Dear Mr. Ombudsperson: documentation

The Ombudsperson states they understand their purpose. Universities are mentioned by name:

“Allegations of reprisal” somehow don’t include attacking a former student’s reputation, so no BC institution is willing to act as an impartial investigator.

Dear Mr. Speaker:

But, like, our institution doesn’t have to know this, right?:

I just realized the date:

This was released the same month Forest Growth decided one person deciding the decision for the institution was grand, even with their glaring conflict of interest.

This has not been my experience with public service organizations:

“Critically important” means having more than decorative — if improperly controlled — language in place to point to when complaints come down to ‘he said/she said’ matters.

Dealing with a complaint this way will never be as cheap as ignoring it until an independently wealthy complainant sues the province:

Does the Ombudsperson want a cookie for having policies it doesn’t train to in place?:

I tried to differ and an executive director backdated their policies to ensure no member of the public could ever do so again:

Any institution must care if it doesn’t or nothing changes:

No shit, Sherlock.

Sure. It “can” be. It won’t, but the fact words exist on paper is all that matters in BC:

And the benefits of *saying* you have a fair assessment is you don’t actually have to do it:

Complaints that can be disappeared in the Early Intake stage aren’t heard at all.

A decision that aligns with a public service institution’s values is fair:

A decision that does not is not. That’s not so hard, is it?

Unless an officer can determine without an investigation what happened isn’t covered.

I get it. Any situation that involves an incompetent university counsel, a self-serving provost and a president who didn’t want his underling’s stink hovering over his job search almost requires a bar for them to walk into and a punchline.

But if all three officers are technically possible, the possibility that all three worked together must have been possible. Especially when most policy errors are created through unmitigated unintended consequences.

You don’t say, Ombudsperson:

No shit again, Sherlock.

Reasons can be explained. Excuses require abuse of authority to make them unquestionable. You’ve already been told your problem by the guy with the most to lose if the truth ever comes out is not a reasonable decision:

Every institution pays lipservice to this aspect of procedural fairness in their documentation. Not one delivered on it:

These things happen when how dare you hold us to our institution’s expectations is more insulting than pissing all over them.

Ombudsperson, are you aware of the service your office actually offers?

I mean, I hate to break it to, but it appears like we’re the only two people involved in all of this that understands:

The person responsible for training an officer to believe institutions are incapable of making errors is deeply involved in the original decision.

But they must be held to that expectation each time, every time:

Every institution followed unwritten policies meant to eliminate the chance of meaningful participation.

Unwritten policies must not exist in the public sector.

Uh…and if they don’t, Ombudsperson? Where does a member of the public go after multiple institutions — including your own –have decided it is far easier to ignore expectations of integrity to be dependent and partial?

And if they aren’t, whose problem is that, Mr. Ombudsperson?

Every person wants to believe a public service institution will treat them fairly when the time comes, so any person who isn’t treated fairly must be complaining about something trivial or vexatious:

Relevant facts were provided to your office via work email. I can’t tell you how many times I had to tell UBC officers that I can’t believe they put what they just said in writing. I think they were so unaware they couldn’t just say the quiet part out loud that they had no concern typing it.

If we are the only two people who know this, Mr. Ombudsperson, then one of us has failed in our duties:

Oh dear:

A lawyer decided an institution didn’t have to be ethical and multiple institutions agreed with him. That last part sounds important and familiar. It’s too bad it wasn’t established as it was obligated to be 2015:

Dr. Piper couldn’t have assumed the next president would do none of these:

If you know this, Mr. Ombudsperson, why don’t the people who represent you know it too?:

For rules to be fair, they must comply with the institution’s mandate before they comply with the law.

First Name, First Name and Growth needed to know this, Mr. Ombudsperson. They did not:

No officer tasked with representing your obligation to British Columbian governance should have been allowed to make a decision that violated it, sir.

Again, if you are the only person who knows this, your officers cannot be permitted to serve the public in any capacity:

Having no procedure in place if your officers betray this responsibility must be dealt with:

Some guy acting in his own interests said so is not a reason. But your institution believed it was a fair decision. That’s a problem:

If your officers are not aware that violating the Ombudsperson Act while believing their actions were made in good faith is a another problem, sir:

If your officers representing you are not aware of this expectation, it is a larger issue:

The only intelligible reason I understood was that improperly trained senior officers who didn’t want to understand their role in public sector governance is a rampant concern in your province. Might I suggest this brochure as required reading:

This was not to be read as a stretch goal:

UBC students — as defined by the University Act — are full UBC Persons with all the rights and freedoms of any regular UBC member:

No institution may extend fewer rights and freedoms to their regular members based on their employee status with the institution.

Being a non-employee student is a personal characteristic that causes some UBC Persons to be treated unfairly:

Every institution states they hold themselves accountable. It was even listed in the following job posting:

The Ministry claims to have an entire framework on accountability:

And of course, the institution has “accountability” as one of their supposed values:

So why is holding institutions to their stated values a two-year, still ongoing process?

And now we get into apologies —

Out of our dead hands is a piss-poor apology policy:

Feel the need to is step one:

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s