U of O Watch mission, in the words of Foucault...

"One knows … that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class. … It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them." -- Foucault, debating Chomsky, 1971.

U of O Watch mission, in the words of Socrates...

"An education obtained with money is worse than no education at all." -- Socrates

video of president allan rock at work

Friday, October 22, 2010

U of O physics professor Andre Longtin studies real physics


For professor Andre Longtin at the University of Ottawa it's not all only about stochastic resonance in bursting neurons. There is also room for denying the freedom of thought and beliefs of graduate student applicants to his research group.

Documents were recently obtained by physics graduate student Joseph Hickey via an access to information (ATI) legal appeal in which the University of Ottawa had to be ordered (IPC Order PO-2852-I) to comply with the ATI law of Ontario (see background HERE).

One of the latter records shows dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Gary Slater explaining to other university officials that Longtin is refusing graduate student applicant Joseph Hickey (despite Longtin having supported the student's successful NSERC scholarship application to work in the Longtin research group) based on the student's "newly aquired activism beliefs". See document HERE.

This illegal use and disclosure of the student's personal information by university officials occurred during covert discussions aimed at denying the student's chosen research project, in anticipation of what the student's second choice of research might be (see above links).

Although students are in principle entitled to academic freedom in their choice of research, delimiting the student's possible choice of supervisor effectively forces the student into the research area of the "available" research supervisor.

Student Hickey eventually "chose" to work with physics professor Ivan L'Heureux and also became the student representative for the Faculty of Science at the Senate of the University of Ottawa, the highest governing body on academic matters, despite his "newly acquired activism beliefs".

Welcome to the University of Ottawa, "Canada's university". Welcome all scholarship students. Except those that are inferred to have unacceptable "activism beliefs". Thank you Andre Longtin for making this clear.

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa; physics professor Andre Longtin]

Thursday, October 21, 2010

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.



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

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

U of O officials featured in the "This is Canada" series

Allan Rock, Nathalie Des Rosiers, and Michelle Flaherty have been featured in the "This is Canada" series: HERE and HERE.



Monday, October 18, 2010

Ethically challenged Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel, CCLA --- 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 Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel (head), Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA).

Nathalie Des Rosiers, as VP-Governance, University of Ottawa, enforced a punitive campus ban against tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt thereby having him arrested, handcuffed, and taken away to the Ottawa police station while he hosted his weekly Cinema Politica series on campus, as a tenured and full professor.

Extensive information and links to supporting documents and to media reports are provided HERE.

In explaining herself in writing, she replied to author Jeff Schmidt that it was her job to enforce orders. Her immediate superior was President Allan Rock. Her letter is HERE.

Nathalie Des Rosiers continues to hold the position as head of the CCLA. It is now her job to defend civil liberties in Canada.

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.

Friday, October 15, 2010

U of O's IPC cover up: Will Allan Rock do the right thing?

  • The University of Ottawa IPC cover up was explained HERE.
  • Chemist Alain St-Amant responded THIS WAY.
  • On October 14, 2010, Rancourt sued by filing a labour law grievance: HERE.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) has sided with Rancourt on the moral and legal basis for institution head Allan Rock to release all records: HERE.
IPC: "This approach to information about employees is not in keeping with world-wide trends favouring fair information practices..."

Will Allan Rock do the right thing?

Thursday, October 7, 2010

U of O's Alain St-Amant replies to report on IPC

.
QUESTION

From: Denis Rancourt
Sent: October 6, 2010 10:00 PM
To: Andre E. Lalonde (Dean, Science); Alain St-Amant
Subject: please provide any corrections

These reports are about you:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2010/10/report-on-ipc-in-rancourt-case-dean.html
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/reportonipcdeanliestocoverup.html

Please contact your former colleagues who are also named and provide any corrections or comments for posting.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt

ANSWER

From: Alain St-Amant
Date: Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: please provide any corrections
To: Denis Rancourt

Hey Dennis,

I’ve gotta get a new picture of myself on the University website for you to use.....dropped 25 pounds over the summer!!! You have to promise to use it on your website once it goes up J

Totally stoked right now since I pulled off a Brady for Schaub+Moss trade in my fantasy league. I think Favre and Moss will be like two kids in the proverbial candy store and put up monster numbers. So I think you’ll agree I have too many things on my plate right now to take the time to comment on your article.

Take care, the place simply is not the same without you,

Professor/Professeur Alain St-Amant

Vice-Dean (Undergraduate Studies), Faculty of Science / Vice-doyen (Études de premier cycle), Faculté des Sciences
Professor, Department of Chemistry / Professeur, Département de chimie
University of Ottawa / Université d’Ottawa
(613) 562-5800 ext. 6003
Alain.St-Amant@uOttawa.ca

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Report on IPC in Rancourt case: Dean lied to cover up


INTRODUCTION - ONGOING RANCOURT CASE

The Denis Rancourt case at the University of Ottawa (Ottawa, Canada) is a major ongoing academic freedom case being presently investigated by a Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Independent Committee of Inquiry and expected to go before the courts as a significant labour dispute. [LINK]

The case has been covered by national and local media in both Canada and the US (New York Times -twice, Globe and Mail -twice, National Post, CBC radio The Current, TV Ontario). [LINK]


LATEST DEVELOPMENT - ACCESS TO INFORMATION RULING

On September 29, 2010, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario issued a decision in a notable access to information (ATI) case involving Rancourt and Rancourt has written a report about the matter: HERE.

These machinations of the U of O administration are only the latest example of an event in the administrative mobbing of Rancourt described in the independent report by academic workplace expert Professor Kenneth Westhues: LINK.


CONCLUDING HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE REPORT

Rancourt's report is based on several original documents now made public. Concluding highlighs from the report are as follows.
"Beyond demonstrating that the Dean of the Faculty of Science is ethically challenged, this case shows that the Dean, the VP-Academic and Legal Counsel conspired to send a dubious letter questioning a dissident professor’s ‘physical and mental well-being’ based on no record other than communications between themselves and bosses at human resources."

"The IPC Order [2], together with the IPC Mediator’s Report of July 27, 2009 [3], the University’s revised ATI decision letter of August 27, 2008, with index of respondent records [4], and Lalonde’s signed affidavit of September 18, 2009 [5], shows that:

(1) Lalonde lied about the records during the formal IPC mediation step;

(2) Lalonde or his staff meticulously removed at least six records from his office computers and files; and

(3) Lalonde lied in affidavit [5] apparently to cover up his first lies about the records and his removal of records."

CONNECTION WITH ALAIN ST-AMANT

From Rancourt's report:
"The only grievance filed against a professor was a grievance filed by Rancourt against then Chairman of the Department of Chemistry Alain St-Amant for “harassment” and “derogatory and threatening behaviour” [6]. The latter grievance was filed on January 3, 2007 [6].

The only discipline in this matter would have been possible discipline of Alain St-Amant and the resulting order from the dean to St-Amant to stop his unacceptable behaviour [7].

Therefore, it appears that the University was using the problem of St-Amant’s behaviour as its pretext for sending its dubious letter of September 6, 2007, to Rancourt, without providing Rancourt with any indication to this effect."

CRITICISMS FOR THE IPC

Rancourt leveled several criticisms towards the IPC Adjudicator and the IPC herself. One example is a s follows:
"IPC Adjudicator Frank DeVries condoned the fact that Pamela Harrod simultaneously acted as: (1) University FIPPA/FOI Coordinator, (2) VP-Governance (then “University Secretary”) and immediate supervisor of University Legal Counsel Michelle Flaherty directly involved in the ATI matter, and (3) “Commissioner for Taking Affidavits, etc.” (sic), signing the [fraudulent] affidavit of Lalonde in particular."


[Photo credits: University of Ottawa (Lalonde, St-Amant), IPC (Ann Cavoukian) and public domain (Conrad Black).]

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Allan Rock's 5 easy steps to Senate transparency

STEP-1: ARREST STUDENT AT SENATE



If a student concerned about transparency comes to a public University Senate meeting (at publicly funded University of Ottawa) with a camera wanting to discuss Senate filming with senators, then call Ottawa Police and have him arrested on false criminal charges.

Note that one of the executives of the university corporation to directly intervene was VP-Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers, now General Counsel (head) of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). (See author's request for her resignation HERE.)

Here is a video of the December 1, 2008, arrest at University Senate:


STEP-2: REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY



Here, graduate student union (GSAED) representative Federico Carvajal asks President Allan Rock to include the question of police interventions in campus politics in his campus community consultations towards a better student experience...


STEP-3: EXPLAIN ANTI-TRANSPARENCY POLICY



Here, at the next meeting of Senate, Allan Rock (President AND Chair of the Senate) explains that filming is not allowed because tenured professor senators own their images and their words in public Senate discussions...


STEP-4: IMPOSE SENATE FILMING AND PUBLIC POSTING

Without any debate at Senate about the tenured professor "faces", "words", and "actions" that would be recorded for public display, President Allan Rock then brings in mandatory filming and posting of all Senate meetings.

None of the brave souls who opposed filming made a peep.


STEP-5: INTERVENE TO HAVE CROWN DROP ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST STUDENT


Although Allan Rock had stated (above video) that it would be highly improper to intervene in a matter that was before the courts, his administration did contact the Crown to have all charges against the student dropped. The Crown stated that it found this matter "not in the public interest to pursue" after it was contacted by the University of Ottawa: HERE.

The following year, the Rock administration arbitrarily expelled student Marc Kelly from his study program and barred him from all campus grounds without providing any reason: HERE.

>>> For a complete history of Allan Rock's conflict with student Marc Kelly please see these reports: HERE.

>>> For a history of Allan Rock and his many similar episodes see this summary: HERE.
.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

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


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

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

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

Whose interest?

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

Nice.

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

(U of O campus police showcasing their skills.)

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Court-ordered released document shows University of Ottawa suppressing critical global climate research

(Photo: Dean of Science Dr. Andre E. Lalonde sends vehement email to quash research of AGW critic, collateral damage student. Credit: University of Ottawa.)

The University of Ottawa has a notorious record regarding access to information and protection of personal information: LINK-1, LINK-2, LINK-3, LINK-4, LINK-5, LINK-6, LINK-7, LINK-8.

In a recent access to information (ATI) case in which a graduate student sought access to his personal information, the University made sustained but failed attempts over a period of two years to subvert the ATI law of Ontario.

In the end, on August 27, 2010, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Adjudicator Diane Smith ordered the University to immediately release the last contested document (IPC Order PO-2909-I).

The student, scholarship physics graduate student and elected University Senate member Joseph Hickey, has made the entire ordeal public on the web: HERE.

The released document shows that the University had no reasonable standing to argue that the document could not be released to the claimant. The University’s efforts in this direction appear to constitute either obstruction of justice or incompetence. Two lawyers were directly involved in this apparent cover up by making formal submissions to the IPC: Former VP-Governance Pamela Harrod and present University Legal Counsel Kathryn Prud’homme.

Indeed, to block the release of the document was to hide a gross (and illegal under labour law) violation of academic freedom, a foundational principle of universities in free and democratic societies.

Under academic freedom a university administration can in no way interfere with university research. Yet the document shows the dean of the Faculty of Science Andre E. Lalonde sending an email to the dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Gary Slater, to two University-hired corporate lawyers Andre Champagne and Lynn Harnden, and to the then VP-Governance Pamela Harrod stating (LINK):

“Gary, Andre, Lynn, Pamela,

The Chair of Physics [Bela Joos] has evidence that is not reproduced below that indicates the student wishes to research global climate change with Professor Rancourt. The professor has no scientific expertise in this scientific field whatsoever. I am strongly opposed to letting this student initiate such a study with Professor Rancourt.

Andre”

The email also has VP-Academic Robert Major, the human resources boss Louise Page-Valin, and others in cc.

Note that Harrod was involved in BOTH the violation of academic freedom (and the student’s right to fair process without discrimination) AND the apparent attempted cover up with the IPC.

Such an intervention was unprecedented in physics professor Rancourt’s twenty-two-year academic career since:

(1) Rancourt was known for successfully changing scientific fields several times in his research career and was certified to supervise graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in both the Department of Physics and the Department of Earth Sciences.

(2) Rancourt had published (and been an invited conference speaker) in areas as diverse as nuclear spectroscopy, materials science, organic chemistry, soil science, metallurgy, magnetism, marine science, aquatic geochemistry, environmental nanoparticles, X-ray diffraction, and measurement theory, as both a theorist and a measurement scientist.

(3) Thanks to his scientific record, in 2000 Rancourt was awarded the largest Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Strategic Project Grant ever awarded at the University of Ottawa to lead a five-year project in lake environmental geochemistry and to supervise dozens of research students in the project, whereas he had never previously published in this area.

(4) Similarly, Rancourt had supervised a physics graduate research student in the area of “physics education”, having never at the time published in a peer-reviewed education journal. The physics student took courses out of faculty.

Rancourt had in February 2007 self-published (posted to the web) a damning scientific and societal/political critique of global warming science. The essay received some attention and criticism in the left media soon after its posting. His article has since catalyzed other studies and has been used in university courses.

Following this, Rancourt continued to research global warming science on his own and it was known that he had started conceiving graduate student research projects that would examine at the root the fundamental physical mechanisms behind such phenomena as an atmospheric greenhouse effect, radiative sublimation or melting of snow and ice, particulate effects on snow and ice radiation absorption, and the statistical and physical meaning of mean global temperature. (Recent articles HERE, HERE, HERE; and video interview HERE.)

In 2008 Rancourt discussed potential graduate student research projects with then undergraduate student Joseph Hickey. They agreed to work together and Mr. Hickey submitted his application accordingly, following established application procedures.

It appears that the dean’s October 2008 vehement intervention was aimed at squashing Rancourt’s research plans in the area of global climate science by barring supervisions in this area. NSERC research funds are tied to supervisions of students.

Rancourt was then in December 2008 suspended from all his supervisory duties, trespassed from campus and handcuffed and arrested while still a Full tenured professor, and ultimately fired in April 2009 under the false pretext of having arbitrarily attributed high grades in one advanced physics course in the winter semester of 2008. (LINK-1, LINK-2)

Yesterday (September 21, 2010) Rancourt sued by filing a labour law grievance against the University of Ottawa and those involved: HERE.

In a recent labour arbitration (Professor David F. Noble vs. York University, Arbitrator Russell Goodfellow, 2007) the plaintiff was awarded $2,500. for a far more tenuous and minor violation of his academic freedom: The University had emitted a press release that did not name or defame the plaintiff (according to the ruling) and that only distanced the University from certain views that the plaintiff held. In the latter case, there was no direct assault on research freedom or harm to a student.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

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


Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Prosecutors fumble in Marc Kelly trial

Will the media cover this or will it prefer to stick with the U of O banned bottled water story?

SOME BACKGROUND

Remember these remarkable videos about ludicrous arrests of students on the campus of the University of Ottawa?





One student (Seamus Wolf, then president of the student union) plea bargained. Student Marc Kelly did not plea bargain and is representing himself at his own trial.

Kelly, a former scholarship student in mathematics-physics, was arbitrarily barred from registering for courses to finish his B.Sc. degree, expelled from his program of study, and trespassed from all University of Ottawa grounds by the Allan Rock administration.

The Student Appeal Center (SAC) of the student union is defending Kelly's academic rights and Kelly was in the SAC office when he was arrested for trespass after the dean of the Faculty of Science Andre E. Lalonde called police on spotting Kelly in the SAC office.

Ludicrous.

Allan Rock has a history of confrontation with student Kelly: HERE.

Several background articles about the Marc Kelly case at the University of Ottawa are HERE.

RECENT DEVELOPMENT

On Monday September 4, 2010, Marc Kelly was in court at 9 am to defend himself over the false arrest ordered by the Rock administration.

Well the Prosecutor had to ask the judge for an adjournment because she "only realized late Friday" that, after months of preparation, her office had not subpoenaed her witnesses (the many Ottawa Police and campus police officers involved at the scene or in the background).

The Judge ruled that an adjournment was granted but that the onus was now on the Prosecutor to produce her witnesses at the next trial date which was set for:

9 am, Monday October 4, 2010.
Courtroom 101
100 Constellation Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario.

This means that the Prosecutor will either be ready for trial or the charges will be dropped.

Kelly had obtained a subpoena order for dean Andre E. Lalonde but this order will now need to be re-issued for the new trial date.

If the charges are dropped or beat this will open the door for Kelly to then sue for malicious arrest.

Either way, it will be a long road to the B.Sc.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Israel Lobby losing U of O - Rock standing down

.


On Tuesday September 21, 2010, renowned Israeli journalist, author, and unapologetic critic of Israel's brutal and illegal (as in Geneva Conventions) occupation of Palestine Gideon Levy will speak in the University of Ottawa's Alumni Auditorium, the university's flagship events auditorium.

The event is hosted by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) and is described HERE.

How did this happen?

Where are the Israel Lobby newspaper editorials screaming for "balance"?

Where are the strong arm tactics of Allan Rock who is known to intimidate student politicians and student groups away from criticisms of Israel? (see background links below)

Has the Jewish Student Association lost its leverage?

Where is Hillel?

Allan Rock not so long ago (see background links below) banned a student poster announcing Israeli Apartheid Week and now he sits on his hands as one of Israel's most acidic critics speaks at the Alumni Auditorium.

UofOWatch thinks that Allan Rock is learning about academic freedom (a la Coulter) and about the liabilities of being an ideologue president who projects the image of spearheading human rights while supporting the genocidal policies of the state of Israel.

UofOWatch thinks that Allan Rock would not have changed on his own and celebrates all those who have expected Mr. Rock to behave and all those who have continued to be critical of the criminal policies of Israel.

RELATED POSTS AND BACKGROUND:

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Allan Rock on Ann Coulter - New access to information report released

.

A new report based on 138 emails via University of Ottawa president Allan Rock's office about Ann Coulter has been released HERE.

The report suggests that former Liberal heavyweight Loyd Axworthy may have played a significant role in the U of O Rock-Coulter affair.

The text of the second letter that Allan Rock wanted to send to Coulter is revealed in the report and it is shown that Rock was motivated to write the second letter by a desire to minimize his legal liability following an email from associate professor of law Amir Attaran.

The preamble of the report states:
This blow by blow account provides an incisive picture of the executive crew of a modern Canadian university which will be of interest to all stakeholders that must deal with these institutions of "higher learning."

A student reviewer of the report said:
"The prez is more concerned with covering his ass and controlling his playground than he is about principles or education etc. It cuts Rock down to size from superstar to petty, mean-spirited, and panicking. It vaporizes his rhetoric. He looks totally out of place in academia. Profs have been sacked for the kind of academic fraud he's up to. The report contrasts what the University is meant to be to show how Rock doesn't have a clue."


Thursday, July 8, 2010

Allan Rock shamefully using uOttawa for self-promotion while the campus crumbles

Re: New Governor General of Canada named


The latest press release (HERE) from the communications office of the University of Ottawa is another shameful example of Allan Rock's self-promotion: "I am a friend of the next Governor General and I congratulate myself".

Put it on your blog Allan.

What possible service is this to the University of Ottawa, which arguably has the lowest reputation of any university in Canada (and an even lower Macleans' rating than under the previous administration) thanks largely to Rock's actions and inaction?

How can it help the University of Ottawa (or the future Governor General or Harper's government) for the media to be reminded that "ethically challenged" Rock (HERE, HERE), freedom-of-speech-crushing Rock (HERE), is at its head?

It is difficult to interpret the press release as anything but gratuitous president stroking. Doesn't anyone have the backbone to tell him these things?

Will the new Chair of the Board of Governors (HERE) have a little sit down with Allan?

University press releases, paid for by student tuition fees and taxpayer dollars, are suppose to be a communication and outreach tool for the institution's connection to its community, not a corporate-culture governing-elite self-congratulatory messaging service or a private president-worship cheerleading chorus.

A lot of things need to change at the University of Ottawa and Allan Rock has not initiated any of them. In fact, he is building in the opposite direction. Instead of making needed changes, Rock has concentrated on branding and on on-campus propaganda. He's running the campus like a corporate-funded candidate would run a federal election campaign. Image marketing on and off campus does not make a campus experience or create a learning environment - it does the opposite.

As Rock stated to the English student newspaper at the start of his mandate, he was looking forward to his new challenge of being the CEO of a large corporation. That's the way to increase student satisfaction in the campus experience Allan.


Addendum: A little research reveals that the new Governor General appointment appears to have been a political reward appointment: HERE. Therefore looking like Allan was congratulating David Johnston for having cashed in for a nice piece of service, something Allan understands from his "service" as Canadian Ambassador to the UN following his political career wreckage related to having been found "ethically challenged" by the media (HERE). What does this have to do - in any way - with the University of Ottawa benefiting from such a press release?

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Allan Rock leadership questioned - National Post

"For a former head of the Law Society of Upper Canada to have such a false concept of fundamental political rights is appalling. Indeed, it casts doubt on his ability to lead a university."
-- National Post, July 2, 2010.




Thursday, July 1, 2010

The UofOWatch list of particulars regarding "ethically challenged" Allan Rock

This list is incomplete and is updated periodically. We welcome your submissions for this list. (Sorry for the long post.)

Last updated on February 13, 2011.
COUNT = 19 Particulars


PART-I : As University of Ottawa president


  • Gave personal assurance to community that rules would be followed in the Rancourt dismissal case yet refused to receive three of Rancourt's grievances about administrative malfeasance (on-going)
The university launched a motion in December 2010 before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) to remove Allan Rock from direct responsibility in the matter (LINK). The university then (January 28, 2011) filed for immediate arbitration of the Rancourt dismissal (after 22 months of refusing to follow the rules) BUT without consideration of the three administrative malfeasance grievances (LINK).

  • Personally managed a cover up of his administration's 2008 campaign to discredit a student union report about systemic racism (revealed February 2011)
Access to information records show a cover up directly orchestrated by Allan Rock himself to hide the fact that Professor Joanne St. Lewis' evaluation was anything but "independent", as characterized by the administration (LINK, LINK).

  • Made a commitment at university Senate (April 12, 2010) to repair the Ann Coulter freedom of expression fiasco and then "clarified" at Senate (February 7, 2011) that this "was not a commitment"
The "clarification" only occurred after physics student Senator Joseph Hickey insisted that the commitment should be honoured as agreed by Senate (LINK, LINK).

  • Deceived the student body and university community regarding donation ethics, again (February 2011)
In the fall of 2009 Allan Rock put on a series of show panels as a mock consultation to prepare an upcoming administrative policy for “donor recognition”. The policy was to be presented “within weeks” (LINK). It never materialized.

There was a tacit understanding that large donations would not be accepted until the new policy was developed and instituted.

On June 22, 2010, the University announced a 3.5 million dollar anonymous donation for a research chair in business management (LINK, and below).

On February 7, 2011, the University announced a new exchange program with Israel "generously supported by the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation" (LINK, LINK)

  • Explicitly rejects fair information practice (November, 2010)
When formally asked to not use a legal loop hole publicly opposed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) and characterized by the IPC as contrary to "world-wide trends favouring fair information practices", Allan Rock refused to consider fair information practice regarding the release of respondent documents: LINK-Hides behind his staff.

  • Lied about the origin of the infamous March 2010 Francois Houle letter to Ann Coulter
“Worse yet is that Mr. Rock fudged when initially questioned about the letter. He stated that “it was sent with my knowledge” – when the truth is it was sent at his instigation. When it blew up into a controversy, he let Mr. Houle take the brunt of the heat. Talk about the boss hiding behind his staff.”
– National Post, June 30, 2010.

BC Blue blog report: HERE.

  • Hypocrisy regarding respect, restraint, civility, consideration, and a reasoned and intelligent approach…
“I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. ... [This will] lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.”
– Rock-Houle letter to Ann Coulter, March 19, 2010.

Versus Allan Rock to Houle and staff:

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

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

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

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

  • Deceived the student body and university community regarding donation ethics
In the fall of 2009 Allan Rock put on a series of show panels as a mock consultation to prepare an upcoming administrative policy for “donor recognition”. The policy was to be presented “within weeks” (LINK). It never materialized.

There was a tacit understanding that large donations would not be accepted until the new policy was developed and instituted.

On June 22, 2010, the University announced a 3.5 million dollar anonymous donation for a research chair in business management, anonymous no less (LINK).

It seems to us that anonymity would be an important discussion point in any “donor recognition” or donation ethics policy.

  • Was publicly accused of lying by a student representative about budget consultations
On June 2, 2010, Martin Schoolts-Mcalpine, Senator-elect for undergraduate students of the Faculty of Arts publicly called for Rock to be impeached and publicly accused Rock of have lied to him about the Faculty of Arts having been consulted in an imposed budget exercise. Rock responded by belittling the student representative who had made every effort to be consulted by his faculty. (VIDEO LINK HERE)

  • Mislead the Board of Governors with incorrect budget information
At the April 27, 2010, Board of Governors meeting Rock told the Board members in his briefing that the projected budget deficit was 25 M$ whereas he had previously told the media that the projected deficit was 19 M$ (without ever explaining how the figure jumped from 25 million to 19 million).

Rock only corrected himself to the Board near the end of the budget discussions and only after being confronted on the question during a break by graduate student union representative Sean Kelly (LINK).

  • Lied to the media to cover up his attacks against freedom of expression
““Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted,” said Allan Rock, President of the University.”
University press release, March 24, 2010.

Rock had been sent a letter in 2009 from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) explaining that the University had violated the principle of freedom of expression by banning a student poster. And in 2010, the national media had the CCLA and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) explaining to the Rock administration that its March 2010 letter to potential speaker Ann Coulter was a violation of freedom of expression.

Therefore Rock knew that the University of Ottawa had not always promoted freedom of expression (LINK).

  • Hired a student newspaper editor in the president’s office, effectively as a reward for favourable editorial support, in violation of the paper’s rules of ethics
Quite remarkable: LINK. The student retained a senior position at the paper while he was fully salaried by Rock.

Related background articles: LINK.

  • Continues to participate in the extensive cover up of a broad covert information gathering campaign run by the University of Ottawa from 2006 to 2008
Description of the cover up: HERE.

The covert campaign targeted several students (student politicians, representatives, and employees) and a professor and was coordinated via the University office of Legal Counsel in order to shield the University from access to information requests (using an extended solicitor-client pretext). The Legal Counsel is now a judge at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the University executive who first refused to investigate the matter, in violation of the University’s own policy on required investigations into reported wrongdoing, is now the General Counsel (chief) of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Related background articles: HERE.

  • Directed the spin and the production of a fraudulent internal report intended to cover up evidence for systemic racism at the University of Ottawa
The internal report by a tenured staff, on which Rock personally made text modification suggestions, was presented as an independent report at publication. The report’s obvious main purpose was to discredit a student union report about systemic racism in the University's student appeal process.

Access to information documents (not yet disclosed by UofOWatch) show Allan Rock directing his senior staff on how to make the report appear independent.

Before the November 25th report was released, at the November 17, 2008, Board of Governors meeting Allan Rock stated “I know enough about the work that’s been done to date to tell you that we’re going to disagree very strongly that there’s any evidence to support the allegations that have been made,” in reference to the student union report about systemic racism in the administrative treatment of student appeals.

Background article: HERE.
[Correction 2012-05-01: "an nontenured staff" was changed to "a tenured staff".]

  • Practiced flagrant disregard for student democratic and procedural rights
THIS letter from the student union was sent to Rock requesting urgent attention to student rights being violated by his administration.

The student concerns were disregarded and the student representatives were simply brushed off.



PART-II : Before becoming University of Ottawa president



  • Accepted what was effectively a bribe – This put an end to Rock’s political career and showed him to be “ethically challenged”
"[Rock's] behaviour since the Irving affair became public has revealed him to be ethically challenged. […] it took Rock days to apologize. And he only grudgingly did so after Labour Minister Claudette Bradshaw rose in the Commons and offered an unqualified apology for accepting a ride on the Irving corporate jet three years ago. She also announced she was reimbursing the family for the flight."
– Ottawa Citizen, November 8, 2003, page 1.

In 2002 when the then Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson discovered that Minister Rock had in summer 2001 accepted a private jet stay at the Irving family salmon fishing lodge, he issued a ruling that Rock was to avoid all ministerial dealings benefiting Irving enterprises for one year. During that blackout year Rock made three significant ministerial decisions benefiting Irving Shipbuilding Inc.

On investigating the latter multimillion-dollar violations, "Wilson said it 'would have be better' if a minister other than Rock had signed the $55-million grant, but noted the signature was made by a machine on instructions from Industry officials." (Ottawa Citizen)

Rock accepted the latter whitewashing that the opposition leaders called a "complete joke" but it put an end to his political and federal judgeship ambitions.


Other well known affairs:

  • Deceived Parliament and the Canadian public regarding the cost of the gun registry: The costing reported to Parliament was overshot by one billion dollars.

  • As Minister of Justice, Rock paid 2 million dollars to Brian Mulroney for no known reason. This was never justified. (RECENT COMMENTARY)

  • As Minister of Health, Rock allowed and found justification for a dubiously discriminating attribution of reparations to tainted blood victims: Victims had to have been infected between 1986 and 1990, not before, not after.
“The offer came despite a recommendation by the report of the Krever Inquiry a year earlier, which called for compensation for anyone harmed by bad blood, regardless of when they were infected.

In just over two months, Ontario would break ranks, saying people who were infected before 1986 had waited long enough for help. The province came up with another $200 million for victims of tainted blood.

"Regardless of legal liability, all governments have a moral responsibility to Canadians who placed their faith in the blood system, and, through no fault of their own, became infected," [said Ontario Premier Mike Harris.]”
CBC media report, July 2006.

"We've done the best we can under very difficult circumstances."
– Federal Health Minister Allan Rock, February 27, 1998.

The cost of the inadequate federal compensation package was less than the gun registry budget overshoot.

This list is incomplete and is updated periodically. We welcome your submissions for this list.
.