduate student and University Senate member Joseph Hickey was directly involved and is concerned that the settlement appears to legitimize a reprehensible practice of covert surveillance of CUPE members in their student and political activities.

“The fact that collected information about my campus politics will not be allowed in my student employee file is of little comfort” said Hickey.

Hickey has obtained records via an independent access to information ongoing appeal with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario which show university officials denying his graduate school application (and, therefore, his employment) based on his “activist beliefs” and other personal information.

- 30 -

For more information please contact:
Joseph Hickey
University Senate member, University of Ottawa

For background in the matter and past media reports see:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/reportoncovertsurveillance.html


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Bonne nouvelle : Résolution récente d'un grief important / Good
news: Recent resolution of Major Grievance
From: "SCFP - CUPE 2626"
Date: Thu, 21 October, 2010 4:00 am
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[English follows below]

Cher membres du SCFP 2626:

Le SCFP 2626 est fier d'annoncer qu'il a récemment réglé un grief en cours depuis près d'un an lié à des mesures prises par l'Université d'Ottawa il y a deux ans contre certains membres du SCFP 2626 au moment où l'arbitrage allait commencer.

« Nous sommes très heureux de pouvoir régler ce grief avec l'aide de notre conseiller juridique de chez Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne et Yazbeck, LLP, a indiqué le président du Syndicat, Félix Grenier. Cette réalisation montre à nos membres que nous sommes prêts à aller jusqu'en arbitrage pour protéger leurs droits des travailleurs de notre association. »

En échange pour le règlement du grief par le Syndicat, l'Université a accepté dans un protocole d'entente, de ne pas recueillir de renseignements sur les membres du Syndicat dans leur rôle à titre de membre du Syndicat, et de ne jamais déposer, dans leur dossier d'employé, de renseignements recueillis sur les membres du SCFP dans leur rôle à titre d'étudiant ou d'activiste, ce qui constitue une importante victoire pour le Syndicat.

« De nombreux représentants syndicaux ont travaillé sur ce dossier et il s'agit d'un règlement raisonnable » a expliqué le représentant national du SCFP, Paul Boileau. Le Syndicat et l'Employeur peuvent maintenant rétablir une relation plus normale et améliorer la communication et la collaboration entre les deux parties. »

Si vous avez des questions sur le processus de grief ou sur les activités du SCFP 2626, n'hésitez pas à communiquer avec nous par courriel à l'adresse info@scfp2626.ca.

Félix Grenier
Président, SCFP 2626
Centre Universitaire, salle 303
Tél: 613-562-5345
info@scfp2626.ca
www.scfp2626.ca

****************************************************

Dear CUPE2626 member,

CUPE 2626 is proud to announce that it has recently resolved a long outstanding grievance, in regards to actions taken by the University of Ottawa two years ago against some CUPE 2626 members, just when arbitration was about to begin.

"We are very happy to settle this grievance with the assistance of our legal counsel from Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck, LLP," President Felix Grenier said. "This shows our members that we are willing to go all the way to arbitration to protect their work-related rights."

In exchange for the Union closing the grievance, the University agreed in a memorandum of understanding that it did not gather or collect information on Union members in their roles as union members and would never place any information gathered or collected in CUPE members' roles as students or activists in their employee files, which is a significant victory for the Union.

"A number of union representatives worked on this file and it was a good settlement," CUPE national representative Paul Boileau said. “Now the union and Employer can return to a more normal relationship where there is better communication and co-operation between the two parties.

If you have any questions about the grievance process or CUPE 2626 activities, don't hesitate to contact us at info@cupe2626.ca.

Felix Grenier
President, CUPE 2626
University Centre, room 303
Tel: 613-562-5345
info@cupe2626.ca
www.cupe2626.ca

Ethically challenged Michelle Flaherty, judge, HRTO --- video

This is part of a new video series about individual examples of ethically challenged professionals. It is intended to expose ethically challenged high-ranking officials who participated in the administrative mobbing of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt. (Background HERE.)



This clip features ethically challenged Michelle Flaherty, judge, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

As Legal Counsel at the University of Ottawa (Ottawa, Canada), Michelle Flaherty oversaw a broad and illegitimate covert information gathering campaign from 2006 to 2008 against Denis Rancourt and several students, in violation of the principle of academic freedom and of established labour rules in the academic environment.

The campaign also involved student journalist Maureen Robinson, dean of the Faculty of Science Andre E. Lalonde, VP-Academic Robert Major and others. The present Allan Rock administration continues to cover up the campaign.

Extensive information and links to media reports are provided HERE.

Michelle Flaherty then left the University of Ottawa to become a judge at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Canada). She continues to occupy the latter position.

RELATED POSTS:
All UofOWatch posts about Michelle Flaherty
All academicfreedom.ca reports about the covert information gathering campaign 2006-2008

Liberal bashing season is on: U of O crimes finally get reported

In choosing its latest president (SEE HERE), the U of O has made itself home to a failed politician who was ethically challenged, who had bungled most major media-reported dossiers to cross his desk, who now appears to be in the pocket of outside interests, and who wants to spend more time out "in the world" than on campus.

That former politician was a Liberal and he has made the school an instrument of Liberal propaganda. As a result, he has exposed the school to severe and sustained conservative media criticism of "Canada's university" - as he likes to call the University of Ottawa.

Ever since the Coulter fiasco for which Allan Rock was responsible (according to his own late admission), CanWest has gone after Mr. Rock and the reputation of the University of Ottawa. This suggests a federal election battle in the near future.

HERE is the latest example in the second national newspaper of corporate Canada. It is a hummer of a well structured beating from hell.

That's bad for Rock but it's good for the university (and it's good for Burma). It's good for the university because the criticism is well deserved and is a criticism of malfeasance by the university's corporate executives. It's good for the university because it's true. It's good for the university because it pushes its bosses to clean up their act.

The Rock administration's response has been to spin and to cover up.

Not good. Allan Rock needs to learn to shorten the time between public exposure and apology, not lengthen it. Beyond that, Allan Rock needs to clean this up: An independent public inquiry into covert surveillance at the U of O is past due, way past due.

Mister Rock needs to stop the cover up. He could start by removing his illegal refusal to receive a labour law grievance about THIS covert surveillance and its cover up.

For all the background in this sordid affair of the Rock administration see HERE.

'Canada's university' spied on Burmese students to 'protect' Desmarais

THIS stunning media report from Burma exposes a second known University of Ottawa campaign of covert surveillance that the Rock administration is covering up.

The original Burmese report is HERE. Detailed revelations directly implicate several top U of O executives and are supported by hard-fought-for documents* obtained through access to information law.

University executives conspired

• to covertly spy on a student event about Burmese blood money allegedly having been received from corporate donor Paul Desmarais in funding the university's Desmarais building,
  
• to gather information in view of libel lawsuits against the students, and
  
• to increase room booking rates to make rooms inaccessible to unfunded student groups.

For example, U of O Vice-President Victor Simon is quoted from one of his emails as:

"we should prohibit the use of our facilities for this event, on the grounds that the program material includes allegations and accusations that may be libellous . . .I know that this kind of action thinking flies in the face of many principles we hold dear in the University world, but I think we have others interests at stake here."

Others interests (sic)? These guys know who they work for... They have a legal responsibility to protect academic freedom; a responsibility reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This is how they do it.

Will the Rock administration continue to bury this kind of malfeasance (e.g., HERE) or will it straighten the ship and do the necessary to restore public confidence in the institution?

RELATED POSTS:
All UofOWatch posts about covert surveillance at U of O

*Access to information documents made public HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Targeting Activist University of Ottawa Students: A Lendman report

The UofOgate cover up is starting to fall apart... (all blog reports HERE)

Targeting Activist University of Ottawa Students - by Stephen Lendman


Until his early March Board of Directors removal, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya was Fulcrum Publishing Society (FPS) Ombudsman, the English-language student newspaper at Canada's University of Ottawa (U of O).

It resulted from his critical reports, including a preliminary February 23 one for FPS's editorial mistreatment of Professor Denis Rancourt, fired in March 2009 for his political activism - specifically his courageous stance on Occupied Palestine.

In 2007, after criticizing university opposition to academically boycotting Israel, repression against him intensified under new president Allan Rock, a former Canadian politician, UN ambassador, and staunch Israeli supporter.

Nazemroaya accused the Fulcrum of "publishing opinion pieces against Dr. Rancourt. (They've) strongly criticized him, his university classes, his position, and his brand of activism."

In his January 9 report, Nazemroaya cited illegal U of O "covert surveillance," adding that "The Fulcrum has a duty to cover all news concerning campus life in an unbiased way and to the best of its abilities," especially over denying a distinguished tenured professor academic freedom and firing him for his views - the way a police state silences dissent.

Nazemroaya also accused the FPS Board of endorsing:

"a conflict of interest" (and) tr(ying) to force (him) to be quiet about it and to accept it without initially offering a remedy....Contrary to FPS rules, the Board also (attempted) to force (its) Ombudsman to play a passive role;" in other words, forced compliance to quash an independent investigation into Rancourt's firing, one that surely would vindicate him.

After his dismissal, Nazemroaya wrote an open letter to the FPS, the university Students Federation (SFUO), Graduate Students Association (GSAED), and U of O, saying he was FPS Ombudsman until early March, then removed over "a sequence of events launched by the investigation of a formal complaint by Denis Rancourt."

He accused FPS Business Manager Frank Appleyard of "breach(ing) the FPS constitution by simultaneously working for Allan Rock and the FPS. This was a conflict of interest. Appleyard claimed that this was okay because the BOD had authorized this violation. The BOD has no such power," any more than a head of state may violate constitutional and international laws. Doing so is a criminal act. In academic environs, violations are ethical conflicts of interest, clearly explained in the FPS Constitution's Section 1(1), stating:

"Employees (include) section editors, editor-in-chief, unelected editorial positions, business positions, and any other individual on the Corporate payroll."

They may not simultaneously work for the Fulcrum, SFUO, GSAED or U of O Administration. Doing so is a constitutional violation and conflict of interest.

"There is no debate or divergence of interpretation on this fact. No one can authorize breaches of the FPS Constitution or FPS By-laws, including the Board of Directors. According to Section 2.03 of the FPS Constitution, amendments can only be made at a duly constituted meeting of the staff approved by the Board or vice-versa."

Appleyard breached his constitutional duty, then falsely accused Nazemroaya in his Ombudsman capacity.

He also "mismanage(d)....FPS funds, which are obtained through student fees. The constitution clearly says 'no employees' can work for the FPS and either the university administration, SFUO, and/or GSAED at the same time. This is to prevent political influences from biasing Fulcrum reporting."

"The BOD now claims there was a 'typographical mistake in the constitution," an entirely bogus assertion to justify an unjustifiable act. Appleyard then "accuse(d) me of personal attacks and false statements, which BOD member Scott Bedard informed me was reason for my suspension," bogus again to remove him and attack academic freedom.

As troublesome, the Fulcrum "imposed a media blackout on this scandal. My position is that a cover-up has been underway. A public inquiry is in order," one not forthcoming to let Allan Rock run the U of O like a feudal lord, ruling by edict with no opposition.

BOD members gave Nazemroaya two choices - obey or go. He chose honor, stepped down, and accused university president, Allan Rock, of unfitness and damaged credibility in asking him to resign, then added:

"Appearances are pertinent for judging conflicts of interest. Did Allan Rock forget about the Conflict of Interest Code in Parliament?"

He should have known that hiring Appleyard was unethical, after he backed Rancourt criticism - what Nazemroaya called "notoriously negative and ill-informed." Hiring him looks "like a reward and was an infringement of ethical norms expected for the governance of a publicly funded institution."

Because of arrogant Allan Rock leadership, the U of O is despotically run, tolerating no views divergent from his own. Effectively, he declared free expression and academic freedom dead, so long as he's lord and master of U of O's administration.

A Program Note
Professor Denis Rancourt will be this writer's guest on The Progressive Radio News Hour on The Progressive Radio Network - Saturday, May 8 at 1PM Eastern time.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya will be on the same program - Sunday, April 11 at 1PM.
In-depth discussion will focus on the gross injustice to both guests - to freely air what FPS suppresses.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://prognewshour.progressiveradionetwork.org/

Human rights judge spied on university students – National civil rights association director covers it up

New records have been released.

The UofOgate is disturbing enough even as the access to information (ATI) battle rages on but now the plot really thickens. LINK TO ALL POSTS about UofOgate.

One of the student victims of the University of Ottawa covert information gathering campaign of 2006-2008 against student politicians, student activists, and one professor has obtained and released ATI records.

These new records are damning for both the student spy (former science student and student journalist/editor Maureen Robinson, aka Nathalie Page) and the university officials who supervised the spying

• Dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde

• Former Legal Counsel Michelle Flaherty

but also for those who supervised the supervisors

• Former VP-Academic Robert Major

and who appear to be participating in the cover up

• President Allan Rock

• VP-Governance Diane Davidson

• Former VP-Governance and FIPPA Coordinator Pamela Harrod

• Former VP-Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers

• Legal Counsel Alain Roussy

• Human Resources Assistant Director Jean-Yves Leduc

• Former Human Resources Director Louise Pagé-Valin

Nathalie Des Rosiers is now General Council (i.e., director) of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), while presumably retaining her salary from the University of Ottawa; whereas Michelle Flaherty is now a Vice Chair (i.e., judge) at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The CCLA has been asked to investigate Nathalie Des Rosiers regarding several alleged civil rights abuses: LINK.

For this post, consider just two specific newly released ATI documents and their implications.

Recall that it has already been established that student journalist Maureen Robinson was hired by the University of Ottawa as “agent of Legal Counsel”, working directly under Flaherty, to covertly gather information (SEE REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS HERE). But it’s always nice to actually see their correspondence, as revealed pursuant to ATI law.

DOC-3

DOC-3 (LINK) is an email exchange dated March 12, 2008 (severed pursuant to ATI law). Here we see a detailed report by the student spy about a student political event: An all candidates’ debate for the Graduate Student Association Études Diplômée (GSAED).

Note that the subject line is marked “privileged and confidential”, as were all communications between Maureen Robinson and Flaherty. “Privileged” communications in law are protected under solicitor-client confidentiality. The University argued that all Robinson-Flaherty communications were protected in this way by virtue that Robinson was a hired “agent of Legal Counsel” (see REPORT). A web law dictionary (under)states “Privileged communications are controversial because they exclude relevant facts from the truth-seeking process.”

In the exchange (DOC-3), former Legal Counsel Flaherty appears to be enjoying the report, as she states:

“I’m laughing out loud-- I’ll miss the severin updates. Thanks [XXX].”

This shows that there were several updates, that Legal Counsel received them and commented them (severed parts), and that the reports were precisely about student politics in anticipation for elections and possible student political pressure for the activism course (SCI 1101). Another document from Robinson appears to be a transcript from a voice recording of the GSAED event, with lengthy quotes from student politician “severin”.

Flaherty “will miss the reports…” She left to take up her new HRTO position on or around March 31, 2008.

DOC-8

DOC-8 (LINK) is an email exchange dated March 5, 2008 (severed pursuant to ATI law).

Recall that student spy Maureen Robinson used a false Facebook identity (Nathalie Page) to infiltrate student activist electronic lists and discussion groups (see REPORT).

Well, here you have it: An email presumably from “Nathalie Page” (severed but the ATI request was for Maureen Robinson only) with Maureen Robinson as a recipient, along with Flaherty and the ever-present Dean of Science.

It starts: “Hi, it’s [XXX]. Haha.”

The exchange also contains a forwarded email from a private activist student Google Group (“Reinstate the Activism Course”) that Robinson was not a member of but that “Nathalie Page” was allowed to join (see REPORT).

This appears to show that both the Dean of Science and Legal Counsel Flaherty knew that Maureen Robinson was using a false identity to infiltrate activist student groups in order to provide them information while acting as “agent of Legal Counsel”. Ah if only the severing could be uncovered and all the communications were released…

In addition, DOC-8 shows the student spy informing the Dean of Science and Legal Counsel that she is using her media connections to attempt to secure a voice recording of a coming talk by the spied-on professor at a student conference to be help at UBC. It would not be the only time: LINK. (It should not take an Independent Committee of Inquiry to see that this is a violation of the legal principle of academic freedom.)

It seems to us that the Dean of Science should explain himself. There is enough smoke from this smoking gun to fill a mineralogy lab.

Maybe an investigation by The Law Society of Upper Canada would be in order? After all, Canadian lawyers have some of the strongest professional ethics rules in the land: LINK. In particular, lawyers have 100% professional responsibility for their juniors; that would be the “agent of Legal Counsel” we presume…?

We have asked both Lalonde and Flaherty to correct or comment on our reports: Neither has replied.

Maureen Robinson has repeatedly denied everything to the media: LINK-1, LINK-2, MORE-MEDIA. Well at least she did not directly threaten a libel lawsuit as did her former student editor colleague Appleyard: LINK.

When will the Ottawa Citizen cover these matters? It was eager to please Allan Rock with “editorial support” in the dismissal of the spied-on professor but it has not touched UofOgate? Not news worthy? Humm. Maybe if its publisher, James Orban, got off his seat at the University of Ottawa Board of Governors?

[Photo: Michelle Flaherty, Vice Chair, HRTO]

Postscript: Nathalie Des Rosiers provided a response (on April 20, 2010) which is posted ON THIS PAGE: HERE. Denis Rancourt's reply to Nathalie Des Rosiers is posted HERE.

Fired ombudsman finds Rock unfit and asks U of O president to resign

This is the latest development in the Fulcrum scandal component of UofOgate at the University of Ottawa.

Former Fulcrum Publishing Society Ombudsman Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya has asked University of Ottawa President Allan Rock to resign (see excerpt below):

"Rock should have been aware that hiring Appleyard, after Frank wrote critically of Rancourt, would appear like a reward and was an infringement of ethical norms expected for the governance of a publicly funded institution. Rock has damaged his credibility and is unfit. As such, I am publicly asking Allan Rock to resign as President."


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: M.D. Nazemroaya
Date: Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:26 PM
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO THE FPS and HEADS OF THE SFUO , GSAÉD, & U OF O
To: editor@thefulcrum.ca
Cc: president@sfuo.ca, news@thefulcrum.ca, mheba053@uottawa.ca, vp.communications@sfuo.ca, n.taylor.vaisey@gmail.com, , actualites@larotonde.ca, redaction@larotonde.ca, external@gsaed.ca, studentlife@gsaed.ca, charlatan@charlatan.ca, times@algonquincollege.com, university@gsaed.ca, internal@gsaed.ca, allan.rock@uottawa.ca

Hello Emma, here is my letter that we discussed. Please publish it the upcoming issue of The Fulcrum:

OPEN LETTER TO THE FPS and HEADS OF THE SFUO, GSAÉD, & U OF O

I was the Fulcrum Publishing Society (FPS) Ombudsman until the start of March 2010, when I was removed by the Board of Directors (BOD). This was the buildup of a sequence of events launched by the investigation of a formal complaint by Denis Rancourt. BOD members gave me two choices: obey them as a subordinate or pack up.
[…]
Appleyard breached the FPS Constitution by simultaneously working for Allan Rock and the FPS. This was a conflict of interest. […]
[…]
Appearances are pertinent for judging conflicts of interest. Did Allan Rock forget about the Conflict of Interest Code in Parliament? Rock should have been aware that hiring Appleyard, after Frank wrote critically of Rancourt, would appear like a reward and was an infringement of ethical norms expected for the governance of a publicly funded institution. Rock has damaged his credibility and is unfit. As such, I am publicly asking Allan Rock to resign as President.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Former FPS Ombudsman

UofOgate: Fulcrum gives 'cover up' a whole new meaning

Fulcrum pulls peanut butter stain defence to cover Rock and Appleyard

The March 4, 2010, weekly print edition of the U of O student newspaper, The Fulcrum, is out on the stands.

It is remarkable in two respects.

First, despite numerous requests to the editors, it completely avoids news coverage of the Fulcrum scandal that has been raging since the Fulcrum Board of Directors suspended and fired its Ombudsman in mid-investigation. (See French student media coverage HERE.)

Second, this little item in a box at the bottom of page 21:

Excuse me? Fulcrum Business Manager Frank Appleyard, who threatened to sue over false accusations, was in "technical breach" of the Constitution ... but only because "Typographical errors in Sections 1.01 (i) and (l) of the Constitution suggest [as in state] that employees of the Business Department are subject to its provisions."

"In an effort to clarify its [conflict of interest] policy, the Society is in the process of making amendments to the Constitution..." ...so it says what we says it means... (Recall: They fired their Ombudsman over differences in "interpretation" of the Constitution.)

Wow.

If we find we are "technically" breaking the rules then we must change the rules so that their "intent" is clear. Holy poo poo. That tops the Rock admin approach of "if we are criticized for our actions then we will introduce a policy to legitimize what we want to do (e.g., promised 'donor recognition policy').

Why not just state that Appleyard had a peanut butter stain on his copy of the Constitution when he accepted the job under Rock while he was Business Manager of the Fulcrum and that Rock forgot that he was no longer a Liberal MP.

[Photo: Business Manager Frank Appleyard and Editor-in-Chief Emma Godmere - total separation between the business and editorial departments?]

Now it's time to change the Constitution so that it allows conflict of interest? Brilliant move.

It's right up there with the Publisher of The Ottawa Citizen (Jim Orban) being on the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa while Rock writes invited editorials and receives personal advance notices from Orban about editorials critical of dissident professor Rancourt, not to mention media-reported undisclosed contracts for naming publicly funded campus spaces in exchange for "editorial support".

As Frank Appleyard has learned, "editorial support" has a mercantile value...

What was that job? How was it advertised? What special talents were required? How was student tuition money being spent? An investigation is in order. Ooops, we fired the Ombudsman.

U of O student newspaper Business Manager Frank Appleyard threatens legal action against UofOWatch blog posts

What was Mr. Rock Thinking?

In two recent posts (HERE and HERE) we reported breaches of professional journalistic ethics by staff and journalists at The Fulcrum (U of O student newspaper) regarding Fulcrum staff and journalist treatment of former U of O physics professor Denis Rancourt.


Fulcrum Business Manager Frank Appleyard objects to some of the content in the two posts and believes that he has been unjustly defamed.

In particular, it appears that U of O's President Allan Rock hired Appleyard in 2009 to reward him for his critical editorial coverage of Rancourt.

The best way for Mr. Appleyard's objections to be fully and accurately represented is to post his detailed letter of protest. Appleyard's letter is posted HERE.

This way readers can judge for themselves.

The Fulcrum Publishing Society (FPS) Ombudsman has a perspective at odds with that of Appleyard and an interpretation of his own Ombudsman's Interim Report that is relevant in the matter of the alleged unjustified defamation of Appleyard.

The FPS Ombudsman's reaction and clarification is posted HERE.

It appears that Mr. Appleyard (and the FPS Board of Directors) did not read the FPS Constitution all the way down to Section 12; the "Conflict of Interest Policy" section. As pointed out by the Ombudsman, the meaning and intent of Section 12 are quite clear.

[The FPS Ombudsman was immediately suspended by the FPS Board of Directors following the release of his Interim Report, for not agreeing to perform his duties as directed by the Board - for doing his job. At the time of this posting he had not yet been removed from his position.]

What was Mr. Rock thinking?

Frank Appleyard and Allan Rock

In the months leading to the University’s political dismissal of former physics professor Denis Rancourt on March 31, 2009, Frank Appleyard was editor of The Fulcrum and he produced an exceedingly negative and contrived editorial report (using student commentary) about Rancourt. This “editorial” was used inappropriately by the University as one of only two negative media pieces linked to one of its press releases about Rancourt (only several weeks later did the University add four more links to media items to its press release originally posted on February 6, 2009).

Following this unethical action by the University, Frank Appleyard had the following email exchange on the matter with a third party in February 2009:

• THIRD PARTY: I just wanted to make sure that you saw the U of O Statement on Rancourt linking to the Fulcrum: [link]. The admin is giving you a big high five!
  

• APPLEYARD: Yeah, I saw that yesterday. I love the fact that my column's presence is incredibly out of context in that piece. I have my own opinions about Rancourt and his struggles, but Im a little disappointed the admin would try to pass off my column as something akin to news coverage of him. Anyway. Unfortunate...
  

• THIRD PARTY: Yeah, unfortunate for sure. And it's also quite a scandal (and irresponsible, and libelous) that the U of O would include your piece in the way they did. Have you considered writing about this? I think its essential and respect that we all have different views on Rancourt. I predict most will agree; the U of O pulling a stunt like this in reaction to a Globe and Mail article is shameful.
  

• APPLEYARD: I contemplated writing about it, but at the end of the day newspapers aren't supposed to write about themselves or the people involved with them. It's kind of a convention among papers, as it comes off looking self-serving and biased. So, I don't think we'll write about it. I would encourage you to tell La Rotonde about it though. I think students should know what they did. But, I am displeased and I'm planning to send a letter to media relations about it. Also, have you seen the New York Times article about Rancourt?
  

• THIRD PARTY: [link to Globe and Mail article] I continue to think that you need to write about how the administration has used your piece. This would not be self serving - it is simply campus news. The Fulcrum is a part of campus - you are obviously an important player. Use that power efficiently.
  

[End of exchange – Appleyard never responded beyond this point]

The Fulcrum editorial also gave Frank Appleyard special status as representing “the other side” as a rare campus member who agreed to speak negatively on the matter: He was interviewed on national radio (CBC’s The Current) to present a critical view of Rancourt (during his term as Fulcrum Editor). All these events occurred in the winter 2009 semester.

The recent FPS-Ombudsman’s interim report (LINK) and subsequent email revelations from Frank Appleyard (LINK, end of file) established that following the winter 2009 semester Frank Appleyard was hired to work in the office of University President Allan Rock for the summer of 2009 while he retained the position of Business Manager of The Fulcrum. The latter is a violation of the FPS Constitution.

Mr. Appleyard does not see a problem with this and feels that he was hired on the basis of “merit”, not as a reward for his “editorial support.”

Surely Allan Rock on the other hand, as a former member of the same Liberal Party of Canada that succumbed to the sponsorship scandal, must recognize that to have hired a student editor under these circumstances can only hurt the public image and reputation of the academic institution that he is charged to protect and guide following the highest principles of ethics and professional conduct?

What was Mr. Rock thinking?



[Note: This is an extract from a recently posted First Supplementary Report about UofOgate.]

RELATED LINKS:
Canadians for Accountability publish report on UofOgate
All the background and recent reports on UofOgate
UofOWatch posts about the cover up

UofOgate: More revelations accumulate – On the connections between student journalists and the University President and on keeping your lies straight

See the last UofOWatch report about UofOgate HERE.

See the recent Canadians for Accountability report about UofOgate HERE.

For the latest revelations just read the documents (and see related press releases below):

• DOCUMENT-1: The student newspaper Ombudsman’s interim report (the Ombudsman was suspended by the paper’s Board of Directors the day after the report was released because he refused to accept unjustified Board directions/interference in running the enquiry)

• DOCUMENT-2: A letter from the teacher assistant union (CUPE Local 2626) to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario pointing out that the University appears not to be keeping its lies straight…

We guess it’s difficult for the University of Ottawa to conceal so many unethical practices for an extended period of time?

University of Ottawa student newspaper Ombudsman finds unethical practices in treatment of former physics professor

OTTAWA, February 24, 2010 – The Ombudsman of the Fulcrum Publishing Society (FPS), Mr. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, has released a damning interim report about journalistic and editorial mistreatment of former physics professor Denis Rancourt by the student newspaper The Fulcrum.

The FPS-Ombudsman’s Report is posted HERE along with reactions from The Fulcrum’s Business Manager Mr. Frank Appleyard.

Appleyard was hired by U of O President Allan Rock’s office at the same time as he retained his Fulcrum position of Business Manager, after he wrote a highly critical editorial about Rancourt that was used in a University press release and cited in the national media.

Regarding Appleyard and given his admissions the FPS-Ombudsman’s Report states:

“I would judge this to be in breach of the FPS Editorial Constitution and an embarrassment to the FPS and the University of Ottawa. This is very serious…”

Regarding former Fulcrum contributor and editor Maureen Robinson who was hired by the University in a broad campaign of covert information gathering from 2006 to 2008, the FPS-Ombudsman concludes:

“I have to reaffirm that I believe Maureen Robinson acted unethically and was in a conflict of interest under the FPS Editorial Constitution.”

This report comes only days after the teacher assistant union (CUPE Local 2626) formally accused the University of Ottawa of submitting false statements either to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario or in a legal labour proceeding with CUPE Local 2626 regarding the alleged campaign of covert information gathering.

All background is posted HERE.

- 30 -

CUPE exposes inconsistencies: U of O cover up of covert information gathering activities thickens

OTAWA, February 22, 2010 – Sean Kelly, President of the teacher assistant (TA) union (CUPE, Local 2626) at the University of Ottawa, has written a detailed letter to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario to alert the Commissioner to documented inconsistencies between the University’s legal Representations to the IPC on the one hand and the University’s defence statements against a CUPE grievance on the other hand.

The CUPE letter is posted HERE. It states:

“…[I]n this very broad and important case, the University of Ottawa appears to have made false written statements to the IPC or false verbal statements in legal labour-relations proceedings [to the CUPE]…”

The alleged cover up relates to grievances from two unions (CUPE Local 2626 and the Association of Professors University of Ottawa, APUO) against covert information gathering practiced between 2006 and 2008, made public in a January 2010 report by former physics professor Denis Rancourt and recently reported in the national media: HERE.

- 30 -

[Photo: Frank Appleyard.]

UofOgate: New VP-Governance Diane Davidson and President Allan Rock join in the cover up

A detailed public report shows that the University of Ottawa practiced extensive covert surveillance against one of its professors and several students between 2006 and 2008 [LINK-Post about Report].

The U of O also mounted a cover up which has been strengthened and extended under the Rock administration [LINK-Report] [LINK-Formal request for investigation]. See media reports HERE.

It is a cover up when an institution or organization, over a period of several years:

1. never acknowledges any of many direct questions and formal queries about the alleged wrongdoing,
2. continuously refuses to answer any of many questions about the alleged wrongdoing, even when required to do so by the established administrative procedures, rules, and regulations (here the Collective Agreement),
3. repeatedly refuses to investigate the alleged wrongdoing, despite several informal and formal requests to investigate and despite established administrative procedures, rules, and regulations to do so (here Policy 92),
4. refuses to accept as “arbitrable” a formal grievance (labour lawsuit) against the alleged wrongdoing and in the face of a union asking that the established grievance procedure be respected (Collective Agreement),
5. refuses to provide any and all documents about the alleged wrongdoing even when required to do so by access to information law,
6. arranges to delete or remove a sensitive and incriminating voice recording about the alleged wrongdoing,
7. contrives elaborate excuses for rapidly disappearing electronic records of all staff who leave the institution or organization so as not to be vulnerable to access to information requests,
8. contrives elaborate narratives to guard the electronic records of contract staff using the organization’s computers from access to information searches, and
9. uses contrived narratives in its legal representations to the access to information enforcement agency (Information and Privacy Commissioner) in order to continue denying access to all records about the alleged wrongdoing.
   

The University of Ottawa has done and continues to do all of the above.

The persons involved in the cover up have included:

• André E. Lalonde, Dean of the Faculty of Science

• Louise Pagé-Valin, former Director of Human Resources

• Robert Major, former VP-Academic

• Pamela Harrod, former Secretary of the University and former FIPPA Coordinator

• Nathalie Des Rosiers, former acting VP-Governance and director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)

• Michelle Flaherty, former Legal Counsel and vice-Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO)

In addition, President Allan Rock was in cc to formal requests for investigation and one would expect him to have been fully briefed about the matter.

Recently (see full email string below), science graduate student Wayne Sawtell (a victim of the University’s covert surveillance while an undergraduate) put the matter squarely to Rock and asked for a full investigation. The new VP-Governance Diane Davidson answered for Rock – the usual “no comment”.

This puts Rock and Davidson squarely in the camp of the perpetrators of the cover up.

Will public pressure eventually solve this problem? You would think that the University officials involved would want an independent investigation (including the filed labour law grievance) to clear their names of any wrongdoing and to defend academic freedom in Canada?

[E-MAIL STRING START]
[Editor's emphasis in bold]

From: Wayne Sawtell <>
Date: 28 January 2010 21:24
Subject: Re: FW: response requested
To: "Vice-rectrice à la gouvernance - Vice-President, Governance"

That doesn't give me any reassurance the U of O adminstration isn't still spying on me. I will have graduated by the time this case makes its way through the legal channels. Meanwhile, I have to live with the Rock administration operating in a manner consistent with a corporate security state instead of fostering the kind of independent thinking that breeds true success in life.

Wayne Sawtell


On 27 January 2010 09:25, Vice-rectrice à la gouvernance - Vice-President, Governance wrote:

Dear Mr. Sawtell:

Your e-mail of January 22, 2010 to the President has been forwarded to me for reply.

The matters you raise are subject to ongoing proceedings. Unfortunately, the University cannot comment at this time.

Diane Davidson
Vice-rectrice à la gouvernance / Vice-President, Governance
Pavillon Tabaret
550 Cumberland (208B)
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
Tel: 613-562-5950
Fax: 613-562-5178
Email: vr.gouvernance@uottawa.ca / vp.governance@uottawa.ca



From: Wayne Sawtell [mailto:]
Sent: Friday January 22, 2010 10:37 PM
To: Allan Rock
Subject: response requested

Dear Mr. Rock,

Still awaiting a response, I am writing to remind you of the letter I sent January 6th of this year, bringing to your attention the compelling evidence that the previous administration conducted covert surveillance of a professor and student activists by hiring student Maureen Robinson to spy on them. I am sure that you deplore this kind of repressive behaviour as much as I do and will want to distance your administration from those kinds of practices. A quick and unambiguous denunciation of covert surveillance and suppression of activism would provide a fresh break from the blight these allegations have brought upon the University of Ottawa and help restore some of the damage done to its reputation. However, the international university community will not be fully satisfied until a full, independent investigation is conducted into the affair. Now is your opportunity, Mr. Rock. Do not miss it.

Sincerely yours,

Wayne Sawtell
M.Sc. candidate in Biology (xxxxxxx)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wayne Sawtell <>
Date: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Subject: Covert surveillance at Ottawa U
To: allan.rock@uottawa.ca
Cc: Denis Rancourt <>, editor@thefulcrum.ca, Sean Kelly , Fulcrum News Editor , info@gsaed.ca, university@gsaed.ca

Dear Mr. Rock,

Thank you for your Dec. 4 response to my letter of Nov. 16. I appreciate the fact that you are not at liberty to comment on the substance of issues surrounding the dismissal of Denis Rancourt because of the legal implications.

I would however respectfully challenge the notion that all the required procedures were followed in this case. I should say, there was a demonstrable lack of good faith on the part of the administration, and some very dubious procedures were followed by the administration that contravene the university’s constitution and violate the collective agreement with APUO. Specifically, I am personally alarmed by the recent evidence from the university’s files (http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/reportoncovertsurveillance.html) that has come to light showing that the administration conducted covert surveillance of Professor Rancourt and activist groups on campus. There is concrete evidence that the administration engaged a student of Ottawa University to spy on Professor Rancourt and certain student activist groups and to report on her findings to the administration. Science student and then-Fulcrum news editor Maureen Robinson was used by the administration to impersonate someone else and tape record meetings, for example. I like to think that I live in a democratic country where one does not have to worry about the authorities at any level spying on people, that surveillance cameras are used for people’s protection and not to track the activities of people who disagree with corporate control over public institutions like universities. Such actions directly contradict previous statements by the administration that support student activism and even activism courses in certain faculties of the university.

I call on you as President of the university to publicly denounce such tactics and to initiate a full, independent investigation into the actions taken by the previous administration in the years leading up to the decision to dismiss Professor Rancourt. I believe it is also important and of interest to students to make the results of this investigation public.

Yours truly,

Wayne Sawtell
M.Sc. candidate in Biology, xxxxxxx


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Office of the President
Date: 2009/12/3
Subject: RE: appeal of dismissal
To: Wayne Sawtell

Dear Mr. Sawtell,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns regarding the dismissal of Professor Denis Rancourt from the University of Ottawa.

While I appreciate the perspective from which you have positioned your arguments, please be assured that the Executive Committee gave careful consideration to Mr. Rancourt’s dossier before recommending dismissal with cause to the Board of Governors. Moreover, all procedures required by the collective agreement with the Association des Professeurs de l'Université d'Ottawa (APUO) were followed.

To respect confidentiality and legal obligations surrounding this matter, I cannot comment further. However, I continue to stand by the dismissal recommendation made previously this year.

Thank you once again for your interest and understanding.

Kind regards,

Allan Rock
President and Vice-Chancellor


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wayne Sawtell <>
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Subject: appeal of dismissal
To: allan.rock@uottawa.ca
Cc: Denis Rancourt <>

Dear President Rock,

As a an alumnus and a current graduate student in the Science Faculty at the University of Ottawa, I am writing to ask you to reconsider a major decision that you made this summer: the dismissal of Professor Denis Rancourt of the Physics Department. Dr. Rancourt made unique and valuable contributions to the university not only through teaching Physics for 20 years and performing productive, high-level research, but also through a weekly campus radio show, ‘The Train’, and a weekly documentary film series, ‘Cinema Academica’, both of which are about social and political issues of concern to everyone.

Despite mixed feelings amongst the student body and teaching faculty about the issues championed by Professor Rancourt, I believe that looking at the record from a different perspective would actually strengthen the university. I agree with Dr. Rancourt’s position that criticism of institutional behaviour is healthy and constructive even though it may sound harsh, and there is a striking lack of institutional analysis both at Canadian universities and in society in general. It seems to me that many people in the university administration and teaching staff possibly took too personally comments that Dr. Rancourt made over the past few years for the sake of enhancing learning within the university and for the sake of justice in our broader society. Therefore, the advice that you were given by others in the administration was most likely very biased.

Several initiatives that Dr. Rancourt undertook during his tenure at the University of Ottawa aimed to generate more independent thinking and activism amongst the student body. The pedagogical literature is overwhelming in pointing out that unequal power relations within the classroom pose a sever impediment to learning and critical thinking. The several courses that Professor Rancourt established, all of which were a variation on the theme of activism in work and study, were of enormous importance. As an undergraduate, I witnessed firsthand how the Science in Society course attempted to redefine the classroom setting and to set aside proven ineffective traditional teaching methods in favour of an approach led by the students themselves. SCI1101 broadened my view of the role of science and the scientific method and made me think about the impact that my work as a scientist might have in the future on power relationships among groups in Canada and abroad.

Unfortunately, before the novel approach of SCI1101 had a chance to take hold and have an effect across the entire university, the course was cancelled by the previous administration even before the two-year pilot project was completed. The course was never given a chance to be offered in French after the first year in English. This was extremely unfair to the large Francophone population of students, whom I feel form a crucial part of the university and Canadian society in general.

I also enjoyed the weekly film series, Cinema Academica that Dr. Rancourt started. I attended most weeks and participated in the discussions after the films, which were always more animated and lengthy than any discussion I have witnessed in any lecture course at the university. Furthermore, I developed an appreciation for the unique perspectives brought to the discussions by general members of the community. I feel that I derived a benefit that was more connected to wider Canadian society and that was unavailable in traditional courses at the university. This was important to me because in my program concentration there is no possibility of co-op work terms and I had therefore been lacking a connection with the wider community that teaches students how their studies are related to real-world issues.

The manner in which Professor Rancourt was dismissed also does not sit well with many people in the University of Ottawa community because a spirit of fairness and equity was not followed. Professor Rancourt filed no fewer than 24 formal grievances against the administration for a variety of unfounded actions taken against him. Fewer than one third of these many grievances have been resolved, languishing in the system for an unreasonable amount of time (some since 2007). As a lawyer, Mr. Rock, you are surely aware that the speed at which a process of justice is carried out is a crucial element of justice itself. Furthermore, the larger issue of academic freedom, which Dr. Rancourt has championed tirelessly, is still being investigated by an impartial body of three external professors who will be reporting on whether Dr. Rancourt’s academic freedom was indeed violated by the previous administration. Professor Rancourt was claiming the right of a professor to grade students in the best manner he saw fit. The university has dismissed him for his actions based on this claim, flying in the face of pedagogical research that has discredited the effectiveness of the grading system as a means of teaching students. Therefore, the dismissal of Professor Rancourt before the submission by an independent body of a report on whether his academic freedom as a professor was violated is an act that lacks legitimacy.

The Board of Governors of the university acts on the recommendations that you, Mr. Rock, as President, put on the table. By taking into account the above-mentioned processes of arbitration surrounding Dr. Rancourt’s case as well as the totality of his contributions to the university, I urge you to consider recommending to the Board the re-instatement of Denis Rancourt as a full professor of the university.

I optimistically await your reply at your earliest convenience.

Yours,

Wayne Sawtell
M.Sc. candidate in Biology

[E-MAIL STRING END]

[Photo credits: University of Ottawa; Diane Davidson, Allan Rock]