ThoroldNews has received the following letter from District School Board of Niagara Trustee, Nancy Beamer, explaining her views of recent controversy surrounding a fellow board member:
Are you looking for a position with excitement, debate and controversy? Then consider running for school board trustee during the next municipal election.
Seriously, though, over the last week, the DSBN has garnered a lot of negative media coverage... much of which is unwarranted. Many people have asked what is going on, so I will attempt to explain.
At this point, I want to state that in this report, all opinions are my own and in no way do they purport to represent the views of any other trustee or the Board.
The controversy centres around Trustee Baggott and an article published in the local dailies last Jan. 25 that resulted in an alleged Code of Conduct breach.
In that article, Ms Baggott stated that, since at the time, the DSBN did not have a policy on the books, she wanted to bring forward a motion to develop a director’s appraisal policy. I believe she thought that developing one would guide the process in the future. It was not directed at the present director, Mr. Hoshizaki.
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on the formation of a policy, the article took aim at an appraisal of the present director, his salary, etc. Although presently, there is no formal director’s appraisal policy, there is an appraisal clause in his contract that is standard in contracts of top-level management and Mr. Hoshizaki has had several appraisals done during his tenure. Also because there has been so much publicity about his salary, I feel everyone should know how this is determined.
The trustees do not set the director’s salary. This is done by the provincial ministry. They have set a seven-level salary grid. Placement is based on number of schools and students, geographical size of the board, etc. The DSBN is a level 5 area. Also, with his years of experience and level of education, our director is near the top of his grid. So basically, neither the director nor the trustees have mandate over what he is paid.
Because of the article, Trustee Fast had some of his constituents asking if the Board was getting a new director. He thought this made the board look unprofessional and he felt that Trustee Baggott had breached the Code of Conduct that states “The Chair is the spokesperson to the public on behalf of the Board.” He filed a Code of Conduct complaint.
According to the newly adopted code, there are two ways to handle complaints - informally or formally. Had the complaint been done verbally, Trustee Baggott would have been invited to meet with the Chair and review the rules for talking with the press and decide how to remedy the situation. However, because Trustee Fast chose to file a written complaint, it automatically had to be dealt with by the formal procedure. This includes interviewing both parties, or having a written submission, doing a full investigation and submitting a written report to the Board.
The report is only fact-finding. No recommendations are included because there is no determination of wrongdoing or lack of wrongdoing in the report. That determination must be made by the whole Board after hearing the report and someone must make a motion to go forward with the complaint. That is the process. This was not explained prior to the meeting, but that was probably an oversight.
What happened at the meeting?
The report was read and accepted. At this point, most of the trustees thought there would be a discussion but the Chair moved on to the next agenda item. And yes, there was silence.
Not because we were instructed not to speak, but because many of the trustees did not understand what had happened. At this point, I spoke up and questioned why there was no discussion and the explanation was confusing to myself and some other trustees. At that point, Trustee Klassen asked for a short recess so the trustees would have time to figure out the reasoning.
According to the procedure, if no one makes a motion to go forward, the process ends right there and there is no discussion. Trustee Fast chose not to make a motion to further his complaint. By allowing the complaint to die on the table, there was no official code breach filed against Trustee Baggott and there were no negative consequences or sanctions for her. At the time it seemed like a win/win situation; however, in retrospect, I wish I had made a motion to quash the complaint so that open discussion could have taken place and we might have had a clearer explanation of the reasoning behind the code breach complaint. Personally, I, as well as at least one other trustee, was prepared to argue in Trustee Baggott’s favour.
Did we get it right? Who knows?
Could it have been handled better? Probably!
Was there a predetermined “wall of silence?” Not that I was aware of.
One result of the meeting is that I have requested that we have a trustee information session to clarify the way that trustees interact with the media and to sort out the exact procedures in dealing with this type of situation. Remember, this too is a first for the Board as until recently, there was no official Code of Conduct.
I hope this has shed some light on the situation. But, please be assured that through all of this, every trustee and all senior staff and the director have one primary and overarching focus and that is providing every DSBN student with the best possible educational experience in a safe and welcoming environment.
Sincerely, Nancy Beamer
