And some of them understand your decision-making process enough to know that a decision-making process is required:
It is even more important that you understand your power as it exists as an officer of your institution. What Andrew J. Szeri said as Andrew J. Szeri doesn’t matter. The Provost of the University of British Columbia must have investigated if his program harmed learners and violated academic freedom.
But instead of investigating it, Szeri confirmed the program was designed to harm learners and attack academic freedom through its “pedagogical approach.”
It is equally important that as an officer responsible for administrative law be able to answer questions from the person their decision impacts. Fair decisions can be explained. Excuses can’t be subject to questioning or they fall apart. Every institution insisted their decision of You’ve already been told what your problem is was beyond reproach.
No decision in the public sector is ever beyond reproach.
I was owed an independent decision. According to:
this means the decision maker must have made their decision independent of any other decision maker. “What that guy said” is about as dependent a decision as a five-year-old child is on a tax form.
A fair hearing was supposed to be a guarantee. But for the Ombuds Office of British Columbia’s piss-poor ombudship, a manager of investigations would have been trained to look for the lack of a fair hearing at the beginning stages of their independent investigation as the first step in their process:
I can’t remember what Growth said exactly which made me ask him if he always believed everything the respondent said. But he answered ‘yes’ so quickly it shocked me. I asked him if he *should* believe everything the institution said and he came back with “maybe not.”
That was the only reason I gave him so many chances. Because he considered the fact — however briefly — that a deeply held belief he gripped could have been incorrect. No other officer even tried. Growth’s executive director sounded insulted at the request to be impartial for a five-minute block of their time.
The complainant is owed an independent decision. This means every Decision Maker involved in the appeal process only has the option which of the two general procedures they will follow, a re-hearing or a review:
In my “I really just didn’t like the way class was taught” example, a review would have been fine. But a trained Decision Maker sees evidence that a fair hearing wasn’t given, they will need to rehear the complaint. The complainant has the right to fully explain their complaint to an investigator willing to hear it on its own merits.
This new decision must not depend on any other decision made by any other previous decision maker. In one of the multiple documents I’ve come across, one stated that if a decision is based on another’s opinion, the Decision Maker was still required to do a full independent investigation and must have stated that their opinion was based on another decision made by another Decision Maker.
My rights as a regular member of the University of British Columbia had been trampled because (a) lawyer(s) hadn’t realized “UBC Person” must include more types of UBC members than “employees”:
I know the Ombuds Office knows how to type the following. It is entirely too bad it does not know how to train for it:
This is also the expectation conflicts of interest has. Would a disinterested third party think, “that is messed up” whether the facts of the complaint are messed-up or not is the expectation institutions hold their members to:
Treating a person affected by their decision in a rude or inconsiderate manner is against the Duty of Procedural Fairness. The Law Society and Ministry of Post-Secondary Education have much to answer for. The Minister’s secretary lied to a member of the public’s face while pretending to care about the issue. That they were pretending to care made me realize two seconds after the call was over that I had just been lied to.
The reasonable person test gets reused no matter what language is used to describe it because it is the ultimate test of fairness. Any public officer has a job expectation and a duty to their office to act as a reasonable person aware of the entire situation:
Instead, every institution believed the respondent’s version of events without doing any kind of investigation. If that doesn’t show a systemic bias, systemic biases do not exist.
An institutional respondent has no reason to lie is the worst implicit bias someone representing the Ombudsperson could possibly base their professional decisions on:
The Ombuds Office certainly talks the talk:
It refused to budge on the walking part, though.
words, words, words:
It has become clear that no institution may keep the privilege of refusing to investigate a complaint at an “early intake” stage or make “administrative changes” to their document without requiring an unintended consequences check:
If any public institution has the right to refuse to investigate a complaint, they have the right to refuse a person’s participation in any decision that impacts them.
“We don’t care if the problem you’ve been told is yours has no relation to the actual complaint you filed” does not give any criteria for the decision the following:
If a Manager of Investigations doesn’t understand that, it indicates no officer does.
I’m more convinced than ever that any kind of early intake rejection violates the second principle of the Duty of Procedural Fairness:
This is why institutions can’t have nice things. If multiple institutions hadn’t misused the privilege of being able to choose which complaints don’t require an investigation before closing, it wouldn’t have to be taken away.
“Clear and meaningful reasons” doesn’t mean, “some guy with a conflict of interest said…”:
The Ombuds Office understood external oversight is required. It’s a pity the Ombuds Office officers weren’t also in the know:
This is my level of bullshit exceeded:
Side note, the fact that the University Counsel removed reference to the Investigations Appeal Process violates this University Counsel protocol:
The live Investigations Policy eliminated any mention of the right of appeal.