whistleblowing documentation

I had warned the university counsel of the following last year sometime:

Who knows how much money the university had invested in ensuring that students couldn’t report their own harassment or academic freedom violations. They may have had that right before the university counsel decided altering original, living documents was more effective than asking for permission to do so first.

The university had no right to pay for the indefensible defence of officers who weren’t acting reasonably, responsibly and in good faith. Nor did they act within the course and scope of their employment. This is standard Policy 101 language. If an officer of an institution operates with the purpose of their duties, they can’t be sued.

They cannot be protected using institutional funds if they try to get away with something.

The whistleblowing policy makes that clear:

The institution states this is the expectation employees must be trained to:

But I keep going back to this language:

If multiple institutions refuse to serve their obligations to the public sector, it should not be the *complainant’s* financial obligation to live-error audit the system.

The Institution and the Person at Risk must not be the same unnatural person.

In my original complaint, the University Counsel and the President had no right to use institutional funds to defend the Person at Risk/Decision maker in my complaint. They could not have been the same natural person, either. The institution had no right to invest its funds to investigate how it could weasel out of its obligations to a member. Instead, it used those funds to decide that if it was the only institution responsible for the rights of its non-employee members, the non-employee members have no right.

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