fairness and quotes from discipline cases documentation/rant

On paper, the ombuds office understood universities were within the mandate:

Integrity matters — from lawyers to institutions to the policies themselves:

if a discipline process isn’t followed for all BC lawyers it has no confidence:

Try telling an organizational lawyer they work for an organization:

Ministry: these things happen all the time. Go talk to the Ombuds Office.
Ombuds Office: how dare you expect us to do something about unfairness at a public university? We only care about *private* post-secondary students!

In BC?

The cost of auditing the system that has been in place now four years after this document was released should always rest on the members of the public, however. Let’s not *train* our people *to* these expectations, eh?

Refusing to investigate complaints is the most effective way to save money and time, but it can’t be fair.

Mr. Chalke, you live in a glass house, which is an institutional mess:

Guides — without training — are not magical talismans that work just by existing:

Wrong. It’s all about the TRAINING to the institutional expectations and HOLDING officers — even high ranking ones — to them:

They require effective training to those expectations and an institutional culture that expects the highest ethical standards from the big offices to the bowels of the building first.

Public confidence requires ethical actions. I’ve yet to see any:

This is not the ideal. This is the expectation:

No one would believe an institution with the respect the institution has would allow a Person at Risk to “investigate” and decide a complaint made against him. And if they did, they didn’t understand why it was a bad thing to do.

But removing a student’s academic freedom to ensure it couldn’t be questioned was the lowest point UBC reached. And that includes the pattern of egregious improper conduct from the UC.

Institutions keep saying they understand this but it is not reflected in their officers’ actions:

Policy without rigorous training to support it is magical, idealized thinking.

What? Do you mean to tell me ETAs for a response is part of procedural fairness? I have it on good authority asking for one is the institutional equivalent of demanding the soul of the individual officer’s firstborn child:


It’s also the first lesson CSRs learn when dealing with the public. Tell a person how long the wait is and keep them abreast if anything has changed. But to the Law Society of British Columbia, it’s ten steps too far for a member of the public to even request. Has a single institution read any of these documents since you posted them Ombuds? My experience says they haven’t.

But if an institution *refuses* to investigate a decision in BC, they can use whatever excuse they want. Clearly, every refusal to investigate a complaint must come with more paperwork and filing than actually investigating a complaint objectively:

But not if you *refuse to investigate a complaint.* Clearly, the Ombuds office doesn’t understand how easy it is to duck out of an institution’s obligations to their mandate. You can just say no, you know:

“Communicate” with the “member of the public”? Why? You can just make up an excuse and then you never have to think about their complaint again. As a Ombuds Office call taker told me, “that’s what usually happens.”

Why does the author of this paper insist on answering rhetorical questions? I mean why explain decision, full stop, am I right?:

But if you *explain your decisions* then you have to take questions. See, the point is to not talk to members of the public if they just want to complain about One Of Us.

This person is clearly an amateur. You take as much time as you possibly can so the complainant actually gets their hopes up their complicated complaint is actually being dealt with and then you blindside them with “we’re not even going to look into this.” The Ministry held back their correspondence for almost a full month! “Timely decisions” ruin eight-ninths of the fun when you must communicate with the public!

This is clearly a rank beginner speaking. All this is common sense. When my people choose to serve their duties to the office, this will all come to them organically:

Training. Get the fuck out of here.

Our lawyers say “integrity” is not reporting your improper conduct in a self-governing institution. That counts, right?

I’m sure the officers of the institutions I have dealt with would understand the concept of “2” in that title.

The author needs some legal advice. In a self-governing institution, what matters is what you *report* you’ve done:

Look, if an institution controls which complaints get heard, it controls which decisions must be impartial:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s