U of O student union critical race theory burnout

SFUO: Left in words, Right in deed?

UofOWatch has learned that this letter (below) was duly sent (in cc) for publication to the student paper The Fulcrum on March 26, 2011, and was simply ignored. The Fulcrum did not acknowledge or contact its author, despite the paper's statutory commitment to publish all student letters. This, for a paper that has been consistently enthusiastic to criticize the SFUO's Left politics.

It appears that at the University of Ottawa racism runs deep and crosses all race, political, age, and class boundaries...? (See all posts about racism at U of O HERE.)

UofOWatch has learned that the letter was re-sent today addressed to the present SFUO president Amalia Savva.

To Tyler Steeves,

I am writing to you as the Chair of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa's Black History Month sub-committee in your capacity as President of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO).

It is with sincere regret and utter frustration that I find myself writing this letter. As a committee, we experienced a lot of resistance from the executive of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa. We also felt as if we were being held hostage and that we had to dance to a tune in order to be heard and taken seriously.

As a representative of the committee, I first approached the SFUO in July with the plan to put certain things in motion. I had a meeting with an executive member and the response from the meeting was an email advising me that the SFUO would be "selecting members" for the 2010-2011 Black History Month Committee. This response perplexed some students who were interested in being members because we did not understand them criteria that was to be used. We also questioned the SFUO's qualifications in determining who was suitable to be on this committee. What made this response even more curious for us was the fact that for centuries marginalized groups have always been told who has the legitimacy to speak on their behalf by the dominant group.

According to the SFUO Constitution, "the SFUO Executive shall only act as a liaison between the Black History Month Committee members for financial and logistical matters". There were a few embarrassing moments that were avoidable had the SFUO executive followed their mandate as stated in the Constitution vis à vis the Black History Committee. The most embarrassing and regrettable one was suffered by our keynote speaker Dr. George Dei of Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), as he tried to check out of his hotel room.

It was also embarrassing to have to hold our event at the Carlton University Campus because of the delay in mobilizing the committee. This delay was due to SFUO's inaction in terms of setting up the committee and lack of facilitation in accessing all the resources required by the committee. The committee was also puzzled by the lack of attendance by any of the SFUO executive members.

We all have to acknowledge that the committee is seen by outsiders as representing the University of Ottawa's student body. As such any failure by the committee is seen as a failure by the whole student body. We have to work together to promote an inclusive and respectful study body at our university. The committee would like to set up a meeting with the SFUO executive to revisit the issue and come up with a more respectful working relationship.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Kindest Regards,

Hazel Gashoka
Chair, Student Federation of the University of Ottawa's Black History Month sub-committee

cc: Black history month committee members, SFUO executives, the fulcrum, and black caucus members

U of O neurosurgery malfeasance::: ALL SEVEN (7) employee and student unions denounce president's inaction

All the professional and student unions at the University of Ottawa have written a joint letter (co-signed by seven union presidents, sent today June 2, 2011) to the members of the Board of Governors and to the members of the university Senate denouncing the university's inaction in the overt malfeasance and reprisals case involving three medical residents who were targeted by the Faculty of Medicine.

See all related posts HERE.

This is an unprecedented action at the University of Ottawa indicating the malicious character of this prima facie case of administrative malfeasance and cover up, possibly involving criminal acts.

An accurate translation (from French) of the co-signed letter follows.

Re: Discrimination and reprisal complaints at the University of Ottawa

Dear members of the Board of Governors and of the Senate of the University of Ottawa,

As the representatives of the professional and student unions on campus, we wish to express in a unified voice our concern regarding certain events reported recently in the national and regional media. Three students in the Faculty of medicine appear to have complained for reason of discrimination and to have been subjected to significant academic and professional reprisals following the filing of these complaints. Emails made public have shown that at least one student was removed from his study program despite his excellent academic performance in order to deter other students from filing complaints.

As union bodies formed by a common interest to improve work and study conditions of our members which represent 95% of the university community, we insist on denouncing all practices intended to impose reprisals against those who decide to make complaints. Such a practice could, by creating a climate of fear and intimidation, incite our members to not demand their rights and protections foreseen by many federal and provincial laws as well as by our university policies. In addition, this practice is forbidden by the Human Rights Code of Ontario.

Our concerns are exacerbated by the existence of an official rule which guarantees, to each of our members, access to a transparent and fair process to make complaints without fear of reprisals.

Note that our organizations hereby commit, via our representation, to activate a serious follow up of the development of procedures and policies at the University of Ottawa concerning the cases of intimidation and reprisals to which our members can be subjected.

In the hope that this situation will be resolved as soon as possible, please receive, dear members of the Board of Governors and of the Senate, our distinguished salutations.

In solidarity,

Micheline Lessard – APUO [professors]
Greer Knox – APTPUO [part-time professors]
Amalia Savva – FEUO [undergraduate students]
Jonathan Duguay – GSAED [graduate students]
Marc Fortier – PIPSC [professional employees]
Richard Hogan – PSUO [support employees]
Félix Grenier – SCFP 2626 [teaching assistants]

U of O neurosurgery malfeasance::: President Allan Rock refuses to investigate, letter to graduate student union

It's starting to smell like one stinking pile of cover up, straight up to the top of the pile...

The present commentary is based on the recent revelations posted by student University of Ottawa senate member Joseph Hickey: HERE.

Recall that leaked emails showed a vicious attack (including career-destruction and dismissal) against medical resident Dr. Waleed Al-Ghaithy as reprisal for putting forth a racial discrimination complaint and as a way (explicitly stated) of preventing Al-Ghaithy and others from making Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario complaints against the Faculty of Medicine and members of its professional staff.

Several background posts are HERE.

Mr. Hickey informed the university senate about the leaked emails and read one of the emails at Senate. More emails were read at a March 9, 2011, press conference organized by the undergraduate student union Student Appeal Centre (SAC) and the matter was widely reported in the national and regional media.

The graduate student union (GSAED) wrote to Rock asking him to investigate this startling prima facie case of malfeasance in the Faculty of Medicine.

Rock's April 29, 2011, reply is simply "quite remarkable", HERE:

"Note that, contrary to Mr. Rock’s assertions, the e-mails in question were leaked after Mr. Al-Ghaithy’s internal complaint was completed, and did not play any part in these reviews. Note also that Mr. Rock asserts respecting student confidentiality while disclosing the results of internal processes about students. It’s all quite remarkable."

The consistently adopted Rock strategy (condoned by a spineless or oblivious Board of Governors?) in this serious matter is for the university to avoid its legal and moral responsibilities by diverting to a relatively toothless human rights tribunal hearing. One wonders why the Liberals were wiped off the political map recently.

Methinks this one is going to come back and bite Mr. Rock, sooner or later.

U of O student union clique election coup

It happened this year at the University of Ottawa, "Canada's university".

A clique of anti-oppression-trained student union executives and officers changed the rules to replace an elected student union vice-president by one of their own.

The mess was reported in Macleans On Campus in March 2011 HERE.

The move was similar to retracting a score-wise unambiguous hockey victory on the basis of post-game re-evaluated body-checking penalties using the league owners' reevaluation while barring the referee board's traditional role, thereby disallowing any mechanism for appeal.

Except that this was not a hockey game. It was a democratic election.

In our democracy only consequentially fraudulent elections can lead to retracting election results (and a new election!). Broken rules lead to reprimands, fines, controls and other penalties; and the candidate and those involved are answerable to the electorate.

It is a sign of our times that students -- less corrupted by lengthy accommodation to society's hierarchical dominance -- can behave in this way, be blind to the obvious fundamental violation of principle, and actively defend their attack against democracy.

There is little hope that this student union executive will be able to even perceive the despotism of the university administration?

.

Rock's senate: Democratic in name

A university senate is intended to be an instrument of collegial governance that is the highest authority on all academic matters at the institution.

This role of senate is a foundational principle of the modern university in a democratic society and is established by statute (University of Ottawa Act, 1965).

Someone forgot to tell president Allan Rock (and Chair of the senate, University of Ottawa). It seems this item was either absent from the president school curriculum, or Mr. Rock was not paying attention when that came up in class?

Here are three recent reports from senator Joseph Hickey's blog about senate that show a senate treated like a show committee where senators are allowed to misbehave in disregarding student motions not popular with Rock's administration:::

• Memo from President Allan Rock

• U of O: Discrimination Policy to be Pushed Through in June

• Motion to Prevent a Premature Policy on Discrimination

UofOWatch update::: Richard Dearden promises to sue

THIS unfortunate matter is not going away. The following email exchange with Canadian top lawyer Richard Dearden shows that a lawsuit against UofOWatch will follow. It also shows an aggressive lawyer not interested in discussing solutions or even providing clarifications on simple points.

[Note: It makes more sense if you read from the bottom up.]

From: Dearden, Richard
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: U of O Watch Blog: Joanne St. Lewis
To: Denis Rancourt

Mr. Rancourt
1. cease communicating with my client directly - you communicate with me as counsel for Professor St. Lewis.
2. i attach [LINK] my May 20th letter to you which is the second Notice i was referring to in my email to you today.
3. there is nothing to clarify regarding your defamatory statements - you take down your defamatory blogs immediately and then i will consider meeting with you to discuss the wording of your unequivocal retraction and apology to Professor St. Lewis that you will publish on your blog. That may assist in mitigating the damages you have caused her.
4. as for your para 4 below, the Statement of Claim that will be issued against you should answer your questions. Once again i strongly recommend that you retain a lawyer to defend the defamatory statements you continue to repeat and add to (such as the statements in para 5 below that are false and defamatory). I am informing you to not repeat the accusations in para 5 below to any third party. To do so will be malicious and further aggravate my client's damages.

Richard Dearden
Partner
613-786-0135
gowlings.com

-------------------------------------------
From: Denis Rancourt []
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 3:25 PM
To: Dearden, Richard
Cc: joanne.stlewis@uottawa.ca

Subject: Re: U of O Watch Blog: Joanne St. Lewis

Dear Mr. Dearden,

Thank you for your reply. Clarifications are needed in this matter.

(1) Since you have not indicated that you would inform your client about my May 20th offer to publish her response, I have put Ms. St. Lewis in cc. This will also make Ms. St. Lewis fully aware of our exchange.

(2) Without implying guilt or blame on any party, I continue to seek a meeting to help clarify and resolve this matter, as I have indicated.

(3) In your today's email, you state "I have served you with two Notices demanding..." yet your letter of May 16, 2011, is the only paper communication that I have ever received from you (and in which you make no mention of a previous communication). Are you counting your email of 11:54am today as having served me a second "Notice"? Please clarify.

(4) Please clarify the nature of any legal action that you may be contemplating. I note that you do not refer to any specific law or legal principle that would have been violated. In the absence of any allegations of my having violated a specific common law or Act, please clarify the legal basis of the apology that you are now demanding and that was not mentioned in your letter of May 16, 2011.

(5) I am concerned that you or your client Joanne St. Lewis have obtained my unlisted personal home address. Please inform me how you obtained my personal information. In particular, I am concerned that my former employer the University of Ottawa could have illegally or improperly released my personal and former employee information to you and your client Joanne St. Lewis.

(6) Please acknowledge receiving the present email communication.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt
-------------------------------------------
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Dearden, Richard wrote:

Mr. Rancourt - I have served you with two Notices demanding that you take down the defamatory statements you have published about my client. You refuse to do so.I will not consider any meeting with you until you take down your offensive statements. Let me be clear - there are no "possible misunderstandings" - you have published false and defamatory statements about Professor St. Lewis that have damaged her , must be retracted immediately and require an unequivocal apology from you. I strongly recommend that you retain a lawyer.

Richard Dearden
Partner
613-786-0135
gowlings.com
-------------------------------------------
From: Denis Rancourt []
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 2:43 PM
To: Dearden, Richard
Subject: Re: U of O Watch Blog: Joanne St. Lewis / Your (Gowlings) letter of May 16, 2011

Richard G. Dearden
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Ottawa
(by email: richard.dearden@gowlings.com)

Re: U of O Watch Blog: Joanne St. Lewis / Your (Gowlings) letter of May 16, 2011

Dear Mr. Dearden,

(1) I am self-represented in this matter.

(2) Your law firm has legal specializations including in the area of protection of personal information. Therefore, you understand my concern that you or your client Joanne St. Lewis have obtained my unlisted personal home address. Please inform me how you obtained my personal information. In particular, I am concerned that my former employer the University of Ottawa could have illegally or improperly released my personal and former employee information to you and your client Joanne St. Lewis.

(3) The present matter about my U of O Watch blog and Joanne St. Lewis is one of public interest and I have and expect to continue to publicly report about it, as I have done here:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/top-dog-canadian-freedom-of-press.html

(4) Without implying guilt or blame on any party, as a self-represented individual, I request to informally meet with you as soon as is convevient in order to discuss and explore (1) informally resolving our possible misunderstandings, (2) the benefits of a possible apology regarding your client's feeling of having been offended by statements alleged to be racist, and (3) matters that you have raised.

(5) I was concerned by the possible negative societal impact of your client's apparent professional behaviour in relation to the SAC report but I am open to considering new facts and new reasoned interpretations in this matter and to correct my U of O Watch blog position accordingly.

(6) Please offer to your client Joanne St. Lewis that she write a response (to the U of O Watch post of expressed concern) that I will immediately publish without editorial changes in as conspicuous a place and type as was the alleged defamatory post. This response can include links to any supporting documents. I am also open to posting a guest op-ed by a third person selected by your client Joanne St. Lewis.

(7) In the week of Victoria Day, I am available May 25th and May 27th for our meeting. I am also available the week of May 30th (except June 1st).

(8) Please immediately acknowledge receiving the present email communication.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Gowlings immediately by email at postmaster@gowlings.com. Thank you.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Gowlings immediately by email at postmaster@gowlings.com. Thank you.

Rock's U of O is transparency-challenged, since 2007 media say

It's gotten to the point where the media have noticed it:

"Has topped academic list since 2007"
-- Ottawa Citizen, May 21, 2011

The University of Ottawa ("Canada's university"), under the Allan Rock administration, has had the most freedom-of-information law requests of any college or university in Ontario every year since 2007: 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

And by a long shot: Second place in 2010 was occupied by U of T (a much larger institution) which had half as many requests.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's (IPC) Annual Report 2010 was recently posted HERE.

"Officials at the University of Ottawa struggled ... to explain..." (Citizen) and the media struggled to interpret... but it seems pretty clear to this observer:

The University of Ottawa is an overly secretive publicly funded institution -- hello...?

Indeed, much of its last ("Vision 2010") 5-year plan was about how it was going to post all committee meeting minutes to the web and the like and emphasize transparency - we are still waiting... Even senators on University Senate can't get the information they need to do their work: HERE.

The media failed to note that the IPC 2010 Report also put U of O in a few additional notorious categories:

• more information law requests than any other college or university

• third most legal appeals of its non-compliance for all agencies in Ontario, led only by Ontario Power Authority and Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation

• only university or college to be found in "deemed refusal" for non-compliance

• largest number of legal appeals for personal information requests of any agency in Ontario

Methinks the media are being soft on U of O and not digging very deeply into its "unique" institutional culture.

This blogpost has been removed

This blogpost has been removed on June 7, 2014, pursuant to a June 6, 2014 court order of Justice Michel Charbonneau, in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit heard in Ottawa, as has been reported in the media.

The Defendant will appeal the court orders, if he is able to raise the money for the required court transcripts (approximately $20,000.), and if he can find a lawyer to act pro bono in the appeal that would be heard in Toronto.

LINK to the court orders from the trial.

Yet another human rights tribunal case tied to U of O awaits adjudication

THIS Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) Interim Decision shows yet another tribunal case of racism connected with "Canada's university", not previously reported in the media.

Nusrat Saleem

Applicant

-and-

The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Dean Belway, Brian Henley, Debbie Hubble and Jason Kennedy

Respondents

[1] This is an Application filed on May 7, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and creed.
[2] The respondents have not filed a Response. By way of a Request for Order During Proceedings, filed July 6, 2010, they seek deferral of the Application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding. This Interim Decision deals with the respondents’ Request.
more...

See several posts about racism at U of O HERE (label = racism)

Featured comment by former U of O professor Steve E Noble -- "Land of Rock"

Dr. Steve E. Noble was a full-time professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa. Having left the U of O, he feels he has insights to share about the institution, such a this recent comment (below).

[Background posts HERE (label = APTPUO).]
[Recent related media articles: LINK, LINK.]

Steve E. Noble said...

More than anything, the part time prof crisis is being dealt with by an incredible level of unethical, iron-fisted sleaze...

1. The university is unilaterally imposing a cut to the part time union's membership by telling the union that it wants non-credit profs within the second language institute and the Faculty of Education to be removed from the bargaining unit. Why only those two areas - what about other faculties and programs? All part time non-credit profs do similar things - why not go after all non-credit profs? Could there be a Rock-Berger alliance?

2. Is this a manufactured financial crisis that is being used to "legitimize" the iron fist approach to repress part timers and gut the union contract?

3. Why are tenured faculty and administrators not facing compensation cuts? If, after all, the university is facing a "financial crisis"? Should the wealthiest and most secure not be the first to cut their compensation, rather than the poorest and most vulnerable frontline?

4. The most vulnerable employee group is facing a 66% pay cut, yet are expected to do the same or more work for less money? Is this reasonable? In the corporate world, a move like this would result in the corporation being faced with severe government sanctions. What is acceptable is salary freezes, not cuts.

5. And the MOST vulnerable of all -the very people the university SAYS is its focus, the students, face the greatest penalty. May 13 was the last day to withdraw from a summer course without financial penalty. So, if there is a lockout or strike the May 14 or May 17 makes students the biggest losers - but then, that's likely how the university wants it - keep student cash and make the part time profs the evil ones in the process by being constructed as "unreasonable" - a very old employer union strategy.

The more I read about U of O, the more I wish I had stayed out west teaching at university there - so much more progressive and where, heaven forbid, the success of the student-prof relationship is the focus. Something stinks in the Land of Rock.

May 14, 2011 9:00 AM

[Links added by UofOWatch.]

RELATED POSTS:
U of O a top employer?
Rock ethically challenged, media says
List of Rock ethical breaches
Dean of education Berger most ruthless administrator
Union busting of APTPUO

MEDIA UPDATE:
U of O gives in to public pressure - settlement reached, in principle

U of O and big pharma -- "Medication" for better life

PRESS RELEASE: University of Ottawa signs agreement with the Centre for Drug Research and Development

The University of Ottawa has a statutory responsibility to serve community for the public good following "Christian principles". Would Jesus prescribe psychiatric drugs to students?

Will the University of Ottawa fund large-scale critical studies on the social impacts of psychiatric and behavioral drugs? Ritalin, Prozac, Paxil, ...?

U of O union-busting posturing against part-time profs ends

After many students (reportedly as many as 500 at a recent information event) expressed concerns that the summer semester would be disrupted by a university-imposed lock out, the University of Ottawa has backed down from its intimidation tactics and returned to the bargaining table.

See the UofOWatch initial report HERE.

It appears the university was caught off guard by a well organized, immediate and firm public awareness response from the union of part-time professors (APTPUO).

The APTPUO put it this way on a public web site:

"On April 11th 2011, the University of Ottawa Bargaining Team walked away from the government-led conciliation process and instructed the Ontario Ministry of Labour to issue a “No Board” report – which means that by early May 2011, the University will be in a legal position to lock us out and the APTPUO will be in a legal position to strike.

During the course of conciliation meetings, the Employer rejected all submissions made by the APTPUO. The Employer would discuss only one issue, which was the Employer’s insistence that APTPUO professors who teach non-credit courses in the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute and the Faculty of Education be unilaterally excluded from the Union, thus losing all salary, benefits, and seniority provisions of the APTPUO Collective Agreement – or, that we accept a pay DECREASE of 66% for these members. This is not bargaining!"

Now the University of Ottawa has reconsidered its juvenile move and has sheepishly put out this press release: LINK. A joint statement appears to be a face-saving measure to facilitate the university's return to the bargaining table.

This episode has not exactly been an example of good faith on the part of the university employer, against its most underpaid professionals which provide almost 60% of the teaching at the institution.

Rock attempt to manipulate senate minutes on Israel fails

University of Ottawa president Allan Rock tried to have the university Senate minutes changed via an unusual machination that in the end did not fly -- thanks to student senate member Joseph Hickey.

Hickey has reported the entire unfortunate episode on his blog about Senate: HERE.

The university videos of Senate also document Rock's incredible attempt to remove from the record the large numbers of abstentions in votes on motions questioning the University's academic involvement with the apartheid state of Israel, given the international call for an academic boycott of Israel.

It is remarkable the extent to which the Rock administration will go to participate-in and facilitate Israel's overt and explicit image war that has been termed "Brand Israel" -- an attempt to mask Israel's on-going war crimes (Geneva Conventions in occupied Gaza, etc.) using public opinion devices and cultural and academic collaborations.

Ottawa university presidents Rock and Runte make a pair

Ottawa has two universities that market themselves with grand titles:

"Canada's Capital University" (aka Carleton U)

"Canada's university" (aka U of Ottawa)

Both can now reasonably be said to be run by ethically challenged individuals.

U of O Allan Rock's media title of being "ethically challenged" is well deserved and dates back (2003) to his fishing-vacation political days (that ended his political career...): LINK. (And list of ethical breaches.)

Now Carleton U's Roseann Runte is joining the ranks of ethically challenged university presidents in Ottawa, due to revelations in a stunning bribery and extortion legal battle unfolding in the United States: LINK. (The allegations have not been proved in court, but there is unambiguous testimony from a former dean.)

How do the governance boards of these universities choose these brave public servants? Do they use Google? Are the candidates interviewed about their pasts?

MEDIA UPDATE (May 11, 2011):
Guilty verdict in U.S. trial tied to Carleton U prez
(it appears somebody lied to the court...)

U of O media relations manager on academic freedom in national press

The National Post has recently quoted the new University of Ottawa manager of media relations Vincent Lamontagne at length regarding Lamontagne's vacuous views on academic freedom.

The NP article (HERE) ends this way:

University of Ottawa spokesman Vincent Lamontagne defended the school, saying the “quality of the student experience” is its No. 1 concern.

“The University of Ottawa strongly believes in academic freedom and is proud of the practical knowledge given to its students by its outstanding professors and researchers,” he wrote in an email to Postmedia News.

He said the university has established itself as a “well-renowned centre for international relations studies.

“Our professors are proven experts in international politics and encourage in-class discussions of actual political situations from all around the world.”

By "our professors" does Lamontagne mean the part-time professors that teach 60% of the courses and that the university has recently threatened with lock out (HERE)?

At the University of Ottawa it appears that the message is highly managed and that the visible expert on academic freedom is the media relations manager.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Author Jeff Schmidt on academic freedom
All UofOWatch articles on academic freedom (label = academic freedom)
UofOWatch on student satisfaction ratings (label = Macleans rating)
Part-time professors threatened with lock out

Rancourt case -- Arbitration hearing day 1 -- Report

A good day for transparency and public accountability


See short background summary HERE.

Today, May 2, 2011, was the first day of binding arbitration hearings in Rancourt's union (APUO) vs University of Ottawa, re: Rancourt's 2009 dismissal.

The university is represented by lawyer Lynn Harnden. The APUO is represented by lawyer Sean McGee. Arbitrator Claude Foisy is presiding. Each side was additionally supported by several more lawyers and staff.

Approximately thirty members of the public and media representatives were present for the hearing (media link).

Under these conditions, Harnden stated that the university would not attempt to block media access and that the university acknowledged the public interest in the case. These were immediate victories.

This means that the full hearings will be open to the public and to the media.

In the past, the university has been camera shy at labour arbitration hearings, has argued against audio-visual recording, and has been known to leave the room to avoid being photographed (LINK) and to request that its pictures be removed from this blog (LINK). Not in this hearing. The cameras clicked and the videos rolled during the entire session.

Another victory was also easily won, regarding "discoveries". Discovery is the legal obligation to disclose all relevant documents before hearing the legal arguments.

The University had previously argued to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) that it would oppose a broad discovery process (HERE, page-13, point-13):

"[It is] submitted that the Applicant is not entitled to an order for document disclosure in preparation for arbitration because such remedy would result in irreparable harm to the Responding Party. Furthermore, the balance of harm favours a refusal of such remedy on an interim basis. If the documents were disclosed now that would effectively decide the issue of document disclosure. However, there would be no harm or prejudice to the Applicant if he had to wait intil after the ULP Application was determined for disclosure and/or until an arbitrator considered the issue of document disclosure at arbitration."

In fact, the arbitrator did not need to "consider the issue" because the university backed down and had already agreed with the union side before the hearing started that a proper document disclosure of "all arguably relevant documents" was acceptable. A full disclosure process is therefore in effect.


University intends to rely on "post-termination evidence":

Somewhat disturbingly, at the hearing Harnden announced that the university would seek to use "post-dismissal evidence" both to justify its dismissal of Rancourt and to argue that even if Rancourt's dismissal was found to be not warranted that his reinstatement would nonetheless need to be "assessed".

Harnden further explained that the university would seek special "enriched" guarantees or constraints regarding "exclusion of witnesses." Both sides agreed that the latter arguments for and against such "enrichment" would be made in writing to the arbitrator.

When McGee clarified that the latter written submissions would - like the hearing itself - be public, Harnden replied that he would "take this under advisement", which means that he does not agree and that the public nature of the legal arguments may need to be ordered by the arbitrator before he complies.

Therefore, the university will seek to make extensive use of post-termination evidence and evidence of Rancourt's post-termination "conduct" to justify its termination of Rancourt and Rancourt's permanent exclusion from campus.

It will be interesting to learn which "conduct" the university views as worthy of such consideration that would bar a tenured professor from campus allegedly for applying a new teaching method in one advanced physics course in his research area of expertize.

We hope that Mr. Harnden's intent is not to block or constrain the publication of the present blog.


Rancourt accused of "arranging" for videographer to film Harnden's laptop:

In another strange incident, Harnden gratuitously stated to the arbitrator that Rancourt had "arranged" for Algonquin College film program coordinator Peter Biesterfeld to film Harnden's laptop during the hearing. Biesterfeld stated to the arbitrator that he had not filmed Harnden's laptop. Harnden clarified that there was nothing of importance on his laptop screen.

Rancourt would like to affirm that he did not and does not "arrange" Peter Biesterfeld or any other videographer or media person and that he does not wish to see what is on Lynn Harnden's laptop.


Next step:

The next hearing date is scheduled for October 12, 2011. Disclosures are expected to be completed early this summer. The issue of Harnden's "enrichment" is also expected to be decided by the arbitrator before the next hearing date.

Extensive background information is provided HERE.

Report on racism at the School of Nursing - today's press conference and Michaelle Jean

[April 29, 2011, press conference participants]

The Centre for Equity and Human Rights (CEHR) of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) held its press conference about the racism in the U of O School of Nursing today.

The CEHR has received twenty racism discrimination complaints from students in the School of Nursing since 2009.

The press conference testimonies by two plaintiffs were detailed and disturbing.

There can be no doubt that Nursing has an urgent and widespread racism problem that has been disregarded for years by the university administration.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs Yavar Hameed stressed that the problem was not only from bad management but was also systemic, pointing to a lack of internal structures to solve and correct racism problems.

Unlike previous press conferences at the University of Ottawa, the university communication staff and legal counsel were nowhere to be seen on the floor. Instead, they have installed a new electronic lock on their main door and called the media behind closed doors for private conferences.

The presenters avoided naming the six university staff complained against in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario complaints but Student Appeal Centre director Mireille Gervais had the following statements for UofOWatch.

"[Professor] Isabelle Cyr is a problem regarding differential treatment of Nursing students based on the colour of their skin."

"Kirsten Woolend, ex-director of the School of Nursing, acknowledged in 2008 -- at a meeting with me, CEHR director Francine Page, SFUO VP-University Seamus Wolfe, vice-dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences Francis Reardon, and School of Nursing administrator of undergraduate programs Joanne Larose-Dubois -- that the School of Nursing had received many complaints about Isabelle Cyr."

"It is a widely known fact that Isabelle Cyr once physically shook [assaulted] a black Nursing student."

As the event was closing, former Governor General Michaelle Jean, who now has her UNESCO office beside university president Allan Rock's office, happened by accident to walk by and stopped to chat with some of the plaintiffs. Jean inquired why they were in Tabaret Hall. After some explanation Jean asked CEHR director Francine Page to send her all the documents so she can prepare for a possible informal chat with Rock. Maybe Rock will listen to Jean? He hasn't listened to anyone else.

SEE ALL ARTICLES ABOUT RACISM AT U OF O (label=racism)
.

MEDIA
Radio-Canada TV news (en francais)
Le Droit - with audio (en francais)

Rancourt case goes to binding arbitration on Monday May 2nd

The Allan Rock administration of the University of Ottawa fired tenured physics professor of 23 years Denis Rancourt in 2009. (LINK)

The dismissal is a major academic freedom case in Canada and is being investigated by an Independent Committee of Inquiry (ICOI) of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).

The conflict has been covered in the national (Globe and Mail, National Post, Macleans), international (New York Times) and regional media: LINK.

The University has only now accepted scheduling a binding arbitration process, following an unfair labour practice complaint by Rancourt to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). The latter OLRB action and its outcome are fully disclosed by Rancourt HERE.

The first hearing day (full day) will be Monday May 2nd (9:30 am, 130 Albert Street, Varette Board Room, Level B1).

Arbitrator: Claude H. Foisy (based in Montreal)
Union Lead Lawyer: Sean McGee, of Nelligan O'Brian Payne LLP
University Lead lawyer: Lynn Harnden, of Emond Harnden LLP
Grievor: Denis G. Rancourt

Fifteen days of hearings are foreseen, extending into 2012. The hearings are expected to be open to the public and the media.

The hearing will likely be an intense battle and it is believed that the university's first priority is that the grievor never be allowed to be reinstated.

There is a clear and unanimous commitment from the union (APUO) for Rancourt to be reinstated.

Rancourt's position is that the dismissal was unjustified, that the grading question was used as a pretext for the dismissal and that there is evidence of employer bad faith.

Rancourt will be the main witness on the union side.

For more information please contact the chair of Rancourt's support committee Professor Claude Lamontagne at claude.cde (at) gmail.com. Extensive background information is provided HERE.

U of O vicious union busting against its part-time professors -- "Canada's university" in action

The Association of Part-Time Professors of the University of Ottawa (APTPUO) is publicly denouncing what it sees as unfair and damaging labour practices in the form of the university administration's union busting approach to negotiations.

The APTPUO teaches almost 60% of all courses at the institution and is the lowest paid university employee group, with no job security. Its members are routinely terminated ("not renewed") without cause.

The APTPUO has put out this press release today:

Association of Part-Time Professors of the University of Ottawa*
85 University Street, suite 124
Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5
613-562-5800 ext. 4375 | www.twitter.com/aptpuo

Rocky Road Ahead for Canada's University's Part-Time Professors

Ottawa, 26 April 2011 - The University of Ottawa is not fulfilling its requirement to bargain with its part-time professors. This group represented by the Association of Part-Time Professors at the University of Ottawa (APTPUO*) teaches almost 60% of the courses offered at this institution. The Employer wants to deny the right to union representation to certain professors, and categorically refuses to bargain any other issue. It has put a halt to the ongoing conciliation process, to the astonishment of the APTPUO.

Pushed against the wall with the Employer in a legal position to lock them out in early May 2011, the APTPUO held a strike vote on April 20th and April 21st. Part-Time Professors voted 97,6% in favour of a strike, in the event the impasse persists. This demonstrates a strong level of support for their union and its elected Bargaining Committee.

"The Employer wants to do everything it wants and be accountable to nobody, said Greer Knox, President of the APTPUO. It never wanted to bargain constructively and it bargained in bad faith. The University has not demonstrated an interest in the impact these issues have on our students and the whole community. The strong support of our members sends a clear signal to the Employer that it must return to the bargaining table."

Several unions at the University of Ottawa support the part-time professors in their efforts to get a fair deal, including the Full-time professors union (APUO), the Student academic workers' union (CUPE 2626), and the Support staff union (SSUO).
The Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) and the Graduate Student Association (GSAED), have also voiced their support to the APTPUO and are concerned about the aggressive attitude the University has demonstrated in this round of negotiations.

* The APTPUO is the Association of Part-Time Professors of the University of Ottawa. It represents approximately 1500 members teaching approximately 60% of the courses offered at the University of Ottawa. Some 3000 courses are taught each year by part-time professors.

For further information
Greer Knox
President, APTPUO

The APTPUO has also made this April 28th appeal for support:

Dear friends, students, fellow employees, labour activists and members of the community,

The Association of Part-Time Professors of the University of Ottawa (APTPUO) is concerned about the way that the University of Ottawa's Bargaining Team has been conducting negotiations; it appears to be nothing short of bullying, threats of union busting and bad faith!

On April 11th 2011, the University of Ottawa Bargaining Team walked away from the government-led conciliation process and instructed the Ontario Ministry of Labour to issue a “No Board” report – which means that by early May 2011, the University will be in a legal position to lock us out and the APTPUO will be in a legal position to strike.

Since first meeting on March 5, 2010, the Employer has rejected all submissions made by the APTPUO. The Employer would discuss only one issue, which is that APTPUO professors who teach non-credit courses in the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute and the Faculty of Education be unilaterally excluded from the Union, thus losing all salary, benefits, and seniority provisions of the APTPUO Collective Agreement – or, that we accept a pay DECREASE of 66% for these members. This is not bargaining!

We are asking you to support the APTPUO by sending a message to the University of Ottawa Board of Governors and their Bargaining Team in order to force the University back to the bargaining table to address our demands for improvements in salary, job security, and working conditions so that we may continue to provide the highest quality of education on our campus.

For the latest information on negotiations, informational tools, ways to get involved and our latest Press releases, visit our new website: www.FairDealAPTPUO.com.

In solidarity,

APTPUO Bargaining Committee and Board of Directors

RELATED POSTS:
U of O a "Top 25" employer?

.

Rampant racism at the U of O School of Nursing::: Press conference announced

The Centre for Equity and Human Rights (CEHR) of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) has announced that it will hold a press conference about the racism in the U of O School of Nursing:

PRESS CONFERENCE
Friday April 29, 2011
11 AM
Entrance rotunda, Tabaret Hall
550 Cumberland

Former School of Nursing students Anne Mpinda and Victor Ndayishimiye have each filed detailed human rights complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) against six teaching and administrative staff members at the school. They are represented by human rights lawyer Yavar Hameed.

The HRTO complaints are about racial discrimination and allege systemic discrimination, reprisals and intimidation; not unlike the recent high-profile cases in the U of O Faculty of Medicine, HERE.

The CEHR also confirms that it has received no less than twenty such similar reports from students in the School of Nursing since the fall of 2009.

The director of the CEHR, Francine Page, had sounded the alarm in 2007 and followed this with an expert report to the University in February 2010. Page was disturbed to find her concerns and report effectively ignored by the University of Ottawa, under its president Allan Rock administration.

The University propaganda touts Rock as a "defender of human rights" "putting the University at the service of the world". It would be better to put itself at the service of its students, especially those being discriminated against.

The CEHR press release comes only weeks after Allan Rock's university senate brazenly repudiated a motion to reaffirm its commitment to a discrimination-free academic environment, in an effort to prevent exactly these types of problems, HERE.

Needless to say, the Student Appeal Centre's (SAC) 2008 public report about systemic racism at the University of Ottawa, that the Rock administration took great pains to deny and defame (HERE), now echos loudly in the hollow halls of this racist institution.

On his next mission abroad, Rock could save a lot of folks a lot of pain by plainly stating: "If you're black or brown avoid applying." Or, he could start actually standing for human rights by ordering immediate reparations where reparations are due rather than fight lengthy and costly denials of the obvious -- as the University shamefully continues to do.



Update: Senate member Joseph Hickey is following up with university senate, HERE. The University of Ottawa ("Canada's university" in its propaganda) is rather unique in Canada for not having a policy against harassment and discrimination. This absence of protection has repeatedly been denounced by the SEHR and SAC of the SFUO.

U of O Faculty of Education professors speak out to defend their dean

The dean of the Faculty of Education, Marie Josee Berger, has -- in terms of her treatment of students -- been judged the most ruthless administrator at the University of Ottawa, HERE.

Member of the university senate Joseph Hickey has reported the reactions of some professors in the Faculty of Education, HERE.

The following professors have spoken out in defense of Berger, with strong words against Hickey's attempt to use collegial governance to mitigate the possible damage to academic integrity. (LINK)

Bernie Andrews

Richard Maclure

Sharon Cook

Stéphane Lévesque

Claire Maltais

This is reassuring because we might expect that these professors would also stand just as firmly and from the same principled perspective regarding any injustices to graduate and undergraduate students? We welcome evidence to that effect.

Seriously, how are the reactionary yelps of the above professors compatible with even the publicly known face of dean Marie Josee Berger, reported in the media in 2007 HERE?

Former professor Steve E. Noble on the U of O presidency of Allan Rock

[Photo (uOttawa.ca) : Breakfast speaker Allan Rock "Canada’s University in the service of the world"]

Dr. Steve E. Noble, an expert in the global justice area of education, has recently provided his assessment of University of Ottawa president Allan Rock (LINK)*:

"The problem with Rock as president of the University of Ottawa are several.

First, he's being paid way too much. He's being paid more than the Prime Minister of Canada and about the same as the President of the United States.

Second, the University of Ottawa is, at best, a second ranked university (more comfortably sitting in the third tier of universities in this country); his salary should reflect that.

Third, he comes from outside academia. Most universities around the world select their presidents from within academia given that professors have a solid understanding of how universities work and the norms and culture that stems from the learning/teaching relationship. Rock simply does not.

There is a move afoot among universities to turn academia into corporations with a heavy managerialist approach whereby the teaching/learning relationship becomes thrown out for some research money measuring success approach.

Watching the Senate videos and it becomes clear that Rock has no understanding of how board meetings operate either. He makes the rules up as he goes along and whichever variation puts him in complete control is the one he goes with in that moment.

Rock is a lawyer and he will work from what he knows best -lawyers are about adversarial relationships and winning at all costs. A natural extension being their ego. And Rock is all about his ego.

Oh, I know when he was first hired we all held out great promise that because the story went that he was a student radical of the SFUO and apparently driving John Lennon around Ottawa makes him some sort of hip, anarchist, militant, student sensitive administrator. Rock is such a devotee of the establishment system that he demands everyone else fall in line.

Watch the Senate videos and you'll see the Senate behave like lemmings. Most inspiring, though, is the exception of Senator Hickey, the lone, elected graduate student challenging the senate and Rock repeatedly. He reminds me that not only do people like Rock, with their positional power and authority, feel it's their right to take away the individual agency and power of others (but individuals giving up their own power is also a key source of bullies' power).

Fourth, he's just not doing what he says he is going to do. Since arriving at the University of Ottawa the low student satisfaction ratings have slowly fallen to something approaching absolute lowest rating with regard to student satisfaction - IN THE COUNTRY!

Fifth, there is his approach to faculty and students that is simply appalling. I've listened to him at a General Assembly speak about part time and contract faculty (by far the majority of teaching staff in the university) as a necessary evil.

The Dean of the Faculty of Education also views contract and part time faculty as second classed employees. This group of faculty has as few protections as students. That works well for Rock - divide and conquer, while making up the rules as he goes along. And Rock expects (and encourages) Deans to behave as bullies. I've heard an associate dean describe how Deans rule their faculties like fiefdoms and the students and faculty within them are like their serfs.

The overarching feeling is that if students - and faculty - behave in subservient, group-thinking, conformist ways that they will "survive" university in order to get their credential. Their career of creative, innovative and radical thinking (if it hasn't been "educated" out of them) can only begin upon graduation.

When I saw a "student code of conduct" emerge at one point my fear was immense because that's the first step toward an explicit narrow-minded shutting down of expression sweeping over the campus. Students need to take back their power to take back their education, while fostering open dialogue, free thought and freedom of expression. If students are waiting for someone like Rock or the Senate to instill this, it won't happen. Perhaps Rock just needs to be reminded what student activism in his day was all about."

Dr. Noble has also recently commented on an article about the dean of the Faculty of Education, HERE.

*Links and formatting by blog editor.

U of O branding war continues -- Elections 2011 video

"Get Out of My Office 2011"

The film makers asks:

"What if University of Ottawa President Allan Rock addressed everybody the way he did his students?

Audio from Rock's 2008 tirade against student Marc Kelly."

BACKGROUND POSTS:
Branding war installments
U of O's Rock actuates a complete exile of math student Marc Kelly
All posts about student Marc Kelly

Student Appeal Centre fights for student rights at U of O -- videos

These videos present the Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) regarding its work fighting systemic racism and denials of individual students' rights.

SAC blog: HERE

RELATED POSTS:
U of O Senate repudiates human rights motion
U of O students::: What can you do about this? -- Malfeasance in Medicine
March 9th Faculty of Medicine malfeasance press conference -- video report
Three medical doctors jointly file human rights complaints against the University of Ottawa and several officials

Marie Josée Berger most ruthless administrator at U of O, student union says

[Photo (uOttawa.ca) : dean Marie Josée Berger]

The Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) has named the dean of the Faculty of Education, Marie Josée Berger, as the first recipient of its newly inaugurated annual "Iron Fist Award".

The SAC has announced the prize on its blog where its report reads in part (LINK):

The Iron Fist is awarded to the University of Ottawa Administrator having caught Student Appeal Officers’ attention for being most ruthless and/or unjust while showing little or no respect for students. The Award considers both long-term career contributions and particularly notable specific events.

In this case, Marie Josée Berger is well deserving of the Award, having been the object of several informal complaints at the Student Appeal Centre over many years.

For the 2010-2011 school year highlights include Marie Josée Berger’s refusal to respond and investigate at least three very serious complaints filed with her office, calling a student to her office only to belittle her after the case was already resolved in favour of the student, and threatening to impede her own graduate student’s progress in the program when the student expressed her desire to change supervisors.

Past conflicts involving Berger have included harsh unjustified discipline and dismissals against several academic staff members of the Faculty of Education.

At one point an anonymous letter from several professors published in a student newspaper accused Berger of ruling the Faculty of Education in "Tonton Macoute" style. Berger threatened to sue the student paper and went on a rampage against several professors.

The notorious reputation of Berger's Faculty of Education is at least campus wide.

Characteristically, in 2009 the university's Allan Rock administration named Berger a "Celebrat[ed] extraordinary woman at the University of Ottawa".

Youtube video with Berger (and Allan Rock in the monarchy of Morocco) on the topic of dialogue:



In the video, Berger explains that she is also interested in buying gold at a good price and that she is thankful for the advice she received in this regard.

U of O video released::: Senate dignity hits Rock-bottom -- Breach of Criminal Code

We reported about the University of Ottawa Senate meeting of April 4, 2011, in the previous post HERE. And now the university has released its video of the meeting:


It's actually worst than our original blog report. Words cannot express the disrespect and pettiness displayed by president Allan Rock and most senators shown in this video.

It's unbelievable. In the past, such contempt for collegiality and due process would not have been displayed in public, much less on video.

This video was released on the same day that the graduate student association (GSAED) sent a damning letter to the university administration and to all senate members precisely about the human rights matter in question. See the GSAED letter HERE.

Among other offenses, executives in the Faculty of Medicine colluded in terminating a medical resident with the intent to compel the resident and other employees to abstain from providing information to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. (LINK)(LINK)(LINK)

The latter is a criminal offense pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. Allan Rock himself is collaborating in the crime by not immediately rectifying the dismissal; in light of the evidence from leaked emails.

These are the same leaked emails that student senator Joseph Hickey was trying to distribute at Senate (see above video). Allan Rock has known about the emails at least since the day they were leaked: He was a recipient - HERE.

U of O Senate repudiates human rights motion

After the Ann Coulter fiasco the University of Ottawa Senate, under the leadership of president Allan Rock, reaffirmed its commitment to freedom of expression: HERE.

After the human rights reprisals against three medical residents (LINK) the University of Ottawa Senate, under the leadership of president Allan Rock... ... ... repudiated a motion to reaffirm its commitment to a discrimination-free academic environment?

Yes, it happened at today's meeting of Senate.

THIS MOTION was considered too perturbing (?) for even a single member of Senate to second it so it could be discussed despite presidents Rock's obvious antagonism.

The three medical residents were present to speak to the motion but their contribution had been disallowed by Rock even before Senate could be consulted: HERE, HERE.

(The impolite way that the MDs themselves had been rebuffed by Rock is even more disturbing...)

This is a very low day for the University of Ottawa.

Especially in contrast to what would be needed in the form of leadership given the disturbing circumstances including criminal reprisals exposed by the Neuroleaks emails made public on the internet: HERE.