Is U of O a blood money U?

University of Ottawa's President Allan Rock promised (HERE!) a "donor recognition policy", following his orchestrated show panels on the topic of campus corporatization, and then never delivered (HERE) ...

Why?

Rock went on to accept an "anonymous donation" for the business school (for a research chair in "ethical management") and "generous support" for a targeted academic program with Israel.

This followed the university's multi-million-dollar courtships with the notorious Gorldcorp Inc. and with Paul Desmarais of Burmese fame.

Is the University of Ottawa in a race to become "blood money U"?

Does it aspire to surpass the London School of Economics?


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Students occupy the London School of Economics (LSE) in solidarity with Libyan revolt

by Siân Ruddick - Feb 22, 2011

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24022

Students at the London School of Economics (LSE) in central London have occupied the senior management dining suite.

They are protesting against the university's links with the Colonel Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and in solidarity with the Libyan revolt.

The students are demanding that the university issues a statement condemning the brutality of the regime and of Saif Gaddafi, Colonel Gaddafi’s son, who is a graduate of LSE and a defender of the Libyan regime.

The students are also demanding that the university revokes Saif's alumni status and reject the annual instalments of £1.5 million from the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation.

They also want management to pledge that they will not accept grants and donations from oppressive regimes in the future.

Niamh, a second year student in the occupation, told Socialist Worker, "No one can condone the actions of the Gaddafi regime. The university cannot just issue a statement trying to placate people.

“This money is blood money, it was never LSE’s money. It should be given back to the Libyan people."

The occupiers are calling on other students to join them. Students across Britain have another day of action planned to defend education this Thursday – Day X 4.

Students at other colleges plan to occupy this week.

Send messages of support to lselibyasolidarity@gmail.com

Motion for March 7th U of O Senate meeting::: Transparency on Israel

[See updates at senator Joseph Hickey's blog HERE.]

The following motion to Senate was made public today.

From: Joseph Hickey <>
Date: Sat, Feb 19, 2011
Subject: Motion on uOttawa-uHaifa exchange program
To: Diane Davidson
Cc: allan.rock@uottawa.ca, all Senate members, university community, concerned parties

Dear Diane Davidson and Members of the Senate,

I hereby submit the following motion for the March 7, 2011 meeting of the Senate. I hope to work with other Members of Senate in the upcoming weeks before the March 7 meeting in order to develop any amendments that may be necessary. Please contact me if you are you interested.

Motion submitted on February 19, 2011:

WHEREAS the operation of the University of Ottawa Senate is premised on the democratic principles of transparency and accountability and bound by the University of Ottawa Act, 1965 to follow Christian principles of fairness and equity, and;

WHEREAS the Executive Committee of the Senate approved a Joint Masters in Laws (LL.M) exchange program in partnership with the University of Haifa, Israel, on May 12, 2008, and the Faculty of Common Law is currently accepting applications to the program, and;

WHEREAS it has not been determined that the Senate has granted the power to its Executive Committee to approve new programs categorized as reciprocity agreements, and;

WHEREAS it has not been determined if Palestinian students from the University of Ottawa or the University of Haifa shall have full and equitable access to the program in question, and;

WHEREAS new academic initiatives that have targeted donor support are potentially subject to donor influence and whereas the Haifa project agreement between the University of Ottawa and the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation has not been disclosed to Senate or made public, and;

WHEREAS there is presently local and international expressed concern about Israel’s domestic and foreign policy and a broad international call for an academic boycott of Israel,


THEREFORE the Senate requires that the date and circumstances surrounding the delegation of its power to approve new exchange programs and reciprocity agreements to its Executive Committee be provided to it, and;

THEREFORE the Senate requires that the agreement between the University of Ottawa and the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation be entirely disclosed to it and made public, and;

THEREFORE in order to ensure fair and equitable access of all persons to the program in question without discrimination, the Senate requires the affirmative action guarantee that applications be selected in such a way that the percentage of Palestinian students accepted into the program at the University of Haifa be equal to or greater than the percentage of Palestinian people living in Israel, and;

THEREFORE the Senate will hear the community concerns regarding institutional academic exchanges with Israel, from representatives of all concerned parties from the university community, in view of (re)considering its approval of the Haifa project, and;

THEREFORE the Joint Masters in Laws (LL.M) exchange program shall be frozen and the application process put on hold until the above actions have been carried out by the Senate.

Sincerely,

Joseph Hickey
Representative to the University of Ottawa Senate for graduate students in the Sciences.

Cc: Concerned parties, community members, media

[Photos: Gerald Schwartz, Heather Reisman; donors to Haifa exchange program.]

RELATED POSTS:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2011/02/u-of-o-hijacked-by-israel-senator-hot.html
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2011/02/u-of-o-2-for-1-law-degrees-scam-was-not.html

Update::: UofOWatch documented ethical breaches of Allan Rock now number 19

U of O Watch
documented
ethical breaches
of
Allan Rock
now number
=
19
(nineteen)

U of O hijacked by Israel::: Senator hot on the trail of administrative malfeasance?

• Why does the University of Ottawa need a law school exchange program with Israel?

• And why does it need it in the middle of an international civil society call for an academic boycott of Israel?

• How does this relate to the Canadian Zionism Question?

• Is this an effort to help Israel into needed compliance with international law and the Geneva Conventions?

• Or is it an Israel Lobby contribution to Brand Israel (and HERE)?

These are the kinds of questions that the Allan Rock administration did not want raised at university Senate.

But university Senate is where all new academic programs are democratically discussed and approved. It is the highest governing body on academic matters at the university.

How can this dilemma be solved? (SEE BACKGROUND REPORT HERE)

The Allan Rock answer is simple (and certainly inspired from federal politics):

Don't call it a program!

It's just an "exchange"... (A procedural improvement that the administration can approve without consulting Senate.)

It looks and smells like an academic program (with specific academic requirements, applications, deadlines, unique characteristics, entrance requirements, its own scholarship "program", etc.) but IT'S NOT AN ACADEMIC PROGRAM.

Graduate school dean Gary Slater explained it this way: "It's not an academic program. It's an exchange program." (HERE)

But physics student Senator Joseph Hickey is not letting go. He wants to understand how this "Senate is the highest governing body" thing works... HERE.

Another problem is that the Rock administration wants to please its donor (the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation) and publicly call it a wonderful "New Joint Masters in Laws Program", also in an effort to recruit candidates.

So the Rock administration first puts out this press release (below) then four days later changes the press release (also below) after Hickey starts to noisily inquire...

Note the changes: SIX occurrences of the word "program", including in the title, are removed and craftily replaced, without any mention that the public document has been altered.

OK but two of those changes are in quotes of statements made by law dean Bruce Feldthusen and research chair Michael Geist...?!

So what did they really say? Are they automaton puppets? These are fair questions.



Epilogue: Compare this to former professor Denis Rancourt who in 2005 was disciplined for using the word "bilingual" to describe one of his courses (on his own unofficial web page) that was actually bilingual in practice and approved as such because this could mislead some students to believe that the course was "officially bilingual". Remarkably, this discipline was upheld by a professional arbitrator: HERE.

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.

U of O "2 for 1 law degrees" scam was not approved by university Senate

THIS press release was posted today by the University of Ottawa.

Highlights are as follows:

"... students will receive two Masters in Laws degrees ... This exciting dual degree program provides students with the rare opportunity to obtain two distinct LL.M. degrees after only one year of studies ... The University Ottawa - University of Haifa program is generously supported by the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation ... Additionally, the program affords students unfamiliar with Israel an opportunity to experience the country first-hand ..." (emphasis added)

As historic background, readers of UofOWatch will recall:

"In July 2008 the media reported that Allan Rock participated in a trip to Israel “partly financed by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA)”, along with five other Canadian university presidents. The media reported that Mr. Rock’s visit “yielded immediate results” as “the University of Ottawa agreed to launch an exchange program in law.” After a few months in office, President Allan Rock announced his plan in October 2008 for the University of Ottawa. This plan included what he calls putting “Canada’s University in the service of the World”. In explaining it to students on October 24, 2008, he talked about exchange programs. When one student asked if Palestinian students would be allowed to participate in the exchange programs with Israel, Mr. Rock stated that he could not answer that." [see Endnote-3 HERE]

Today's U of O press release is entitled "U of O - U of Haifa New Joint Masters in Law Program".

All new academic programs and all changes to existing academic programs are required by law (University of Ottawa Act, 1965) to be approved by the university Senate, the highest university governing body on all academic matters.

Today at university Senate, student Senate member Joseph Hickey pointed out that this new 2 for 1 masters in law program has never been discussed or approved by Senate.

Senators refused to second his motion to add this urgent matter to the agenda, despite Hickey's explanation that the authority of Senate in academic matters was being circumvented and that the public was being misinformed.

[Student applications for the funded 2 for 1 deal ($10 thousand bursary per student) are only being received until March 1st (before the next Senate meeting), to start in September 2011.]

President Allan Rock stated "No one knows what you are talking about Mr. Hickey."

Later in the Senate meeting, dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Gary Slater clarified that the new joint venture announced in the press release was "not an [academic] program".

In addition, the reported Schwartz-Reisman Foundation "generous support" is the second significant private donation disclosed by the university since in 2009 Allan Rock promised a university policy of "donor recognition" before any more donations were accepted and then never produced a policy... [see HERE and HERE]

On Ann Coulter [see background HERE], Rock "clarified" today at Senate that his statements were "not a commitment".

I guess this means that his show panels on corporatization and his 2009 statements that a donor policy would be immediately developed were also "not a commitment". Fluff? Noise? Smoke and mirrors?

Most importantly, the authority of the university Senate to approve and legally certify academic programs has been at best circumvented in this special case and at worst rendered meaningless.

Like the proverbial boiling frog, only one Senator noticed.

This raises many unanswered questions:

• Who will be the first students to benefit from this unprecedented "2 for 1" degrees deal, and get paid doing it?

• Will they view Israel in a positive light? [HERE, HERE, HERE] Will their required research papers address Israel's ongoing Geneva Conventions violations?
  

• If university Senate doesn't need to approve such scams, then who guarantees academic standards?

• Did Haifa's university Senate discuss and approve this venture?

• Will Ontario's Ministry of Education allow this?

• Will Senator Joseph Hickey seek a judicial review?

UPDATES

Feb.8-2011:

• The university has changed the application deadline from March 1st to May 1st: HERE.
• The university has removed the media release from its list: HERE.
• yayaCanada reports: "U of O hijacked by Israel"

Feb.11-2011:

• University changes its posted press release to remove the word "program" in the title and in six places including in quoted statements by dean Bruce Feldthusen and by research chair Michael Geist. No mention is made of the change.
  

Found hiding under a Rock::: More on Coulter saga -- from Student's Eye View

.

Heeey Missster Rock, if you saaaaays tings at Senate den dat means you gotta do it...

Dear President Allan Rock,

You made a commitment at the April 12, 2010 meeting of the Senate to initiate a broad community discussion on freedom of expression, following the controversy arising from your letter of March 2010 to American political commentator Ann Coulter.

In your words:

“As we look forward, one such alternative is for us to engage our university community in an open discussion of these matters to work toward a consensus of our shared expectations when it comes to Freedom of Expression, and how to communicate those expectations to people visiting our university … If we can agree that there is a collective view at the University of Ottawa about the principles and responsibilities that underlie free speech, we can, for example, explore the creation of a statement of principles that we can all adopt by consensus, and that might reflect what we believe.”

After eight months of inaction on this commitment, I motioned this week to bring the matter before the University of Ottawa Senate at the upcoming meeting on February 7. On February 3, you responded (below) that it is your position now that the matter was closed and completed as of the May 2010 meeting.

Mr. Rock, the antithesis between your statements and your actions since then is remarkable:

• When did you and the Senate “engage our university community in an open discussion of these matters”?

• When and how did “we” “work toward a consensus of our shared expectations when it comes to Freedom of Expression”?

• What did “we” decide about “how to communicate those expectations to people visiting our university”?

• What are the “expectations”?

• What progress has been made on our “statement of principles that we can all adopt by consensus”?

Your detailed proposal at Senate was accepted by consensus on April 12, 2010 (you have explained the meaning of “consensus” in Senate procedure). Either the Senate follows through to instruct the administration on actuation of this item, or tables and adopts a motion to remove the item, or the Senate has been degraded to a meaningless shadow of its statutory self.

A cynic might complain that one can expect to see these sorts of empty promises in federal politics, but even a cynic would agree that university Senate is not intended to be a political instrument – it is by law the highest authority on academic matters at the university.

I fear that if we do not act, there is a significant risk that the University of Ottawa Senate will become no more than a shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the academic world.

Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey

B.Sc. (Hon., Summa Cum Laude), University of Ottawa
M.Sc. candidate, University of Ottawa
Elected representative for graduate students in the Sciences and Engineering, University of Ottawa Senate

[Source: A Student's-Eye View.]

See all posts about the U of O Ann Coulter - Allan Rock saga: HERE.

U of O in top 25::: Spending student tuition money on corporate vanity scheme

Here is another U of O press release celebrating one of the school's notable achievements:

"University of Ottawa still among region's top 25 employers"

This surprised us at UofOWatch. It just seemed incongruous that a university that treats its employees well would have the lowest student survey results in the nation? [See previous post HERE.]

So we decided to investigate.

Who gives this prize? How are the winners selected? How does the for-profit corporation that runs the prize make its money? Why is President Allan Rock buying into the project?

As part of our investigation, we wrote both to the corporation (Mediacorp Canada Inc.) that runs the competition and to the University of Ottawa. We got some interesting answers. The email exchanges are posted HERE-Mediacorp and HERE-UofO.

In the case of Mediacorp we wrote to the Publisher, Anthony Meehan, and to all the editors (generic emails). In the case of the University of Ottawa, we wrote to the Director of Communications Services, Andre Dumulon, with all her staff in cc.

As you can see from the posted exchanges, the answers are quite instructive, but not as much as our own (ongoing) independent research into the matter...

Highlights are as follows:

• Both U of O and Mediacorp refused to answer how many contestants there were in the competition.

• Both U of O and Mediacorp refused to name or make public the names of the judges that selected the winners, or even to state how many individuals were involved.

• Both U of O and Mediacorp refused to clarify who pays for the 12-page colour promotional insert that is published in the Ottawa Citizen celebrating the winners.

• The U of O press release disingenuously states "The rigorous selection process is overseen by an advisory board that evaluates the organizations according to specific criteria" whereas Meehan affirmed that the Mediacorp advisory board is not involved in any way with the competition but only helps to develop the evaluation criteria for the competition (see email).

• The "rigorous selection process" is accomplished by an "editorial committee" (of an unknown number of nameless "editors") chaired by Mediacorp Managing Editor Richard Yerema (see email).

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

• The U of O refused to answer whether it was required to pay an "application fee" to enter the competition.

UofOWatch has uncovered THIS LETTER which shows that all applicants were required to pay a non-refundable "application fee" of "$495 plus GST".

Let's see now... For the 2011 national competition (which also counts for all the regional awards) Mediacorp "reviewed the recruitment histories of more than 75,000 employers across Canada and invited 12,500 of these to apply."

There is no need to be invited to apply (there are on-line invitations to all employers) but let us say that half of those honoured with invitations applied. That represents corporate proceeds for Mediacorp of over $3 million, just to rank some applications. Even 1% of the 75,000 employers give a Mediacorp revenue of almost $400 thousand. And who pays for the Citizen insert...?

[It can't be harder than grading two hundred physics final exam papers if you don't have to show the losers any results, can narrow it down to the top few hundred contestants and can't be forced to show the scores or name your helpers...]

In its LETTER, Mediacorp explains that such corporate prize schemes either have to sell "consulting services to employers" (which Mediacorp does not do) or charge an "application fee".

UofOWatch is of the opinion that this thing is a corporate scam driven by desperate employers that need positive media attention.

It is shameful, in our opinion, that the University of Ottawa is using public and student tuition money to buy into this corporate vanity scheme rather than actually improve the university for its students.

U of O President Allan Rock is quoted at length in the U of O press release developing the idea that the award "is a testimony to the quality of those who work here more than anything else ... our human resources are our most precious resource ... support staff and professors ..." etc.

It's an award to employers for how they treat their employees (sick leave, parental leave, vacations, dental insurance, etc.) and Mr. Rock says that this is a testimony to the employees. That at least seems honest: The University has generally not agreed to benefits and improved conditions which instead were fought for by the employees.

How sad is this? U of O news release pushes the boundaries of tragedy

The latest U of O news release reads:

"More students make the University of Ottawa their first choice for post-secondary education"

The University of Ottawa for the latest several years has been in the basement of national student satisfaction surveys, as in last place (!), despite President Allan Rock's vehement statements that it is his first priority to fix this appalling statistic. [See Macleans' university rankings since Rock started his mandate; e.g., HERE]

The Rock administration appears desperate to report positive news. This latest release is simply sad:

A university education should elucidate the fact that as a population increases so will university applications, in every category... It would be news if applications did not increase.

The other obvious point is the question of statistical significance. In those years (not worthy of a press release) when the number of applications decreases is the decrease statistically significant? And how large is the celebrated "increase" compared to the year to year fluctuations?

I know that these are statistical concepts not particularly common in press releases, but after all this is a university. You would expect it to attempt to raise the intellectual level of public discourse rather than use opportunistic devices of cheap marketing propaganda.

And of course Rock himself signs the action:

"These results clearly reflect our excellence and increased ability to make our success known to others. Students from across Canada recognize the quality of our university and want to be among our outstanding graduates,” says President Allan Rock.

OK but even if the numbers were valid would there not be other more likely interpretations of the causes?

Such as: U of O offers more and richer entrance scholarships than other second-rate universities and we are in an economic depression? (as many students have shared with us...)

Or: U of O has aggressively recruited in foreign markets (where parents don't read Macleans magazine)?

It looks like the Rock administration's solution to increase student satisfaction is to have more unsatisfied students?

Or is propaganda Rock's main plan? That would also appear to be the case.

The university has not announced any research effort to identify why U of O students are consistently so dissatisfied with their experience, compared to all other Canadian universities. Nor has it announced any program specifically targeted at eliminating the media-reported publicly identified causes of student dissatisfaction.

Addendum: This U of O press release reminds me of a 1991 trip to China where it was explained to me that the giant Chinese symbols in the message flower bed on Tienanmen Square said "Socialism is good" but that most Chinese were of the opinion that this needed to be demonstrated rather than simply proclaimed. Mao had been wiser in his youth. There is no reported evidence of this with Rock.

The President has created a "Service to the World" bureaucracy with associated cheerleading overhead but there remains a crying need for "service to the student"; something authentic in-class and on-campus experience would solve and that cannot be healed with propaganda. The Rock administration needs to discover basics and to plan beyond one or two election cycles.

Alternatively, the Board of Governors will need to consider that Mister "shit magnets in his pockets" is not doing the trick.

[Image copyright: University of Ottawa; media room header.]

Kill the messenger::: Dean goes after student for complaint about research supervisor

Well there you have it: The Allan Rock crew is at it again


By Denis G. Rancourt


U of O physics graduate student and university Senate member Joseph Hickey has recently made public some disturbing revelations: HERE.

Given significant evidence of a problem in research supervision, instead of investigating in view of intervening as required, the dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Post-doctoral Studies (FGPS), Gary Slater, attacked Hickey as the bearer of the message.

The attack on Hickey is particularly noteworthy given that the administration’s and Slater’s actions were diametrically opposed to this in their treatment of similar circumstances surrounding the administrative mobbing and dismissal of tenured physics professor and internationally recognized researcher Denis Rancourt: HERE and HERE (and Labour Law grievance G18 HERE).

The two cases (Rancourt, Hickey) are in stunning dissonance. (Slater even invents a non-existent policy to thwart Hickey.)

In one case (Rancourt), Slater initiated and pushed for immediate expulsion from the FGPS based on a fabricated student complaint (that the student denounced and that is now the subject of a private lawsuit against former physics chairman Richard Hodgson) and based on contrived allegations by Slater unanimously contradicted by all (eight) graduate students supervised by Rancourt.

In this case (Rancourt), Slater and the administration executed an unjustified wrongly-motivated expulsion of a highly regarded researcher and supervisor, without regard for student wishes or due process.

The illegal administrative mobbing against Rancourt is documented in many communications that are disclosure-denied based on the legalistic machination known as “solicitor-client privilege”, despite the fact that such mobbing is a violation of labour law in the academic work environment. (Fortunately, some of these records were disclosed in access to information (ATI) requests, possibly due to administrative errors.)

Whereas in the other case (Hickey), significant evidence for concern was not enough to move Slater to even investigate; preferring to turn on Hickey in order to protect an apparently deficient research supervisor.

UofOWatch has learned, through independent and direct confirmation, that the supervisor in question protected by Slater is the dean of the Faculty of Science, Andre E. Lalonde.

Lalonde, as Rancourt’s boss, had vigorously contributed to Slater’s and the administration’s campaign to turf Rancourt from the FGPS, thereby barring him from supervision and from access to research grants – in a concerted attempt to facilitate the professor’s unjustified dismissal.

Yet on the face of it, Rancourt’s contributions to graduate student supervision and research were stellar whereas Lalonde’s recent contributions are, in this writer’s professional opinion, at best borderline acceptable if he follows his supervisory responsibilities. Lalonde does not hold an NSERC Discovery Grant, is virtually not publishing, and appears to have no time to supervise at least one of his graduate students (see the Hickey report HERE).

Yet, we learn from Slater that Lalonde’s membership in the FGPS was recently enthusiastically renewed rather than investigated for deficiency (HERE).

My my my ... I think this is what is generally considered “arbitrary or discriminatory”, when it is not outright targeting in violation of a professor’s rights.

One has to wonder what prompted Slater and Lalonde to pursue such a tenuous path against Rancourt so vigorously, even using a fabricated student complaint and refusing to include the student’s denunciation letter in the file.

The Allan Rock crew was in full swing.

[All supporting documents available to the media on request.]

[Image copyrights: Julian Assange - public domain; Slater and Lalonde - University of Ottawa.]

U of O Senate's crisis of democracy has been solved

This is a follow up to a previous post about a historic development at the Senate of the University of Ottawa: LINK.

The Senate of the University of Ottawa is the highest governing body on all academic matters in the institution, pursuant to the University of Ottawa Act, 1965.

In law, the Senate instructs executive management on all academic matters.

The Senate is intended to work as a democratic body, at the top of the collegial governance apparatus, where senators as equals authentically engage and make collective decisions.

Instead, the Senate at the University of Ottawa has become a showcase where the university executive managers decide on the agenda, veto motions before they can be considered, decide when discussions should end, write the minutes, and even declare when a "consensus" has been reached in the face of repeatedly voiced opposition (see video of January 10, 2011, meeting).

Fortunately Senate sessions are now filmed and made public (thanks to student activism) such that astute observers can ascertain what a sham it has become. Where are our brave tenured colleagues who work in the areas of institutional analysis, democracy studies, ... ?

In an effort to partly correct the administrative hijacking of Senate, some student senators had advanced that rules of procedure were needed that guaranteed democratic procedures, such as the iconic Robert's Rules of procedure. (LINK)

The embarrassment that no rules of procedure existed for Senate was enough that the student proposal could not be ignored, although this was the executives' main initial recommendation. (LINK)

Therefore, the executive management of "Canada's university" needed to solve the impending crisis of democracy whereby rules of procedure might create some room for democratic process.

The executives' solution was twofold:

(1) Provide interim rules which conveniently fit on one page, which leave out all the fluff about the democratic rights of senators, and which are a point-form list of the Chair's (which at U of O is the University President) functional role in ending discussions, calling the vote, declaring "consensus", etc.; without any mention of how motions are added to the agenda, for example.

(2) Do not create a Senate committee to study the question of procedural rules for six months, until after the mandates of the pesky students who brought this up are over.

The second arm of this solution is clever and was needed after the executives' first attempt -- which was to have the executive managers name the members to the new Senate committee -- was exposed as a device to exclude the student who had spearheaded the rules issue.

After missing two Senate meetings, you can tell that President Allan Rock is back, just in time to solve this crisis in democracy; although VP-Governance Diane Davidson was well on her way to achieving a solution.

Note that both Allan Rock and Diana Davidson are outside executives, not named from the professorial ranks.

Senators: Stand up, your noses are brown.

Reality Check::: In the Ukraine they ELECT university presidents

It is a well kept secret in North America that in most of the rest of the world students and/or staff elect their university presidents.

In most of the rest of the world, university presidents are elected not selected.

For example, in the Ukraine the news is not that there are elections for university president but rather that the elections are alleged to have been interfered with by the government: HERE and HERE.

In Canada, not only has the problem of elections been solved (where such a concept is not even on the radar) but also the problem of institutional independence is being solved by simply naming politicians as presidents.

By comparison, virtually all of Latin America and most of Europe have elected university presidents (and also deans of faculties) and only the least democratic countries on the planet have outside politicians named to these positions.

In Canada, not only are outside former politicians installed as presidents but the university administrations do this themselves without being explicitly directed; thereby showing the highest possible level of deference to corporate influence and of disregard for institutional independence and academic freedom.

At "Canada's university" (aka University of Ottawa) this is how the president is selected: HERE.

RELATED POST:
Allan Rock's record on professional ethics

Video of president Allan Rock at work

BREAKING NEWS::: Student Marc Kelly wins trespass trial - Cops, University, Crown were wrong

[Photo: Marc Kelly through the window of the SFUO-SAC office just before Ottawa Police barged in to arrest him.]

OTTAWA, December 14, 2010: Marc Kelly court decision released - victory for students and for student sovereignty over student space.

The February 2, 2010, campus arrests of mathematics-physics student Marc Kelly and student union president Seamus Wolfe at the University of Ottawa were depicted in two popular Youtube videos (HERE, HERE) and were reported in the national media HERE.

(The videos were made by student University Senate member Joseph Hickey.)

By using a student union lawyer to bargain for diversion (community service), Wolfe effectively admitted guilt to the false-arrest charge of "disturbing the peace by swearing" for saying "fuck face" under his breath to the Ottawa Police sergeant on the scene (Sgt. Mallet) who had overseen the false-arrest of Kelly.

Kelly pleaded not guilty, went to trial self-represented against the Crown, the cops, the University, and University Legal Counsel Alain Roussy who attended the entire trial, and won in a precedent-setting ruling released today by judge L. Girault at the Provincial Offenses Court in Ottawa, Ontario.

The charge was trespass despite the fact that Kelly was in the Student Appeal Centre (SAC) office of the student union consulting on the University's illegitimate trespass order against him.

The scholarship student had previously been unilaterally de-registered from his study program and exiled from campus without justification (HERE) by a vindictive administration that did not take kindly to Kelly's well known (and TV-broadcast) direct appeal to president Allan Rock, revealing Rock to be verbally abusive (HERE).

The ruling establishes what should have been obvious to Roussy (or co-Counsel Kathryn Prud'homme, who informed the police otherwise) that the student union, the Student Federation University of Ottawa (SFUO), not the University is the legal occupier of SFUO offices.

Indeed, Roussy and Prud'homme were in the possession of an agreement between the SFUO and the University of Ottawa, signed at the highest university level (VP-Resources), which explicitly stated that the SFUO was the legal occupier. (Arguably the SFUO still owns the University Centre!)

The main part of the trial had been held on December 2, 2010, where an impressive array of large men and women in and out of bullet proof vests testified or were present to testify against Kelly:

• Claude Giroux, campus police chief
• D. Levesque, Ottawa Police
• Nicholas Lavoie, campus police
• Ryan Macdonald, campus police
• Alexander Macpherson, campus police
• Brian Vissers, spy camera coordinator, university
• Nathalie Charlebois, lead investigator, campus police
• Sgt. Mallet, Ottawa Police (not present on Dec.2nd)

In addition, Roussy attended the trial and consulted with Crown lawyer Bruce Lee-Shanok, and dean of the Faculty of Science Andre E. Lalonde had been subpoenaed but was on call in lieu of showing.

Lalonde had spotted Kelly in the SAC office on February 2nd and, apparently recognizing the significant and immediate danger to the institution, had called campus security presumably in a panic.

The behaviours of Roussy/Prud'homme and Lalonde were unprofessional but so was that of Ottawa Police.

The Ottawa Police consulted only Roussy/Prud'homme and disregarded the the clear and repeated legal occupancy information provided to them by SAC Director Mireille Gervais (a law graduate), SFUO President Seamus Wolfe and teacher assistant union (CUPE Local 2626) President Sean Kelly (see video). Ottawa Police then told the SFUO president they would wait for him to produce the rental contract of the office space and then five minutes later (see video) forced their way into the SAC office without a warrant and arrested Kelly.

After that, you wonder why they didn't also knee him in the thigh repeatedly and strip search him?

In addition, Constable D. Levesque of Ottawa Police blatantly lied under oath at the December 2nd trial hearing. He said he had an excellent memory of the events and that he had most definitely watched the Youtube video but that he himself had not asked for the rental contract (see 54 seconds into the video when he clearly asks Wolfe for the rental contract). Levesque added that if he had received the contract he would have reconsidered the arrest but that he had already waited (he inferred from his notes) approximately 29 minutes (see video, less than 5 minutes passed between asking for the contract and the decision to arrest). One wonders what Constable Levesque's testimony would be like if he did not have an "excellent" memory additionally supported by an unedited Youtube video that he watched?

At trial Judge L. Girault refused to look at the video that Kelly repeatedly asked to show to the court and that would have established the many improper actions of the police and Levesque's perjury.

If judges don't show initiative in examining police behaviour then students on campuses will continue to be mistreated by Ottawa's finest only too happy to serve the Rock administration.

Nonetheless, Kelly's closing arguments (delivered after he was arrested in court at lunch recess on December 2nd on unrelated charges of failing to appear in court!) were sharp and legalistic, leaving the court little room to find him guilty.

This case is precedent setting: The SFUO is the legal occupier of its premises. You can thank Marc Kelly.

RELATED POSTS:
Our previous report of the Marc Kelly trespass trial

A link between the Kelly exile and the Rancourt firing: The link is Rock

Dean of science will step down at end of academic year

It was announced internally (see below) by Allan Rock that the dean of the Faculty of Science, Andre E. Lalonde, will step down at the end of the university academic year.

Lalonde was the dean who accepted to participate in the University of Ottawa administration's coordinated campaign under Allan Rock to dismiss tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt.

The campaign was ordered by Allan Rock, largely coordinated by then VP-Academic Robert Major, and involved regular meetings and communications with hired corporate lawyers, University Legal Counsel, several VPs, several deans, several department chairpersons, retired professor Raymond St-Jacques hired as a consultant, human resources bosses, the director of the Marketing Services and Communications Office, and several administrative assistants.

By contrast, workplace procedures foresee an independent investigation by an independent dean (the dean of Science for a physics professor) who would write his own letters.

In a public report about the Rancourt dismissal, academic workplace expert Professor Kenneth Westhues called it an "administrative mobbing". See the Westhues report HERE.

Lalonde will go back to being a regular professor.

The announcement comes in the midst of a large Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) adjudication involving Lalonde (LINK) and after he was found by UofOWatch to have lied in his dealings related to a previous IPC adjudication (LINK).

[2012-05-09 correction: In the paragraph above, "he was found to have lied in a previous IPC adjudication" has been corrected to "he was found by UofOWatch to have lied in his dealings related to a previous IPC adjudication".]

-----------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010
Subject: Message from the President

After a full and successful five years in his position, Dean André E. Lalonde of the Faculty of Science has asked to be replaced as of July 1, 2011. Let me therefore take this occasion to thank him for his outstanding work and to remind you what a contribution he has made.

André E. Lalonde (BSc Honours ‘78) joined the Faculty in 1985 as a lecturer in the Department of Earth Sciences. He was promoted to assistant professor in 1986, granted tenure in 1990, promoted to associate professor in 1992 and then to full professor in 2001. In August 2006, he became the acting dean, a post he held until July 2007, when he was appointed dean. An accomplished geologist, he is one of the few people who can claim to have a mineral, lalondeite, named in his honour.

Dean Lalonde has presided over a period of growth and accomplishment in the Faculty. He has shown himself to be capable of handling the challenges of being a leader with the highest degree of professionalism, a "people person" who values and celebrates the contributions of all those he works with. He is responsible for hiring over 30 professors in his faculty. This includes 9 science lecturers involved in a highly successful pilot-project in science pedagogy, 5 Canada Research Chairs and world-renowned researchers such as Paul Corkum and Robert Boyd. Under his leadership, his faculty recently received over $35M in research funding from two major combined Canada Foundation for Innovation and Ontario Research Fund grants and a Canada Excellence Research Chair in Quantum Nonlinear Optics. He believes that science can be taught and researched in a fully bilingual setting, thus assuring the continued relevance of the French language in this field.

While we will miss his contributions as dean, we are happy that André Lalonde will be returning to the classroom, where he has achieved national recognition for his rapport with students, teaching mineralogy and geology in the Department of Earth Sciences. I know he's excited to be teaching once more, and students will be fortunate to have him as their professor, cultivating their love of the sciences.

A selection committee will soon be struck to hire a new dean for the Faculty.

Allan Rock
President and Vice-Chancellor

Did the dean destroy records and lie in affidavit?

In an access to information (ATI) request dating back to 2008 the dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa, Andre E. Lalonde, was asked to produce all records (emails) about then professor of physics Denis Rancourt’s weekly Cinema Politica film and discussion series.

The series was opposed by the university administration and ran continuously during the academic year under Rancourt’s sponsorship between 2005 and 2009. Rancourt and student Marc Kelly were arrested by Ottawa Police at Cinema Politica on campus on January 23, 2009, as reported by the national media.

A legal appeal of the ATI case is presently under adjudication with the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario: IPC appeal No. PA08-97-2.

The ATI request and its adjudication have revealed the following.

First the dean would not respond pursuant to ATI law and the university had to be ordered by the IPC to immediately produce the records: IPC Order PO-2671.

Under order, the University responded with disclosed records on its imposed deadline of May 14, 2008.

Later, under appeal, the University was forced to perform three more searches for all the dean’s records relating to Cinema Politica. These are electronic searches using keywords and should be immediate yet each new search found significant numbers of new records which had not previously been found or released.

More disturbingly, the University and the dean claimed to have lost the records it had first disclosed, between May 14, 2008, and the launch of the IPC appeal, and claimed to be unable to find many of these records again via its three new and extensive searches.

The requester (Denis Rancourt) was able to identify twenty one (21) records that the University never found again. These were most sensitive records and involved the following correspondents (including the President, two VPs, Legal Counsel, the Human Resources boss, etc.):

• Andrée Dumulon, Director, Communications Office, University Relations
• Bela Joos, chairman of Physics
• Gilles Patry, President
• Julie Cafley, Executive Assistant to the President
• Louise Page-Valin, Human Resources boss
• Luciana Ion, Administrative Assistant, VP-Academic's office
• Luciana Vaduva, Project Officer, Office of VP-Academic
• Michelle Flaherty, University Legal Counsel
• Paul Mercier, Computer Systems Manager and member of the Board of Governors
• Raymond St-Jacques, retired professor and consultant
• Richard Hodgson, former chairman of Physics
• Robert Major, VP-Academic
• Victor Simon, VP-Resources

How could the university lose these records while subject to an IPC investigation?

In the meantime the University tried to satisfy the IPC Adjudicator by providing an affidavit from dean Andre E. Lalonde.

The dean’s affidavit (dated August 30, 2010, HERE) states:

• (point-2) that he has the practice of keeping all emails of interest to the University
• (point-3) that he has never destroyed or lost any emails
• (point-5) that in May 2008 (first batch) he searched his electronic emails
• (point-7) that later in May 2008 he sent these to Legal Counsel (first batch)
• (point-9, point-11) that in February and March 2009 he performed a far more extensive search of his same electronic emails
• (point-12) that he was the sender or a recipient of all respondent records

The dean swears that no records were lost or destroyed and that the same electronic data bank was searched again (in 2009) far more extensively. Yet 21 highly sensitive records (list provided to the IPC) were not found.

At best the University and the dean are being disingenuous in advancing that they performed a reasonable search.

At worst the dean illegally destroyed respondent records and lied in affidavit.

The requester knows dean Lalonde to be very meticulous and careful with electronic data.

Since the later searches (2009) are reported to have been extensive and involved the additional on-site help of two other individuals specializing in ATI searches and since the 21 records in question are sensitive documents and represent almost one fifth of the records in the first (May 14, 2008) batch, we conclude that it is probable that the dean illegally destroyed respondent records and lied in affidavit.

The same dean has lied previously regarding a different ATI request, as publicly reported HERE.

The University was asked to comment or correct any information in the latter report and did not respond, except one respondent (Alain St-Amant, Chairman of Chemistry) who did not deny any of the elements in the report – see St-Amant’s response made public HERE.

It appears that lying to the IPC and disregarding ATI law may be a little too common in the Faculty of Science?

RELATED POSTS:
Allan Rock lies and lies and lies
Victor Simon lies
Gilles Patry covers up lies
Dean Andre E. Lalonde lies
Diane Davidson covers up
Michelle Flaherty runs covert campaign
Nathalie Des Rosiers does her job
Robert Major is himself

And even more himself...

It took 163 years: U of O Senate to consider adopting rules of procedure

Until recently there has been no need for debate...

by Denis G. Rancourt

I attended a grand meeting of the Senate of the University of Ottawa today in Tabaret Hall, U of O campus, Ottawa, Canada. The Senate is the highest governing body on all academic matters by virtue of the University of Ottawa Act, 1965. The university was founded in 1848.

President Allan Rock was absent. VP-Academic Francois Houle (of Anne Coulter fame) presided. VP-Governance Diane Davidson attended by speaker phone from home.

Dean of the Faculty of Science Andre E. Lalonde came into the boardroom before the start of the proceedings just to say hello to me and then left and never came back; despite being slated to present the new Financial Mathematics and Economics Undergraduate Honours Program?

For several months now student member of Senate Joseph Hickey and others have been trying to clarify what the rules of procedure might be. Hickey reports this on his blog about U of O Senate (LINK).

The matter arose in part because Hickey believes that discussion on key points (such as the procedures for rewarding friends of the university administration with honorary degrees) is too often arbitrarily curtailed by the chair or allowed to be curtailed in order to pass items proposed by the administration.

In a previous discussion, when Houle stated that he would arbitrarily invoke Code Morin rules of procedure at will depending on the circumstances but not at other times, Hickey became particularly concerned.

Hickey and student Senate member Martin Schoots-McAlpine have been pressing the administration to state the rules of procedures for Senate.

Remarkably, no one in the institution knew if rules of procedure had ever been adopted by Senate or what the rules might be. A detailed search of the university archives had to be undertaken in preparation for today's meeting.

It appeared today that Hickey is making significant headway towards adoption of the novel idea that "Canada's university" (as the branding slogan goes) would have rules of procedure at Senate.

Davidson reported that the U of O Senate (back to 1930 according to Davidson) has never adopted rules of procedure.

Davidson further reported that she had thoroughly investigated the matter and found that all other university senates in her sample (in Canada) have written rules of procedure (surprise!), based on the Code Morin, Robert's Rules, other codes and often in-house adaptations of existing codes.

We conclude that the U of O really is unique. Hickey takes this to be a sign that there has never been debate at Senate (LINK).

Davidson's stated recommendation to Senate, based on her study, is the status quo - no written rules and the chair (the university president) decides. It's called "established practice" but nobody could remember what the practice had been, not even whether or not rules of order had even been adopted by Senate.

Davidson explained, and this was echoed by Houle, that the procedure has been "consensus". So it appears that the Senate has always been in "consensus" with motions put forward by the administration.

No mention was made to define "consensus" which was said to be the venerable past and now recommended practice. If a majority of student senate members disagree is that "consensus"? If two members who are experts on the matter vehemently disagree is that consensus?

I asked senator Linda Pietrantonio (Vice-Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences) what this "consensus procedure" was that Davidson and Houle kept parroting. She said "No idea!".

At a next meeting the Senate will attempt to decide (following as yet unknown rules of order) how it will study the possibility of proposing rules of order.

That's progress.

Allan Rock's personal commitment to the community vs. subterfuge

"My answer is the document that says I'm not answering. There."


From: Denis Rancourt <>
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: Your personal written commitment to the community
To: president@uottawa.ca, allan.rock@uottawa.ca
Cc: Stephane Emard-Chabot

November 30, 2010

Allan Rock
President
University of Ottawa

Re: Your personal written commitment to the community

Dear Allan,

On November 28, 2010, I sent you the email BELOW with a request for your clarifications and intervention.

On November 30, 2010, I received the response BELOW from hired lawyer Lynn Harnden. Mr. Harnden states that you have answered in a Reply to the related Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) Application.

Mr. Harnden must be confused. The Reply to the OLRB Application alleges that you are in no way involved in this matter “Rock requests that the Application be dismissed because there are no material facts or particulars alleging that he has violated any section of the Act.”

You can see this in point-4 of Schedule A here:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/Data/Documents/olrb/for-post=UofO-Response=2010-11-19=OLRB-File-No-2567-10-U.PDF

The Reply, therefore, cannot logically be taken as your answer regarding your personal written commitment to the community that the law would be followed and that I would always be given due process.

Since you made a personal commitment to the community, it seems to me that you should personally explain yourself rather than using this subterfuge provided by Mr. Harnden.

Please do so and resolve the matter by receiving my duly filed and overdue grievances. Follow the law Allan.

I await your response.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt
Former physics professor, University of Ottawa

Cc: Civil society, the media, the community

------------------------------------------------------

From: Lynn Harnden
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:38 PM
Subject: Ontario Labour Relations Board - File No. 2567-10-U
To: Denis Rancourt <>

Mr. Rancourt:

I have for reply your email of November 23, 2010 to President Allan Rock.

You reference in your email the matters which are currently under review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board as a result of your application (File No. 2567-10-U).

The issues raised in your email have been addressed in the Reply which has been filed on behalf of President Rock.

Please forward any future communications which touch on this matter to my attention.

Lynn Harnden
Emond Harnden
Direct: 613-940-2731
Tel: 613-563-7660
Fax: 613-563-8001

This e-mail is intended solely for the individual or company to whom it is addressed. The information contained herein is privileged and confidential.
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, other than by its intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete from your records. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------

RELATED POSTS:
Is Allan Rock disregarding the law in Rancourt case?
List of ethical breaches of Allan Rock
OLRB case at academicfreedom.ca

Is Allan Rock disregarding the law in the Rancourt academic freedom case? – OLRB complaint filed

University of Ottawa president Allan Rock is the Responding Party in an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) Application filed by former physics professor Denis Rancourt (OLRB File No. 2567-10-U).

The OLRB is the judicial body charged with enforcing labour law (the Labour Relations Act) in Ontario, Canada.

In the period around January 2009 when the Rock administration was executing its political dismissal of dissident professor Rancourt, more than one hundred students and community members and many professors wrote to Allan Rock to protest the planned dismissal. [See “Letters of Support” top-menu-item on THIS web page.]

Allan Rock responded the same way to all or most of the letter writers as, for example:

On 7-Jan-09, at 12:14 PM, Allan Rock wrote to James Douglas:

Thank you for your recent message.

The relationship between the University and its faculty members, including Professor Rancourt, is governed by a collective agreement.

In all of its dealings with Professor Rancourt, the University has complied strictly with the terms of that collective agreement, and will continue to do so.

Professor Rancourt has due process and opportunities for recourse through this collective agreement and his union.

Kind regards,
Allan Rock

Contrary to his thus stated personal commitment to the community, Allan Rock has repudiated the collective agreement by refusing to process three recent labour law grievances on particularly sensitive matters:

• managing a broad campaign (2006-2008) of covert information gathering practiced against Rancourt and several students (link to grievance G25),

• executing a direct interference with research academic freedom in the area of climate change physics (link to grievance G26),

• fabricating false concerns about the professor’s “physical and mental well-being” (link to grievance G27)

Rancourt has made the OLRB Application and Allan Rock’s Response to the Board public HERE.

Rancourt’s OLRB Application is rigorously constructed and shows an unacceptable violation of the professor’s rights (LINK).

In contrast, the OLRB Response filed for Rock by his lawyers of the Emond Harnden LLP law firm [Lynn Harnden, photo] is confused, contradictory, and tenuous (LINK).

For example, the Response contains the following.

- It argues that the complaint has no merit and should be summarily dismissed by the Board, that Rock is not personally linked to any of the facts of the case, then goes on to provide 83 pages of response and supporting documents.

- It argues that the three grievances cannot be received because they were filed after Rancourt was fired, yet the University received the dismissal grievance (G24) which was filed after the dismissal.

- It does not seem to matter with the geniuses at Emond Harnden LLP or with Rock that the alleged violations in the three grievances occurred while Rancourt was a tenured professor but were only discovered or confirmed later, as explicitly foreseen by the collective agreement.

- Nor does it seem to matter that the collective agreement is written in English (and also in French) since Rock and his lawyers take the position: “the Responding Party disagrees with all of the legal conclusions and arguments made by the Applicant”.

- Rock and his lawyers argue that the OLRB is not the proper venue for the complaint, that they are not repudiating or disregarding the law, but that instead this should be viewed as “a difference in interpretation” of the law that should be handled by filing a grievance. We’re not making this up...: The OLRB complaint in which Rock refuses to process collective agreement grievances because they were filed after Rancourt’s dismissal should be handled by a new collective agreement grievance... Ah hum.

- Rock and his lawyers go on to state that letters where the university contradicted itself or changed its position (as in from white to black) were simply not contradictions: “The Responding Party denies its emails … were contradictory as alleged.” OKey… so saying you will process a grievance and later saying you will not process the grievance is not contradicting yourself. Alright then let’s see how that actually works in a hearing?

- The case law that Rock and his lawyers put forth to argue that Rock, the CEO of University of Ottawa Inc., was not involved in any material way is one where a company where the alleged violations took place could not be shown to be a subsidiary of the accused company. Just seems like a bit of a stretch to this non-lawyer…?
.
.
.
And it just goes on like that without ever addressing the substantive arguments made by Rancourt. That’s law? Do they normally win by bullying or what?

A cynical analyst might conclude that these lawyers know a secret; that logic and meaning carry little weight at the OLRB? Hopefully, that is not the case. Hopefully a Board hearing is nothing like parliament.

RELATED:
Letter to Allan Rock requesting that he resolve the matter