Dear Editor,
Re: District must guard privacy, THE RECORD, Mar. 26, 2008.
The ink fish, when it senses danger, releases a cloud of ink, in which it hides until a later time, so that it can emerge when safer conditions prevail.
The series of news articles and letters in the RECORD, culminating with the above referenced letter from School Board Chair Michael Ewen, provide us with a view of actions by Ewen that mirror those of the ink fish when its alarms go off. Ewen would have us believe that the matter facing the Royal City Education foundation is one of the District guarding the privacy of scholarship and bursary winners. The fact that the winners’ names are published in the community newspapers and that they are also announced at convocation exercises shows the utter absurdity of this argument. It is the cloud of the ink fish.
The real issue, as it always is at
Many people in this community question as to how the School Board could reach such a dysfunctional and deplorable state.
The account of the Mar. 11 School Board meeting by reporter Niki Hope gives us some insights to the question.
First, how is it that the School Board deals with substantive issues with only four of its members present? Although quorum requirements are met, this is no way to conduct business.
Second, the lack of professional approach in acquiring legal opinions is extraordinary. Questions of law should be presented to legal counsel, in written form and answers should also be supplied, in written form, to all members of the board. To have this all done verbally by the chair is a recipe for disaster. It leads errors, is an abuse of process, and indeed, that night resulted in the bullying, by the chair, of a dissenting board member. That Trustees Watt and Bennett voted with the Ewen on this issue ( incidentally, they are members of the same political slate), speaks to their lack of judgment, ethics and their sense of decorum.
Third, the board deals on a verbal basis on almost all matters brought before it. Often, there are no written reports distributed in advance to interested parties. Much of the discussion and decision- making that should take place at open meetings is done in closed meetings. Again, we see a huge deficit in transparency and accountability. It is no wonder then, that except for a very few dedicated people or for crisis situations, public participation in board matters is almost negligible.
The public committee meetings Ewen once boasted about have ground to a halt.
The time has come for a complete forensic audit, of both finance and process, at
Director, Voice
Posts
3 comments:
What a great analogy. I agree with your need for aforensic audit at the school board and related shell outfits.
To Voice, keep up the good work, you are exposing some of the dark secrets that have axisted for some time
Joseph S.
Michael Shermer once said that “people have some very smart ways of rationalizing assumptions they began with for very unsmart reasons.” With this morass of bursary troubles, we have been overwhelmed by examples.
Royal City Education Foundation has “never received” donations from the PAC; yet receipts prove they have indeed received donations for the bursary. They are issuing “tax-deductible receipts” to donors, yet they have allowed their charity status to expire. Then they claim to be “advised” that the Privacy Act prevents disclosure of names of bursary scholarships award winners.
Is an award of honour and achievement some shameful secret? Are we to infer that scholars are not supposed to put awards on their resumes and that it’s illegal for names to be announced at honour ceremonies? What sense does that make? And what supposed Law advisor could ever accept all these glaring contradictions at once?
I understand that the trustees who were absent on that day had good cause and were unable to attend. So in that case, why did the chair not defer such a substantive issue? No explanation. And why was this vital issue discussed and voted on without the written legal advice in hand? (I trust that he was advised by a professional?) And why violate the rules of decorum at the board table? Good professionalism includes manners.
Moreover, why do the same names which appear in the RCEF and SD40 Board also happen to be directing the SD40 Business Company? Just how many hats are these same people wearing?
As readers know, that is the dear old business company still struggling along after losing a million dollars over the past five years on borrowed funds. And there are still supporters who hope it may squeak out a small profit the year after next even if it fails to make it next year, if only the many opponents would be more patient.
New Westminster District is certainly in need of openness and accountability long overdue, and a proper arm’s length held between various institutions. This must also be perceived as proper and responsible by the public if voters’ faith and confidence is ever to be restored. Hence, the people of New Westminster need an alternative Voice to be heard.
Never mind seeing the ink fish I can smell fish out of water for some time!
Post a Comment