when institutions refuse to self-regulate they shouldn’t be granted the right to

All three institutions I’ve asked to regulate their officers have seemed shocked I dare I expect professional behaviour from institutions whose officers should have been holding themselves to the standards and procedures that their policies informed me I had every right to expect.

Instead, I had to update the title of statements I was required to swallow without question to remove the UBC reference because it’s not UBC, it’s institutions in BC. The government, the university and the BC Law Society all had no problem putting in writing that no member of the public should expect policies or codes of conduct to be enforced in any way if the employee is the one at fault.

Students are held to policies. Hourly-waged workers too, I’m willing to bet. But positions with titles on their door have been the ultimate pass to do whatever they like regardless of how many policies it violates.

The UBC wasn’t just unable to catch a conflict of interest a mile wide — they all agreed it was fine to make decisions that broke multiple policies to serve Andrew Serzi’s desire not to have to investigate himself.

The government thought as long as it was a Minister’s office, it was acceptable to be unprofessional, discourteous and inefficient.

The BC Law Society sent me a phone number to call if I want to hire a lawyer to tell them that lawyers can’t decide that the only one of the three improper conduct definitions needs to be followed because two of them aren’t technically against the law to break. They were entirely incapable of regulating the actions of one of their own, despite that being one of their duties as an organization.

Breaking policy and advising others to break policy are as much improper conduct as breaking the law. If a policy defines X or Y or Z as improper conduct, improper conduct is X or Y or Z.

All of these organizations have proven they don’t want hold their own to the standards of their policies when it matters so why do they still have the right to self-govern? They’ve all shown they’re all okay fine with improper conduct that people were so confident they could get away with, they put every step of the process in writing.

It’s not even a he said/they said. It’s a ‘he sent an email dated September XX at XX:XX pm from his work email.’ None of the old excuses for looking the other way because who really knows what was said work when the institutional officers put their actions into writing and hit send.

None of the institutions that require themselves to be self-regulating by their own controlled policies even went through the motions of doing so. Despite being part of a vital appeals process, every single senior officer who said “the provost has already decided” needs serious, intensive retraining.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s