So we are getting some Ministerial musings about the timing of the proclamation of the "new" Alberta Human Rights Act. We are hearing it is set for this October or November, well after school starts and up to 6 months after the new Act was passed.
I can't see any reason to not proclaim it now and lets get this litigation circus and abuse of teachers going right off the bat when school starts in September.
Surely this law was well enough thought out in the first place that all they have to do is proclaim it and get on with it. Or, is it the case that "the powers that be" don't have a frigging clue about what the real implications of this law will be and it is now just starting to sink in?
Could it be that there are wiser minds and some bigger brains in the back rooms of provincial power are having a serious second thought? Is Cabinet getting cold feet about proclaiming the opting out provisions in Section 9 of the new law? I don't think so.
This ill-conceived law was rammed through with a reckless "damn the torpedoes" attitude in a show of pure and raw political power at play. Nothing has changed in the meantime and to retreat from a folly is never seen as preferred political option.
Besides isn't the strategic political plan to just get past this public rage over Bill 44 so it will be forgotten by the next election. Further delay just gives more time for more events to happen that would just rekindle the public rage. I see nothing to indicate that the government has all of a sudden had an epiphany and received some enlightenment and would now decide to repeal Section 9 "opting out" provisions instead. That would be good government. It just seems too late for our policy makers and law makers to choose that good government road. Sadly , it is road that is much less travelled by in Alberta these days.
If this horrendous law is as benign as the government assures us, what's the hold up? Cabinet makes the proclamation and it meets in the summer. School starts in a few weeks. Give teachers, trustees and parents some certainty (sic) and proclaim the damn law now and lets see what happens sooner than later.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Ct of Appeal Says Contempt of Court Means Jail Time but Community Service is an Alternative.
The Court of Appeal has wrestled with what is an appropriate penalty for Mr Ouelette's contempt of court for failing to promptly obey an earlier order of the court. Here is the Judgment.
The Justice reviewed the Rules that apply and here are the options: A fine but that would likely be covered by the province (we taxpayers) and that would mean no real skin off the former Directors nose.
Imprisonment until the contempt is "purged" but that purging was done the day before the second hearing on the contempt issue because the original court order was complied with and the child was returned as ordered. So that penalty is not appropriate. The Court noted, however, had the child not been returned at the last minute, imprisonment until the order was complied with may well have been appropriate, but not any more.
The final option under the Rules is imprisonment for up to 2 years but the court thought that was "harsh" so an alternative was sought between prison and a fine.
The possible resolution of the "quandary" was community service and there is case law that allows for this finding. Here is where it gets interesting and the wisdom of the courts and the judgment of the Bench come into focus. I love it when you see justice done in this way.
The final decision was to sentence Mr. Oulette to 8 days in prison for his contempt, to start once he got back from his holidays. However, the court gives Mr. Ouelette an option to avoid going to jail. He can do unpaid community service of 40 hours with a charitable organization or municipal government by October 31, 2009 and it must "not be in the child protection areas."
In addition the court ordered the payment of the solicitor-client costs of the lawyer acting for the foster mother and the child B.M. throughout the various stages. It left it up to the government to decide if it would pay those cost on behalf of Mr. Ouelette. That will likely be the case. However if the costs are not paid, then a motion could be brought to send Mr. Ouelette to jail on that basis too.
I think this is a very fair and appropriate penalty. The factors the court considered in arriving at it are interesting too. There was no "profit or bad intent" by the Director but a "considerable degree of carelessness." Since Mr Ouelette is no long in this position it is unlikely that there will be a recurrence by him. There was an apology and explanation given to the courts that served to mitigate penalty and the possibility that he received "poor legal advice."
Key to this court finding was also a "need for general deterrence (of others); and need for denunciation." These latter two heads of consideration go to the issue of the leadership, management and culture of the department which is what needs to be seriously reconsidered and fixed by the looks of it.
So that part of the drama is over. Now lets look at how well the child's interests were served in all of this and monitor how the department is responding.
The Justice reviewed the Rules that apply and here are the options: A fine but that would likely be covered by the province (we taxpayers) and that would mean no real skin off the former Directors nose.
Imprisonment until the contempt is "purged" but that purging was done the day before the second hearing on the contempt issue because the original court order was complied with and the child was returned as ordered. So that penalty is not appropriate. The Court noted, however, had the child not been returned at the last minute, imprisonment until the order was complied with may well have been appropriate, but not any more.
The final option under the Rules is imprisonment for up to 2 years but the court thought that was "harsh" so an alternative was sought between prison and a fine.
The possible resolution of the "quandary" was community service and there is case law that allows for this finding. Here is where it gets interesting and the wisdom of the courts and the judgment of the Bench come into focus. I love it when you see justice done in this way.
The final decision was to sentence Mr. Oulette to 8 days in prison for his contempt, to start once he got back from his holidays. However, the court gives Mr. Ouelette an option to avoid going to jail. He can do unpaid community service of 40 hours with a charitable organization or municipal government by October 31, 2009 and it must "not be in the child protection areas."
In addition the court ordered the payment of the solicitor-client costs of the lawyer acting for the foster mother and the child B.M. throughout the various stages. It left it up to the government to decide if it would pay those cost on behalf of Mr. Ouelette. That will likely be the case. However if the costs are not paid, then a motion could be brought to send Mr. Ouelette to jail on that basis too.
I think this is a very fair and appropriate penalty. The factors the court considered in arriving at it are interesting too. There was no "profit or bad intent" by the Director but a "considerable degree of carelessness." Since Mr Ouelette is no long in this position it is unlikely that there will be a recurrence by him. There was an apology and explanation given to the courts that served to mitigate penalty and the possibility that he received "poor legal advice."
Key to this court finding was also a "need for general deterrence (of others); and need for denunciation." These latter two heads of consideration go to the issue of the leadership, management and culture of the department which is what needs to be seriously reconsidered and fixed by the looks of it.
So that part of the drama is over. Now lets look at how well the child's interests were served in all of this and monitor how the department is responding.
Alberta Minister of Children Youth Services Reaches Out.
It is good to see the Minister of Child and Youth Services Alberta (CYSA) responding to the various events that impact from and to the department. Here is a copy of an email that I received from an anonymous source that I understand is from the Minister and distributed to the department:
"A number of incidents involving our ministry have placed us in the news headlines since the beginning of the year, including the death or injury of children in care, youth in care being charged with serious crimes, and issues such as the recent contempt of court ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal.
These matters and the resulting attention and criticism in the media have an impact on your daily work. I know what it is like to open the newspaper or turn on the radio and hear a report claiming that our system for serving children and families is not working properly.
I want to share with you action that our ministry has been taking following these occurrences, to continue ensuring the best possible outcomes for children, youth, and families in Alberta.
Those of you working directly with children and families, and those of you that support staff who do, understand that the troubling cases reported in the media are the exception and not the rule. During times when there is more media and public attention on the work of our ministry and its staff, it is important to not be distracted but continue focusing on developing and delivering the highest-quality supports and services to the thousands of Albertans who rely on our help.
Our policies and processes are based on leading practices nationally and internationally, and following them makes good sense, since we know they are rooted in evidence-based research. At the same time, it is essential to never stop looking for ways we can make our systems even stronger. In fact, this has always been at the heart of how this ministry does business.
• A number of initiatives are currently underway to achieve that goal including:
• A recently announced review of our child intervention system, chaired by leading child intervention experts, who will examine current child intervention practices, identify leading practices from other jurisdictions, and suggest ways our system may be further strengthened.
• Examining the way our ministry administers the court orders it receives through a review being done with Alberta Justice and Attorney General.
• Reviewing and developing recommendations to strengthen the kinship care program.
• Looking at the multi-disciplinary team process that is part of the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Program.
These activities are over and above the regular reviews and adjustments to our policies and practices, which happen on a continuous basis in our ministry.
Despite our best efforts the reality is there will be times where our systems may not work as well as intended. As ministry staff, you see first hand our policies at work. If you have suggestions on how our policies or practices can be improved, I encourage you to share them with your supervisor.
I feel fortunate to be part of a team that makes such a profound and lasting positive difference in the lives of thousands of Albertans. Please accept my continued thanks and appreciation for the hard work you do for children and families.
Honourable Janis Tarchuk, Minister"
"A number of incidents involving our ministry have placed us in the news headlines since the beginning of the year, including the death or injury of children in care, youth in care being charged with serious crimes, and issues such as the recent contempt of court ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal.
These matters and the resulting attention and criticism in the media have an impact on your daily work. I know what it is like to open the newspaper or turn on the radio and hear a report claiming that our system for serving children and families is not working properly.
I want to share with you action that our ministry has been taking following these occurrences, to continue ensuring the best possible outcomes for children, youth, and families in Alberta.
Those of you working directly with children and families, and those of you that support staff who do, understand that the troubling cases reported in the media are the exception and not the rule. During times when there is more media and public attention on the work of our ministry and its staff, it is important to not be distracted but continue focusing on developing and delivering the highest-quality supports and services to the thousands of Albertans who rely on our help.
Our policies and processes are based on leading practices nationally and internationally, and following them makes good sense, since we know they are rooted in evidence-based research. At the same time, it is essential to never stop looking for ways we can make our systems even stronger. In fact, this has always been at the heart of how this ministry does business.
• A number of initiatives are currently underway to achieve that goal including:
• A recently announced review of our child intervention system, chaired by leading child intervention experts, who will examine current child intervention practices, identify leading practices from other jurisdictions, and suggest ways our system may be further strengthened.
• Examining the way our ministry administers the court orders it receives through a review being done with Alberta Justice and Attorney General.
• Reviewing and developing recommendations to strengthen the kinship care program.
• Looking at the multi-disciplinary team process that is part of the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Program.
These activities are over and above the regular reviews and adjustments to our policies and practices, which happen on a continuous basis in our ministry.
Despite our best efforts the reality is there will be times where our systems may not work as well as intended. As ministry staff, you see first hand our policies at work. If you have suggestions on how our policies or practices can be improved, I encourage you to share them with your supervisor.
I feel fortunate to be part of a team that makes such a profound and lasting positive difference in the lives of thousands of Albertans. Please accept my continued thanks and appreciation for the hard work you do for children and families.
Honourable Janis Tarchuk, Minister"
I have asked questions and raised concerns about the corporate culture of CYSA in recent posts. So it is good to see the Minister reaching out. It still begs the questions if the CYSA system is inadequate or the people are ill-prepared or insufficiently resourced to do their job there are serious problems in meeting the legal obligations to the at-risk children and youth they are supposed to be helping. If the staff lacks confidence in the departments leadership then there are very serious problems in work place.
The GOA did a "Corporate Employee Survey" in December of 2008 for each department. Here are some interesting findings for the 1,433 staff of the CYSA. While 76% of department staff were "overall satisfied" to be a GOA employee only 64% of CYSA employees were "satisfied" with their ministry or department. Not good but better than 2006 when only 61% were satisfied with the department.
CYSA staff feelings about being "valued as a GOA employee had only 53% strongly or somewhat agreeing, 31% strongly or somewhat disagreeing and 16% in the neither category. Not a very good work situation obviously.
Only 54% felt the department felt that they were helped to understand how their work "contributes to government business plan goals" and 58% believed they understood the same about the department's business plan. Only 51% believes there is an effective internal communications process in CYSA. Is that reflecting alienation of staff or indifference of leadership and management or both?
We live in rapidly changing times and CYSA's work has to be amongst the most volatile in government services. That said only 52% of staff felt they got the support needed to adapt to changes in the job or work environment and only 50% felt senior management demonstrated interest in the well being of employees and 49% believed they received meaningful recognition for work well done. Only 44% of staff felt that they were asked for employee input about plans for business improvements and that the management and leadership could make timely decisions. OUCH.
It is not all bad news for CYSA. Mostly this department is slightly below the averages of all GOA employees in most categories but when it is bead it is significantly bad. On the positive side a full 92% feel they "have a positive working relationship with coworkers and 84% are satisfied with the quality of service provided from their own work unit. 80% indicated they had confidence in the direct supervisor. It is worth noting only 64% felt that others outside their immediate work unit provided high quality service. Strange disconnect there I think.
There is a recently announced GOA hiring freeze. I wonder how many vacancies exist in CYSA that may be critically needed for people to do their job? Only 56% felt they could retain needed department employees and only 48% felt they could attract needed employees too.
There is obviously a great deal to do to improve these numbers and to better position the department to do its job. I will pose a number of question in a rage of theme areas in future posts that I hope will help Albertans consider in how they might evaluate that repositioning. The credibility gap between the leadership and field staff is the most obvious.
So good start with this email to the department Minister Tarchuk. It is going to be a long row to hoe so please don't think the job of closing the gap between the senior management and your leadership is done with one email.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Will Bill 44 Be Debated at the Alberta PC Party AGM in November?
I found out that my suggestion to the Edmonton Glenora PC constituency association to submit a resolution to the Party AGM to repeal the classroom opting out provisions of the new Alberta Human Rights Act, best known as Bill 44, did not make the cut.
There were 4 options presented to the Board members to choose from. After a number of emails trying to find out what happened. I saw the constituency President at the Folk Festival on Thursday night and she told me the results. The Bill 44 repeal resolution was dead last in the Glenora constituency board voting priority. I am not surprised but I am sure disappointed.
It now looks like the last chance to have an AGM debate by the membership of the PC Party on Bill 44 is if the Whitemud constituency makes it happen. But that is not a sure thing either. The party rules are a limit of 2 resolutions per constituency. The Bill 44 resolution in Whitemud was tied for second place with another resolution. So the Whitemud constituency will have to break the tie. The Bill 44 option could be lost in the tie breaker vote.
This is a model example of the problem with party politics. They exist primarily to pursue and preserve political power. That power presumption sometimes trumps things like having a healthy public debate based on competing values and for the sake of good governance. I recall back in the day when Stockwell Day promoted a party resolution to de-insure abortions in Alberta's health care coverage. The resolution was presented, debated, voted on and defeated. The party was stronger for it.
If the PC party accepting that Bill 44 is preferred law and therefore it is not worth debating further, I can accept that. I suppose one can take it on faith that this is the will of the party because no constituency has yet to come forward conclusively to want to test the wisdom of Bill 44 in a resolution debate and a vote. It is very clear that party resolutions are not binding on the Stelmach government. They are merely advice and influential information at best.
That said what are other Albertans to think about the PC Party when people in it will not step up to the plate to speak their minds on contentious issues and government laws? Heaven knows we have seen lots of pressure to abolish the Alberta Human Rights Commission but certain people, many I expect are in the PC Party. That is well established law and a move to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Ironically everyone on all sides of the Alberta political spectrum agreed that the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights legislation in Alberta should go but it survived the legislation review process. GO figure. That must be an example of the old joke that you don't really what to know how sausages or how laws are made.
What are political parties good for as institutions in the larger scheme of our democracy if not to find their truths and to bring their truth to the powers that be in their party and the government. All it can do is make them better and stronger.
It is clear to me that the powers that be in the PC party and the PC government clearly want the embarrassment of Bill 44 to be forgotten and to just go away, rather than to try and fix the mistake. That is a naive political hope. It will not happen. This travesty will not be forgiven or forgotten by the majority of Albertans who find Bill 44 to be a discriminatory unnecessary and abusive law.
I guess fixing this problem is now up to the citizens of Alberta. The next opportunity for that correction of Bill 44 to happen will be in 3 more years; at the next election. Thanks to Bill 44 an awful lot of serious damage can happen to our schools, our children, our education system and out teachers between then and now.
There were 4 options presented to the Board members to choose from. After a number of emails trying to find out what happened. I saw the constituency President at the Folk Festival on Thursday night and she told me the results. The Bill 44 repeal resolution was dead last in the Glenora constituency board voting priority. I am not surprised but I am sure disappointed.
It now looks like the last chance to have an AGM debate by the membership of the PC Party on Bill 44 is if the Whitemud constituency makes it happen. But that is not a sure thing either. The party rules are a limit of 2 resolutions per constituency. The Bill 44 resolution in Whitemud was tied for second place with another resolution. So the Whitemud constituency will have to break the tie. The Bill 44 option could be lost in the tie breaker vote.
This is a model example of the problem with party politics. They exist primarily to pursue and preserve political power. That power presumption sometimes trumps things like having a healthy public debate based on competing values and for the sake of good governance. I recall back in the day when Stockwell Day promoted a party resolution to de-insure abortions in Alberta's health care coverage. The resolution was presented, debated, voted on and defeated. The party was stronger for it.
If the PC party accepting that Bill 44 is preferred law and therefore it is not worth debating further, I can accept that. I suppose one can take it on faith that this is the will of the party because no constituency has yet to come forward conclusively to want to test the wisdom of Bill 44 in a resolution debate and a vote. It is very clear that party resolutions are not binding on the Stelmach government. They are merely advice and influential information at best.
That said what are other Albertans to think about the PC Party when people in it will not step up to the plate to speak their minds on contentious issues and government laws? Heaven knows we have seen lots of pressure to abolish the Alberta Human Rights Commission but certain people, many I expect are in the PC Party. That is well established law and a move to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Ironically everyone on all sides of the Alberta political spectrum agreed that the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights legislation in Alberta should go but it survived the legislation review process. GO figure. That must be an example of the old joke that you don't really what to know how sausages or how laws are made.
What are political parties good for as institutions in the larger scheme of our democracy if not to find their truths and to bring their truth to the powers that be in their party and the government. All it can do is make them better and stronger.
It is clear to me that the powers that be in the PC party and the PC government clearly want the embarrassment of Bill 44 to be forgotten and to just go away, rather than to try and fix the mistake. That is a naive political hope. It will not happen. This travesty will not be forgiven or forgotten by the majority of Albertans who find Bill 44 to be a discriminatory unnecessary and abusive law.
I guess fixing this problem is now up to the citizens of Alberta. The next opportunity for that correction of Bill 44 to happen will be in 3 more years; at the next election. Thanks to Bill 44 an awful lot of serious damage can happen to our schools, our children, our education system and out teachers between then and now.
YouTube Duck Poachers Arrested.
It is good news to see that the goofballs who illegally shot a bunch of ducks on a remote pond have been arrested. These jerks, who took great glee in killing these birds for not good reason, also posted the video of the event on YouTube.
They are in such serious trouble and they should be. The Globe an Mail story as of 10:15 am today had a 175 comments already. The Sun papers are carrying a story about their "apology" saying they had "never been in trouble before" and they "did not know it was a crime."
Come off it guys, how hollow, shallow and unctuous can you be.
These accused are rural young men in their 20s and a 30 year old who already fessed up that they are the ones in the video. They are not teenage boys out on a prank. They surely knew or ought to know what poaching is and that there is an actual duck hunting season. They own guns and one would hope they have been properly trained in their use and informed as to when guns are to be use for legitimate hunting purposes. This was thoughtless useless killing just for the fun of watching those birds die.
Hunters and wildlife conservationists share many common values about wildlife. These guys have done so much harm to legitimate sport hunters image that they are not going to get of with an apology for the useless slaughter of these ducks.
I am not surprised by the public loathing and seething anger at these guys. We have done two major research projects with over 4000 Albertans in each case. the study was on what are predominant value drivers of Albertans around the forestry and oil sands industries. In both cases preservation of wildlife and protection of their habitat was the #1 value driver for Albertans. We saw the international outrage when the ducks died in the Syncrude tailing pond over a year ago. The same outrage will be visited on these guys.
The penalties they potentially face are severe, depending on what laws they are charged under. The Migratory Birds Convention Act carries fines between $300,000 and $1,000,000 and up to 6 months in jail. The Saskatchewan Wildlife Act is another place were charges will likely be laid but I don't know the penalty sections there.
The wanton disregard for the law and the feeble excuses they have offered so far will do little to mitigate the damage they have done or the public outrage against this kind of behaviour. These dolts put their video up on YouTube for all to see. Social media is such a game changer in how our society is changing and learning about stuff. Some of it is mindless drivel but it also helps bring people to justice as in this case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)