Manitobans Wake Up and Get the Scoop on Gov't Spending!

It is an accepted belief that media operates on the principle of competition and therefore it stands to reason that every reporter's dream is to get the scoop on the big story. It is then surprising to find a saturation of non-news events, such as the release of the new iPhone, or Bieber's love life while media continues to pass up on real news.

Several stories about government waste, criminal activity, abuse of power and authority have been revealed to the media. Yet there has been no interest to follow-up, confirm or clarify. Is it that media fears government and is under its control? 

As a last resort after failed attempts in search of the truth with the provincial government and then the media, the blog A Bullish Government was developed. This is but one small voice straining to be heard over a well orchestrated government cover up. A mission fueled by the hope that the message will somehow be heard and the information acted on by Manitobans or other outside influence. 

Here is one story submitted to mainstream media prior to the provincial election last fall that for unknown reasons was not pursued although by media standards, the story 'has legs'.


CSC Profiling (replaces earlier post, "whistleblowing silenced")

In 2008 MB Civil Service Commission participated in the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) and in 2011 was required to disclose the total cost of this project under the information access act. The project seems to serve no real purpose and its costs significant. With the monumental deficit nearing $1-billion as reported by Winnipeg Free Press "Premier faces a tough year ahead" Premier Selinger acknowledges that "tough choices" need to be made. However, in prioritizing what is superfluous, the Premier ought to first take action to reign in CSC's spending.

Background:

CSC in partnership with Organization Staff and Development (a special operating agency "SOA" of Government of MB) contracted a private company Think Unlimited to facilitate the HBDI workshops. CSC advised that ministerial approval from then Minister of Finance Greg Selinger was not required. Funding came from a Development Fund set aside from retained earnings. CSC provided copies of what it purported to be the total cost:

    $7,486.25= (facilitation fees 3 workshops) $2,750 + $4,736.25 (participant materials) GABS

CSC failed to include the cost of food and beverages incurred at Place Louis Riel and Winnipeg Convention Centre where the workshops were held. Is this an oversight or in fear of backlash from the public viewing catered lunches for top management as wasteful during times of budget cuts?  (Note: Most Government boardrooms including that of CSC, could have easily accommodated this group of 40.) The costs of $9,234.65 were then stated to be the total costs, however copies of the invoices alleged to be $1,748.40 from the two hotels were not provided to corroborate. GABS

Also missing from total costs:

CSC did not include the contractor's (Think Unlimited) fees for consultations, meetings and phone calls for development, planning and design which began on or before January 2008. There is no accounting of the company's reports at the conclusion of the project. There is also no accounting for lost productivity of staff during a time in which CSC and OSD attested that it was experiencing severe labour shortages due to extended vacancies in positions and "all staff were experiencing higher than usual stress levels..." GABS

The fund of retained earnings could have (should have) been used to used to fill these vacancies instead, as one senior consultant stated off record, "there was no interest in filling the vacancies. All they (at a senior management team meeting) wanted to do was talk about this HBDI project; the cost of which would have covered a full time admin's salary for a year which we desperately need." The fact that there were no new hires during this time is confirmed by CSC-OSD as provided in its response documents to the Labour Board and Human Rights Commission.  (See also  RWP Process is a "CLM" Career Limiting Move.)

Accountability Reports are used to identify any end results and measurable gains to justify the costs of a project. CSC denied access to these reports when requested. HBDI is an instrument used to measure an individual’s thinking preferences. Under privacy regulations the information CSC-OSD collected is personal and confidential. Legally, the data collected would be inaccessible to anyone other than the participant. From the onset staff emails expressed concern that participation in the project was mandatory. There were “fears” of being profiled and fears about how the survey results would be used and shared with colleagues.

 “I would have to agree,” stated Frank Cantafio (former CSC EAP Director) in an email to Beauchamp-Schmidt, “...There are at least 5 other employees at the Commission who have done it already through LDI. I don’t feel the need to redo.” The project was thought to be repetitive; something similar to what government already offered and therefore seen as an unnecessary cost. Beauchamp-Schmidt responded by email that there would be composite reports identifying thinking tendencies amongst the group and “…she can’t do that …if she doesn’t have access to the raw data.”

What is OSD's mandate? 

OSD is in the business of providing consultation and facilitation services. It has a number of full time trainers, consultants and facilitators to deliver HR-related workshops similar to that of  HBDI. By contracting out, scenarios much like that stated in Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell, get played out repeatedly, double-dipping into taxpayers' pockets. OSD markets its services to the Provincial Government. In addition it provides services on a user-fee basis to other Crown Corporations, The Federal Government of Canada, Regional Health Authorities, Foundations, and other privately owned companies.

A review of OSD's Operating Charter of 1994 states that it is not the intent of OSD to take away jobs from private companies that provide similar HR services. However, its 2009-10 Annual Report reflects that it is in direct competition with private Manitoba HR businesses. The OSD Charter is more than likely defunct as there have been many changes overall since its inception and yet its charter has never been reviewed or updated. GABS

A Special Operating Agency's (generally) are a cost recovery department in that it is an agency that charges a user-fee for its services and in theory the costs of operating an SOA are then recoverable. A Development Fund is revenue from retained earnings and it was used to cover the costs of the HBDI project. Could this surplus money (likely revenue from OSD workshops) have been set aside to cover any anticipated  expenditures? 

In the last provincial budget, Minister of Finance (then Rosann Wowchuk) approved costs of $276,000 to upgrade the OSD's registrar with a new Learning Management System. The cost of which is scheduled to be paid in annual minimum payments of $92,000 over three years starting 2011.   Is this upgrade as a result of OSD expanding its business publicly, outside of its legislated mandate? If this is the case, the competition (along with all taxpaying Manitobans) are funding OSD's business operations as well as gifting it upwards of $300K.If and/or when OSD ever becomes a profitable business, will it pay back the total costs for the new LMS? Given OSD's annual report as of March 31, 2010 shows a loss of  $250,000 perhaps the Premier's 'tough choices' as to what is unessential and not cost effective should begin here.

In order to eliminate the deficit there needs to be some real answers to some tough questions. The difficulty comes in knowing what to ask. The quality and integrity of reporting significantly impacts our ability to be an informed public. Is there any wonder why there was so little voter turnout last fall when readers are on a steady diet of pre-packaged Happy McNews on government with an also less than satisfying side order of non-news such as....

 

as "lies, damned lies and ..." in Winnipeg Free Press Driving them crazy about EGAD! "...parking spots" A conspiracy going on at the Winnipeg International Airport on the basis that it took someone 10 minutes before actually finding a parking spot.

When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal

Once symptoms of a known disability became exacerbated due to a toxic work environment, a government employee (terminated June 2008 after five years of exemplary reviews) followed due process to address her complaints of unfair labour practices. ‘Marielle’ bears witness to the difficulties, bias, incompetence, perjury and flawed logic of government that was allowed to go unchecked to the point of a criminal act. Government employees conduct all preliminary investigations so when Labour Board admin staff stonewalled the process 260 days (average is 48 days) it is clear that the practice of government investigating government is terribly flawed, unlawful and even unconstitutional.

Other Related Posts: 

• Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board violated Privacy Laws.
• MHRC complaint takes 2 years to start the investigation then ends up being dismissed by the Yukon over the August long weekend in Electronic signatures, rubber stamping - "Good Grief"  
• Abuse of government resources Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell
• Did  not accommodate a person based on religious beliefs and mental disability; both of which are categories protected under the Code in MB Gov't OK with flipping ‘the Bird’ -- flips off Jesus

Even throughout the excessive delays, I was never given a contact name as to who would be conducting the Manitoba Labour Board investigation; given no reason for the excessive delays; there was no phone call or meeting to clarify or confirm information; and written requests for a response went unanswered for months, or never answered at all. The Board defended itself by stating that it did not talk to a single person in Government or union either. One would then question what was the Board doing all that time?

Given the complexities and ever-changing misinformation by Government, as opposed to my evidence that has never changed, standard procedure would then be to proceed to hearing by an independent panel, to not only ensure that there is a fair and impartial hearing, but it also needs to be perceived as such. Instead, in a show of power, the Board dismissed the complaint in a closed door decision and further elevated the situation to a ‘quasi-justice turned criminal act’ as follows:

Subsequent to the Board refusing to provide written reasons for dismissal, I filed for an Appeal (Request for Review and Reconsideration) citing numerous grounds why the matter ought to have, and should still proceed to hearing. In a response refuting the Appeal prepared by government's (paid-for-hire) counsel, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, lawyer Rob Olson mistakenly left a notation for the deponent, the Chief Operating Officer Beauchamp Schmidt. in the document.  Besides the obvious implications of a deliberate attempt to introduce fabricated evidence contrary to that previously deposed to, the fact that the notation was left in the document is proof that the COO did not read the document, or alternatively did not read it in its entirety before swearing to it. The notation (and highlighted note to COO) is as follows:

 

(x) ... CSC employees have the option to request that they be referred to an external EAP provider, which option was always in place during the Applicant's employment with the CSC/OSD.

[ON: Anna Schmidt-Beauchamp to confirm this fact]
 

 

For the COO to sign a sworn declaration to be true without reading it is not only in violation of Manitoba Evidence Act but shows misplaced trust in counsel who likely had been given so much creative freedom in fabricating the defence that the COO likely viewed proofing said document for accuracy superfluous especially given the complexity and confusion in keeping the different versions of the mounds of disinformation straight.  
 

Through information accessed in 2011, an email dated June 19, 2009 from the Director of the (CSC) Employee Assistance Program states that the external EAP, falsely claimed to be in existence in 2008, did not become available until the following year--contrary to that claimed by the COO. This further speaks to the COO’s lack of credibility, and therefore, any and all uncorroborated evidence previously accepted as evidence is then highly suspect. Furthermore, as the COO was a named Respondent in this and other complaints including The Human Rights Code, under MEA the COO should have been regarded as ‘hostile’ and this witness should have been made available at a hearing for cross-examination.

The Board refused to respond to several ongoing letters I sent requesting it take appropriate action regarding the MEA violation. Instead the Board dismissed me, revoked my Charter Rights and abruptly rejected my right to Appeal. The Board’s decision (in a 'if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance -- baffle 'em with BS move) shifted the focus from a criminal act to that of a “typo” (234 characters would never constitute a 'typo' to a reasonable person) and falsely stated the typo was in an attachment despite the fact that the nine-page Reply contained NO attachments.  

Although obstruction to justice and perjury is a criminal violation, the issue of the Government as Respondent, and as investigative tribunal collaborating together in this criminal act has yet to be addressed.

After the Manitoba Ombudsman failed to act, repeated requests in writing and by phone were then made to Manitoba Justice Minister Andrew Swan's office (through the DM Jeffrey Schnoor) who did not respond but deferred the matter out to Human Resource Services. A manager of HR then attempted to do a side-step of the allegation on misconduct and abuse of power and authority by both the senior government officers at CSC as well at the Labour Board stating the matter "was under the purview of the Manitoba Labour Board" and therefore I should take it up with them. 

 

I had to clarify the law with HR that it was not a Labour Board complaint under the Labour Relations Act but a complaint under MEA and therefore a criminal matter (summary conviction at the very least) and of public interest and ought to be treated like any crime.  Government is not (supposed to be) above the law.

The HR Manager then responded,

"The Manitoba Evidence Act provides the statutory foundation for the way information and documentation is to be handled.  It does not provide the Deputy Minister or employees of Manitoba Justice with the authority to investigate. …Investigation of an allegation of a crime would be in the purview of the relevant policing authority.  You may also consider consulting a lawyer.” 

 

How can this be interpreted as justice when a victim of a crime is not advised as to who is proper policing authority, information only a lawyer (capped at--if by the book--at $250 an hour) could give? How is this justice?

What is most frightening is that the provincial government would view brute force as an effective, and even desired means of achieving its goals of effectively dealing with issues involving mental illness, rather than mediating and showing compassion and empathy.

 

Government is well aware those most vulnerable afflicted with mental illness could never afford a lawyer or gain access to the courts. Without transparency and accountability from Government, without consequence to those that have crossed the line, one can only expect that this sort of thing will lead to an increased reliance on brute force as an instrument that works;  ‘#WINNING’  at all costs when there is no intervention or fear of retaliation, in order to preserve and promote the shameless glorification of government prowess.

Editorial: MB Gov't OK with flipping ‘the Bird’ -- flips off Jesus

As stated in my 2008 Human Rights complaint, my co-worker had a long standing history of constantly swearing at management and staff. When asked to stop, the co-worker responded by cutting out an outline of a hand with a middle finger pointing up and taped it to a stick -- the compromise seemingly being to give people ‘the finger’ instead of swearing. As staff found that more annoying and management took no action, it was eventually accepted over the years that nothing could, or would be done about it.

In order to have a respectful workplace environment there needs to be an atmosphere of mutual respect, responsibility, self-discipline and cooperation from entry level position all the way to the top,  particularly when it comes to human rights and political correctness.

When my mood disorder (bipolar disorder) was exacerbated in 2008 (resulting in intensified religious beliefs) I could no longer accept management's laissez-faire attitude about the co-worker's improper conduct, particularly since the swearing, heard by anyone in the reception area, would associate me with behaviour I abhorred. Had management taken the swearing more seriously, it would have likely stopped especially if the consequence involved losing an annual $40K salary.

I did speak to Potty Mouth (not her real name) on a number of occasions, asking her to stop the swearing. The response was "forget about it, you’re not the first one to ask me to stop. It won’t work. You don’t want me to do to you, what I did to them” and the co-worker laughingly recounted ‘the finger’ story as being the way she would deal with my request.

I  did try to make the co-worker aware as to how often she swore; whenever she would hear outbursts of "Jesus Christ”, "for Christ sake" or for "God's sake" I would say, “He’s probably a little busy right now. Can I help?”

Of course "the finger’ was meant as a joke but is the line not drawn when someone finds the humour offensive? How alarming is it to have a civil servant use a paper cut out of a universally known gesture in responding to a work related request, and management does not respond, or alternatively sees only the humour in it? How does that reflect Government's stated objective of a respectful work environment?

Government did not respond. In fact a Reply was signed and submitted by private lawyer, Rob Olson, and accepted by the Human Rights Commission. Olson (a third party without any corroborated facts to support) stated that the "issues of religious slurs were addressed" and he knew for a fact that I “was aware that efforts were being made" to deal with the swearing despite no documents exist or were presented. The fact that there is no single document, email or note of any action taken to deal with the complaint speaks of inaction by Government and its authorities.

Although the issue of the religious swearing was included in a formal Respectful Workplace complaint filed April 2008 with the Manitoba Civil Service Commission, it appears it was never regarded an issue worthy of investigation. It was not factored in as part of the “three key themes” of the Civil Service Commission's findings conducted by the Supervisor (Chief Operating Officer "COO") for Organization Staff Development, the department where I was employed. Clearly a conflict as the COO, had the allegations been proven, would have "fingered" herself as being responsible for allowing a violation of the Code under her direct supervision. Not surprising then that the religious issue was seemingly just 'flipped off' as not a big deal. Manitoba Ombudsman saw nothing wrong with a government officer investigating her own department..

Had a proper investigation from the Human Rights Commission or Ombudsman's Office occurred, it would have shown that the employer, Government of Manitoba did not do its due diligence in conducting a fair investigation.There was ample time to do so given the complaint was stonewalled for two years in a pre-vegetative state.

After procedures went off the rails, in 2011, I  took it upon myself to access my files through FIPPA; information that could have been easily accessed by the investigative authorities. The file provided indisputable proof that the ongoing swearing was a known problem to management but that management's attempts to deal with the problem were ineffective and quite lax. There is no mention of following procedure regarding behaviour-based issues that continue on even after warning. Instead there are excuses that the co-worker "did try to quit, but she wasn’t able to stop.”

It would seem that Government decided to accommodate a social disability that is not a protected characteristic and chose to not accommodate a person based on religious beliefs further heightened by a mental disability; both of which are categories protected under the Human Rights Code.

It seems The Code, in practice, is served up like some buffet where management and Government authorities can pick and choose according to its personal preferences and tastes.

Employees are to refrain from wishing one another a "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending non-Christian believers. However, there are no restrictions on religious cursing which may in all likelihood offend all Christians.

God help us all if these are the people entrusted with our civil and human rights!

EDITORIAL: Uncivil Behaviour and Civil Liberties

By the time you finish reading the following sentence you will already have pre-determined in your mind what happened and who you will favour, based on who you view as having the higher ‘social ranking’.

A woman with a mental disability filed a complaint against her employer Government of Manitoba with the Labour Board and MHRC, and claims she has been treated unfairly and denied due process of her complaints.

CAUTION:

May appear further from the truth than the way things actually are.

The family watched a documentary of a City of Victoria police officer using excessive force. The 57-second video clip showed a man being kneed and kicked while being handcuffed by another officer. The armchair quarterbacks in my house were totally horrified and stated, “Well, that’s way worse than what happened to you, Mom! I mean, they got it on video and everything.”

The discussion followed as to whether a person getting kicked in the back by a likely  'jacked up' street cop caught up in the moment was worse than someone who was psychologically and mentally abused in a calculated and ongoing basis by various government bodies and authorities over a number of years. 

At first glance, yes the guy was kicked in the back, which is instinctively wrong on many levels. However, on the plus side, the guy was not charged with any crime--nor did the police try to plant evidence on him so they could save face--to support the police acting with brutal force.

The guy has likely gone on with his life. He likely didn't have to explain over and over again to friends, family and acquaintances, "honestly, I did nothing wrong!!" Any physical bruises have likely long since healed, and as to any mental scarring – well that does heal quickly when you are given a tremendous show of support for your pain and suffering by the community overall. He also likely didn't lose his job over it. There is no black smudge on his permanent employment record.

Other positive action in favour of this 'guy': There actually was an investigation of the officer's conduct. The decision to not lay charges on the officer was made in light of the fact that witnesses (not fellow police officers) did support the police's claim that the man did resist efforts to be handcuffed.  There was an acknowledgement from the Criminal Justice Branch that the amount of force used by the officer did call “for close scrutiny" so there is admission of questionable conduct which would likely be reviewed. 

 

In my case I was repeatedly, mentally, 'kicked like a dog' over a number of years by a front line supervisor and then the attacks continued on with high level government authorities entrusted to protect those most vulnerable.  At no time, had I ever been advised that my record of employment was anything but exemplary; and never given an opportunity to correct the misinformation from a smear campaign carried out after I was terminated from employment; there was never a proper (or any) investigation, or hearing, and the online reference of personal information in violation of personal information by the Manitoba Labour Board, as reported in the Ombudsman report, after having it online for 1.5 years, only to then be re-posted by the Labour Board on a different webpage on its website.

This evidence certainly is stronger than a 57-second clip. There is solid evidence spanning over three years of well documented wrongdoing and criminal behaviour. In Canada (where Manitoba is a province of) perjury and obstruction to justice are criminal offences and Government authorities are not (supposed to be) above the law. 

Society does tend to judge without having all the facts based on pre-determined beliefs. Our sense of fair play is based on social norms much like that of the game, Rock-Paper-Scissors. In a conflict situation between a police officer versus a punker with spiked pink hair wearing metal and leather; or a police officer vs. an Aboriginal homeless man, society tends to instinctively side with the police officer. But when society sees a regular-Joe type guy being kicked by a police officer on the news, in the papers and on YouTube, the world reacts on a Paper Rock Scissors mentality and the 'regular guy' is favoured. 

Whereas my story has yet to raise an eyebrow, compassion or show of any support for those most vulnerable to Manitoba Government's undue hardship as evidenced by a petition of 21 signatures (as of the date of posting to over 180,000 YouTube viewers of the guy being kicked): deemed a 'person of inconvenience' by mental association. The invisible-ness of it all even further reinforced when my story is passed over for stories such as   "lies, damned lies and ..."  in Winnipeg Free Press   Driving them crazy  about EGAD!  "...parking spots" A conspiracy going on at the Winnipeg International Airport on the basis that someone had to spend 10 minutes before actually finding a parking spot.

Scissors beats paper – paper beats rock – Rock beats scissors - and Government beats on those most vulnerable with its bullish ways. Is MB Government #WINNING?!!

Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell

A likely conversation between MHRC and Government of Manitoba would probably have gone on something like this:

"The complainant says she had been overworked at OSD; and underappreciated even after filling in for chronic staff shortages of 3 vacant positions over lengthy periods of time. She believes that she has been totally ignored due to an 'invisible disability'; And it has been going on for so long that she feels she is invisible. She's waiting at the door for your response. What should I tell her? 

Government: too busy to respond, likely distracted by more important matters tells MHRC:

"Tell her I can't see her," and then sends in for Rob Olson.

I questioned the inappropriateness of Government, thinking so little of my HRC complaint ,that it would just 'farm out' that responsibility to private lawyer, Robert Olson. But MHRC just brushed me off stating "any government authority could sign the Reply on Government's behalf." Well, if Olson did (at the time) have government signing authority, then he cannot claim third party privilege as stated in Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman. GABS

Olson acted without any credible basis for a defence on the backs of Manitoba taxpayers: on the basis of his expertise in these issues, he would have known there was no defence. What could have been cleared up at no cost, instead some legal 'expert' gave some really bad advice: Let's play hard ball.

Evidence would show that Olson used hearsay and primarily fabricated evidence to delay, demoralize, annoy, injure, and harass a person known to have a protected disability under the Human Rights Code. Common sense will tell you that these intentional delays work quite well in compounding legal fees and disbursements.

Why go for a quickie resolution when you can be Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, creator of a Seinfeld case where top level execs make a lot of money protracting a complaint based on a defence of nothing--now held over for its 8th season. GABS

I  was personally responsible for preparation of all documentation, unlike the Government who has access to, and made full use of all its resources: Civil Legal Service has 32 permanent full time on-staff lawyers); Treasury Board Secretariat has permanent on-staff lawyers;  CSC has two to four permanent lawyers as senior executive management; countless Human Resource personnel; .even the union (MGEU) not only has permanent legal counsel on staff, but they too spend union dues on hiring private lawyers (as in the case of Elliott Leven).

This gives us all a whole new perspective on the "Out to Lunch" phenomenon; whenever there’s a free lunch, there will always be herds of people that will show up. As to the issue of double dipping (into taxpayers' pockets), Government should be well advised that dipping more than once is not an acceptable practice to the norm. 

From a Government's perspective, particularly at the onset of the complaint, I could not have been viewed as much of a threat. I was out of work; had no legal representation, and any mental acuity I had going into employment with OSD in 2007 was pretty much fried at the point of termination by summer 2008. And yet Government still called out for "More Cowbell" and rounded up one of  Winnipeg's largest firms, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to join in and, clearly, made 'no bones' about it. GABS

I guess it is true, you can never, ever, have too much Cowbell.

RWP process is a "CLM" (Career Limiting Move)

My former Supervisor, Desrochers (whose harassment charges now numbered at the minimum--four) was passed over to another department; in much the same way teachers don't fail a student anymore, just make them someone else's problem. On my return to work after a 3.5 week stress leave, I handed a Respectful Workplace (RWP) complaint dated April 30, 2008 to my new Supervisor, Chief Operating Officer of OSD, Anna Schmidt Beauchamp.

Self-preservation 101 :

Never fire a manager  who knows where all the bodies are buried; it will likely lead to whistling about it.

The assigned investigator to the RWP complaint, was Ginette Grimard. Her notes accessed in 2011 supports my position that I expressed no malice in bringing forward a complaint but did so in good faith that it would lead to positive change. I expressed empathy for my Supervisor stating the harassment was likely due in part to the stress of the staff shortages and unrelenting and increasing workload. I had spent several unpaid hours at home compiling reports as a pro-active response, with the understanding that the decision was ultimately theirs. I had plans to move on and had a few good solid leads for new employment and it was clear that I was focused at the meeting on my needs, that included:

Self-preservation for Bipolar 301  

• ensure any future employment references would be fair and truthful;
• advise of an ongoing medical condition protected under the Human Rights Code;
• advise of accommodation required being a reasonable workload and a respectful workplace;
• ensure my 3.5 weeks stress leave would not adversely affect future employment opportunities;
• advise employer of medical history and of ongoing past hospitalizations for a full understanding that accommodation was essential to maintaining and sustaining recovery; and at serious risk of permanent institutionalization should 'it get really bad'. 

Feeling Grimard had a good grasp of the situation and feeling good about their meeting together, I sent off the following email (excerpt below) elated at having an impartial investigator to conduct the investigation. Unbeknownst to me, that would be the first and last meeting. Excerpt of email sent from home June 2, 2008 4:16 PM to Grimard:

Hi Ginette,

Thank you for the time you spent with Anna and myself today. I appreciated the fact that although we had only anticipated an hour. you did not rush through the information and showed a sincere interest in understanding the situation.

I am confident that this time will have been well spent and positive changes will result from it.

Mille fois rnerci, ("A thousand thanks")                   Marielle

• This email was forwarded to the Labour Board on December 6, 2008 in defence of the accusation made in the Reply by Beauchamp that I was screaming and yelling (at her and Grimard) throughout the duration of the June 2 meeting. I explained to the Board, the email is "indicative of how I conducted myself at the RWP meeting (June 2nd) and what I strive for daily."  The Labour Board did not accept the document and returned the correspondence to me. 

Grimard's handwritten notes accessed in 2011 ended with the last page in mid-sentence with no concluding notes, but nonetheless, even this is evidence that refutes what was stated in Flintoft's Assessment.  With all other interviews the testimony is typed up into a report, so it is then incredible that CSC did not provide a typed up report from Grimard as to my interview. According to Grimard's verbal testimony in 2010 (MHRC investigative meeting) the MHRC reports includes the statement that Grimard had instructed Beauchamp Schmidt to proceed to accommodation at the conclusion of our RWP meeting. Did CSC destroy Grimard's report? What happened here is anyone's guess but ultimately speaks of  'cover-up'.  How about perjury? At the very least --Bullish?  

The situation turned from someone who felt "kicked like a dog' by one supervisor, to being 'a deer caught in the headlights'  by those desperate to protect the government's status quo.  I had no clue of the real danger I was up against; having grown up in an era that you trust people in authority to do what's right.

Evidence of a smear campaign (by way of notes accessed in 2011) shows numerous meetings held after I had already left OSD. Outrageous accusations to support the 'screaming' and 'yelling' smears stating dates, times and meetings that this was occurring with OSD staff and management. And yet each accusation can be easily dismissed. Like one VISA statement would show that on a couple of those occasions describing me as 'out of my mind', I was actually out of the country cheering on the Celtics at an NBA game in Minneapolis.

Upon receipt of the RWP findings in September 2008, I left Grimard several messages by email and phone requesting an opportunity to meet.  I received no acknowledgement or response.  File accessed 2011 showed that Grimard did seek advice from Government as to how she should respond to me. 'No response' speaks volumes to a person who suffers from manic depression.

Manitoba Ombudsman Investigator Bob Baker responded he saw nothing wrong with Beauchamp Schmidt conducting the RWP investigation (an assessment made after being apprised of Beauchamp's FIPPA violations, HRC violations, perjury, criminal acts) on the basis that I had initially handed the complaint to Beauchamp.  Baker also stated that it is appropriate for CSC to investigate its own complaints which is in contradiction to CSC's earlier promise that an 'outside department' would be conducting an unbiased, off-site and impartial investigation. 

Cover letter to Manitoba Labour Board dated November 24, 2008 requesting to respectfully address the inconsistencies in the Government's Reply to LRA application went unacknowledged by both MLB and Government. The following email is once again indicative of my respectful and professional approach despite the mistreatment I was receiving:

The information is provided in good faith and with respect for the Government of Manitoba, as it is my genuine desire to resolve the conflict peacefully. Mediation cannot begin until a meaningful exchange of perceptions is conducted. I believe the Respondents are in agreement with me that there can only be a win/win resolution and that can only be done in a climate of mutual support and respect.

Crazy is as crazy does! Mama always says 'You can't outgrow crazy."

For Fear We May Forget...

Bad jobs -- bad supervisors happen every day to everyone. You pick up the pieces and move on. What is most frightening however, is when a situation arises like that described in A Bullish Government blog where the final decision on whether a situation is escalated or de-escalated;  whether a complainant is humanized or to be de-humanized is only, and can only be made at the highest level.  It is this abuse of authority of one (or select few) who then in turn instruct other potentially good people to do its bidding.

Highly respected and powerful people holding office of: CSC Commission, Manitoba Labour Board Chair, Manitoba Human Rights Commission Executive Director and Manitoba Ombudsman will (upon order) ignore policy, procedure, law and humanity for fear of falling into disfavour of its government leader. This is in total contradiction with Manitoba's new Canadian Museum of Human Rights, which is to stand proudly as a symbol of "Canada's unwavering commitment to recognizing, promoting and celebrating human rights" and “to stand as a reminder to take action against human rights violations." [Note: Mental illness and the strides in advancing civil rights in response to mental disability, are not recognized by the CMHR, primarily funded and sponsored by our Governments. ]


Government then undertakes to do whatever it takes to silence the complaint (away from public attention) to sweep a "person of inconvenience" under the rug.  One would hope to think that somewhere in this there would be one or two unwilling cohorts losing some sleep over it. But nonetheless, the fear of losing a paycheque, promotion or approval from any one of the Great Kahunas is much more compelling. 
 
Then, on the flip side, there's the really scary 'psycho'  leaders who really get off on being abusive. These are the ones that go way above and beyond the call of duty to inflict even greater pain and suffering.  Experiments conducted in the '60s and '70s  such as 'The Milgram and Stanford Prison' (one of many well documented cases) shows just how easy you can get people to do the unthinkable.
 
It has been said that it is better to protect your character than your reputation. Your reputation, after all, is only what other people think of you; but your character is who you really are.

This  Remembrance Day as we honour all those who gave their lives for others; and for those that came home to live out their lives to be strong leaders in our free world; free to marry their sweetheart, free to raise a family strong in principles, free to grow old and teach their  grandchildren the true meaning of honour, I leave you with my Remembrance Day bidding to you, "For Fear We May Forget ... 

We must never forget that we may also find meaning to life even when confronted with a hopeless situation, when facing a fate that cannot be changed. For what matters then is to bear witness to the uniquely human potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into triumph, to turn one’s predicament into human achievement. When we are no longer able to change a situation—we are challenged to change ourselves.

Man’s Search for Meaning
Viktor Frankl, survivor of Auschwitz

MHRC: You'll miss the donut if you keep looking through the hole.

Three years later, I still believe that I was unfairly terminated by the Government of Manitoba  once symptoms of  disability became exacerbated due to a stressful and toxic work environment. As stated in the MHRC Complaint dated October 20, 2008 para 9:

The workplace became very toxic in that the work expectations were unreasonable and I felt my supervisor was not providing me with the necessary tools to get all the work done. I felt hostility from (Supervisor) Ms Desrochers when asking for support or direction. I began physically feeling the strain of workplace stress in that I suffered daily migraines, hot flashes, muscle aches and difficulty in breathing with chest pains that resulted in medical attention.

The purpose of a doctor’s report is to corroborate and clarify information. An independent expert opinion from a psychiatrist or other trained professional in mental health issues would of, could of, should of, occurred but MHRC never asked for one. As stated in “A Bipolar Life” blog, MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft never revealed if her comments in the Assessment constitute that of ‘an expert’ or not. GABS

Multiple FIPPA requests eluded disclosure of Flintoft's letter to my doctor -- and for good reason. Information finally accessed revealed the letter was mailed for the doctor’s report on February 12, 2010 and stated that it was needed by March 1, 2010. No professional courtesy as to his limited time between office consults, hospital days, on call, delivering babies...) but Flintoft did offer, “... if you’re busy you can give it to me over the phone.” GABS

Flintoft knew for two years that a report was required. MHRC's failure to properly plan for a doctor's report that is supposed to be first and foremost --the most important thing--should not constitute an urgency on the doctor's part to do it on the fly. An unrealistic demand that required the doctor to do it on a Sunday. (Much like that of a parent doing their kid's science project in one night while the kid is in bed sleeping.) The unnecessary delay in requesting the report, and the sudden urgency to 'phone it in' is only overshadowed in absurdity by the context of Flintoft's questions and biased 'colour commentary': GABS

According to the Respondent, the department in which she worked was in the midst of a workplace re-organization which made the work of all its employees more challenging.

FALSE: CSC confirmed there was no "workplace re-organization.” Never happened. G

(Marielle) also advised that she saw you twice in six months [dates unknown] due to migraine headaches but that you did not change her medication at that time.

Lithium had been working for the past 20 years. Why change now? Is this to imply that the migraines were likely caused by the meds? X-rays were taken and tests were required regarding chest pains and difficulty in breathing as a result of stress as submitted in the complaint, but not questioned by Flintoft. 

Respondent’s evidence is that at the time it did not know she suffered from a mental disability and it had not been asked to make any accommodation for a mental disability. Raising her voice when meeting with management had also happened a few days before the meeting.  GABS

FALSE:

• Supervisor (Desrochers) admitted to Flintoft in 2010 that she had told OSD COO / CSC Director Anna Schmidt Beauchamp that she did know I suffered from a mental illness (knowledge going back 15 years) and she thought the changed behaviour was likely caused by it (said to have told Schmidt Beauchamp once, possibly twice);
• Accommodation had been requested June 2, 2008 at the Respectful Workplace investigation meeting, after which time the investigator advised Schmidt Beauchamp (who became my new supervisor once Desrochers was removed from OSD) to proceed to accommodation. The next work day, upon arriving to work, I was terminated. Told by Beauchamp Schmidt I was "paranoid" and "you think everyone is out to get you."
• Flintoft knew at the time of writing the letter to the doctor that Beauchamp Schmidt's sworn LRA statement that I was yelling and screaming at meetings was false, as confirmed by co-workers in attendance.  

Did the medication affect her ability to do her job? If so, please explain.

This is a performance based question regarding employment making an assumption that my ability was below par, which is in direct contradiction to the performance review letter that I was "an exemplary employee," and "asset to the organization," "showed initiative in taking on new projects" and "meeting the expectations of the job.” As a physician, all he could be asked to speak to, in his report, was the fact that he advised me to stay away from work due to the effects workplace stress was having on my health.


One statement in particular highlights Flintoft’s inexperience in the areas of bipolar, and likely mental illness (page 27) of the Investigative Assessment, when she wrote with placid impudence:

“...after their second child, the Complainant tried to get weaned off her medication but was unable to do so…”  GABS

The term used, to "wean oneself’ off generally means it is in one’s best interest to ‘stop using’ or ‘stop doing something’. To then state I “was not able to do so” (that is, wean myself off  meds) is a tactless comment considering I am to stay on my meds for the rest of my life. The presumption seems to be that I am 'weak' and 'not in control.' It is unclear if this is just in reference to me, or to any woman in general with an 'invisible disability' or "post partum?"

To the contrary,  problems occur when you stop taking your meds. Or, alternatively (which is often sadly the case) when someone ought to be on meds, and are too scared to go on it for fear that they will be ostracized by friends, family, society, government (or they can't get into a doctor). But is this an accepted mentality of a Human Rights investigator?!!

It is truly sad when a Government prescribed remedy is worst than the disease.

MHRC Rule: The Most Important Thing Must Remain the Most Important Thing

Although Manitoba Human Rights Commission Intake Officer, Pat Daniels, first supported the merits of my complaint, it was evident there was undeniable pressure in the ensuing months to ‘get rid of the complaint'. Daniels redrafted the submitted July 2008 complaint to remove key points of the complaint. I was then repeatedly contacted by phone and email pressuring me to sign the redraft "as is" -- told that this was under the direction of the MHRC Executive Director.

Quite astonishingly, I was old by Daniels that the Respectful Workplace complaint (RWP) had ”the same authority as the Human Rights Code" and should therefore just drop the HRC complaint, and let the RWP run its course. Not to be taken for a fool, I responded by email, “I do not agree with you that the parties commissioned to hear matters pertaining to policy would, or should, be dealing with matters of law pertaining to the HRC.

Government filed its Reply on December 8, 2008. Three months later, after repeated and numerous requests I was given a copy of the Reply, but without attachments. The Reply made repeated references to so-called documents submitted as evidence (handwritten notes and memos that I had no knowledge of, and believe that they were likely fabricated after I had been removed from my position and done unlawfully in support of government's defence). Failed promises over the next year to provide said documents were dangled. Often, I would be waiting at home on the dates MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft promised to have the documents delivered, but they never came.

There was no hearing to address any inconsistencies of the loose interpretation of emails and events. Email from me to my Supervisor, with copy to CSC Commissioner and COO at the start of my 3.5 weeks stress leave pleading for help; stated I was in 'crisis,' felt 'de-humanized and 'was being treated like a dog.' The evidence of record was then incredibly spun by legal defence, stating to investigative authorities, that I "didn't actually really mean that I was in crisis."

What is more incredible?

• That a COO, who claimed was "not a psychiatrist" was able to make the clinical assessment of my mental state: "Marielle's perception that she was in crisis was 'off'' or,

• That the Civil Service Commission did not bother to ask what I meant by the word 'crisis' upon my return from 3.5 weeks of stress leave because (as sworn to) they wanted to respect my privacy or,

• That MHRC actually bought that bullish malarkey?

If you guessed all of the above, you would then be in agreement with me. If you qualified (#3) further, adding Flintoft's statement in MHRC Assessment that "employers are not psychiatrists" and therefore the employer could not possibly have seen this coming, then give yourself an additional bonus point. But unfortunately, we all seem to have taken about a 100- year step back in the advancement of mental health rights.

The delay in not sending the MHRC Reply was first said to be due to the fact that an investigator had to be assigned to remove any confidential material, then, they didn't have anyone to make copies, ... then, half a year later when I was given the Reply the attachments were not given. Flintof told me it should in no way affect my ability to complete a Rebuttal to the Reply.

Under Duty to Accommodate, I asked to be allowed to see the Reply with attachments because the anxiety and stress of not knowing what was claimed (especially in light of the Government's past transgressions) was adversely affecting my health as I was experiencing escalated manic thoughts and it was affecting my ability to sleep - which then usually leads to psychosis.. HRC responded "It hasn’t even been determined that you have a disability.”

One can see how easy it is to get swallowed up in details, but for professionals experienced and entrusted to do a good job, the issue should be a simple one. The most important thing must remain the most important thing. MHRC procedure is to record every communication (emails, phone calls, meetings, etc.) in its database. Entry dated August 22, 2008 from MHRC Intake Officer, Pat Daniels (accessed 2011) refers to an initial conversation with me after termination meeting of June 4th while still employed at OSD as to what is relevant under the Code for MHRC to accept an investigation:

Reviewed with (Marielle) that during our first calls I had very clearly advised her that we don’t get involved in personality conflicts and that to have a basis for a human rights complaint – it has to be based…on her disability. She spoke about the conflict resulted in her having to go on leave and the ultimate result of the meeting where employment basically terminated. However, she still spoke about the conflict. Again reminded her – under our leg., has to be based on one of our g.f. … Advised C that the complaint would then be based on the (termination) meeting. She agreed.

February 9, 2009 – Letter from me to MHRC Investigator Paula Hamilton

“...in December you advised that a determination as to whether my health issue was protected under the Human Rights Code had yet to be made. My doctor recently advised (January 30th) that he had not yet been requested to provide a medical report. Should a medical report be required, it may be prudent to do so at this time to avoid any further delays in the processing of the October 20, 2008 complaint. (doctor) advised paperwork is abundant and his time is limited so it will likely take awhile before he can get to it.”

The pre-investigative process took three times longer than the median 8-10 months causing me undue hardship and distress; constantly preoccupied with the details, reliving her experiences both at OSD and afterward; constantly reviewing the documentation. Both stressful and at times incapacitating. Bringing Down the Barriers: The Labour Market and Women with Disabilities in Ontario notes:

...women with disabilities in general have higher overall stress levels than any of the other groups regardless of living arrangements.

The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems to take longer.

Edward R. Murrow

A Bi-polar Life

Bipolar is not well known, and its effect varies greatly from one person to another. Government's defence against unfair labour allegations and violations under the Human Rights Code was to undermine my credibility by describing me as just someone who was having “emotional problems” and was ‘depressed." And yet, during my time at Organization Staff  Development (special operating agency of Government of Manitoba), all documented evidence showed me to be clearly in an escalated manic state during the weeks preceding termination of employment.

My work history began as a legal assistant to senior partners of some of Winnipeg's top legal minds in the 80s; followed by a successful fifteen year career in direct sales where I was #1 in North America breaking many records. I have several years' experience volunteering in the community as a certified facilitator with Developing Capable People™  (an adult based program working with youth), where I trained at my own expense with Chris B. Rush, Pres. and CEO of the Resiliency Institute Corp. and Pres. of DCP  (Canada). My successes (over the past 20 years, including taking care of my family) is not in spite of being bipolar, but I rather view it as the catalyst that has driven me all my life. People with bipolar are often seen as the “movers and shakers" of society.

Success, for me, is measured in the number of years gone by without hospitalization, now more than a decade. In the nineties, there were six within an eight year span (estimated costs according to 1994 report was $8,000 to $12,000 per hospital stay). It should therefore be in the best interests of government, community, and family to support any and all efforts by individuals to sustain and maintain recovery.

Bipolar is a chronic lifelong illness. It is well known that bipolar is genetic, but it is also personality based. The Manitoba Civil Service Commission's findings from a Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument project it conducted in 2008 on select departments which required all participants to partake --profiling (believed to be against Personal Information Act)--revealed the following characteristics the month prior to getting fired:

...does have a natural inclination towards organization, order and discipline. She dislikes chaos and confusion and needs to make sense of things, putting things in order. There is a need for structure in a practical and procedural sense (methodical approach), step by step. Tasks need to be prioritized. Most comfortable communication approach for her is to have explanation in writing, and the information presented in a brief, clear and precise format. Most natural problem solving strategies include factual analysis, logical, step-by-step process but may not consider feelings.

In Paul E. Jones book, Up and Down Life: The Truth about Bipolar as follows:

Mood elevated, grandiose racing thoughts; like being in a room and not only hearing every conversation in the room but mentally engaged in the thought process of each line of thought, and racing to keep up with all communication.

In an elevated state, the drive, the courage, the intensity of feeling, is common which can make life and work a challenge. Over the years I have learned to view it as a gift that has challenged me to live a fuller and more rewarding life—a life with purpose.

I have read that that 85% of the most successful … are likely to have bipolar-like traits. Those super creative, those spontaneous ‘crazies’ who make risky changes that the norm wouldn’t dare; those tremendously smart; those relentlessly never tiring until they find the answer– all likely characteristics consistent to bipolar traits

...common to have a spiritual experience. God has chosen you for a mission- to go out and affect in some powerful positive way that others would recognize."

In an (audiotaped) investigative meeting of whether there wasI any wrongdoing on the part of MHRC, Ombudsman Investigator Kris Ramchandar was asked if he had any experience or knowledge of uni-polar disability  (tendency more to either mania or depression). Ramchandar acknowledged he never even heard of the term but stated he "doesn't need to be a lawyer to understand the law, and he doesn't have to be a doctor to make a determination of the case." As to whether MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft had any knowledge of mental illness, Ramchandar did not know.  GABS

Flintoft's Assessment did not include a doctor's medical report in her assessment to educate on the unique characteristics of bipolar. Her unqualified opinion (contrary to supporting documented evidence) reflects a collaboration of CSC and OSD smear campaign against a person known to have a disability: GABS

"her problems  were ... just a personality problem...(employers) are not psychiatrists, and were not in a position to realize that a difficult employee who complained and was disrespectful to many of her co-workers had a disability... in addition to her difficulty in managing stress, she had problems with interpersonal relationships, which made the workplace more stressful for her... The nature of her job was stressful as a few positions were vacant..." GABS

In reality, there were three long-term vacancies over several months wherein all duties were given to me and documentation from management stated OSD was in crisis, and when I asked for help, I was told "we have no one else to give the work to." Another flaw in Flintoft's logic:  'many of her co-workers' -- there were none (see below).

By the start of 2008, I was experiencing physical and mental ailments. Additional prescribed medications caused drug-induced tremors and dry mouth, exacerbated due to stress that only surfaced (as witnessed by senior management) in the last months of employment. Government e-mail posting sent out January 2008 to all departments introduced me as the newly promoted "backbone" of the OPCP project, (previously done by a full time Professional Officer--vacant since October 2007--PLUS unceremoniously given the full duties of the Registrar--position-vacant due to an extended sick leave starting January 2008 which CSC didn't bother to fill) all given to me, with the full expectation that I was also to keep up with the full duties of  the position I was hired for back in April 2007.

NOTE:  When the situation was discussed recently with Manitoba Mood Disorders Executive Director, Tara Brousseau, she was not surprised: Of course you could do all that--you're bipolar.

When I left OSD on stress leave in April 2008, only Senior Officers remained: All admin staff had either quit; requested to leave on secondment (stated was "for a change of scenery"), or were on medical leave. When I returned to work, there was no 'back to work re-entry" period (and yet, COO claimed they implemented said procedure--in that they just 'said' they did). According to documents received from CSC in 2010 through Privacy Act, there had been no new hires, no re-entry to work; no response to requests from an employee describing situation as a 'crisis'; no planning strategy meetings to deal with staff shortages and work overload: No response was Government's response.

Would this be allowed in the private sector?

Government's legal defence went with negative stereotypical characteristics in its ensuing investigations describing me as: Just an employee who was being difficult, and now that we know about her mental illness (attacking her credibility over 22 times in LRA and MHRC affidavits in response) --well, I guess that explains everything.

The mobbing and criminal violations were further supported and escalated by Ombudsman Investigator Ramchandar who, during his investigation, belittled me for being  "too intelligent ... in fact (he went on to say)  you know more about [it] than most people I know." The snide remark inferring that I was 'working the system'-- an abuser of a law intended for real disabilities.

The most troubling thing is that the Ombudsman's office was asked to investigate alleged improprieties by commissions: Civil Service Commission and government tribunals--Labour Board, Human Rights Commission--as to the manner in which it conducted its investigations. After all, is that not the job of the Manitoba Ombudsman? It is, according to the face MB Ombudsman presents to the public.

Irene Hamilton has stated the Ombudsman's position as follows: Any investigation should result in the Commission being subject to public scrutiny, not the individuals who come before it". 

Well, Good Night Irene! Clearly, what goes on behind closed doors is not keeping you up at night.

“I'm going to paraphrase Thoreau here... rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness... give me truth. ”   Jon Krakauer

Electronic signatures, rubber stamping - "Good Grief"

In the Spring of 2010, rather than risk the matter going to an open public hearing, the MHRC Executive Director Dianna Scarth, MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft and MHRC Board member, *Elliott Leven breached their fiduciary duties (without recourse from the Ombudsman) by allowing Leven to take part in the HRC panel despite assurances by both parties that he would not participate, resulting in further delays and difficulties. They did say "sorry". GABS

• August 31, 2009 through a reference from Workers Organization Resource, in a free telephone consult with legal counsel, Elliot Leven, I had briefly described the situation, naming all the parties involved after time (ten to fifteen minutes into the conversation) Leven then informed me that he was one of MGEU's legal counsel in the matter of the OSD-CSC union exclusion. "The Union has every right to be mad at CSC," Leven declared due to years of uncollected union dues. "But that had nothing to do with you. It's not retroactive." Furthermore, he expressed open annoyance with me: "now because of our conversation" he would have to recuse himself from the MHRC panel once my complaint came forward for review." And it seemed to really anger him that I was way over my head delving into a lawyers' world. "This (Labour Board) is not an investigation. It's a trial by paper and you blew it by not going to a lawyer!"   

In anticipation of moving forward with this complaint, I sent a memo of a complete and accurate account of my lawyer-client consultation with Leven and accordingly--as member of the HRC Board of Commissioners--he would need to recuse himself from participating in any deliberation of my complaint.. Email was sent February 26, 2010 to Executive Director Scarth with copy to Investigator Flintoft.

Scarth replied the same day stating, "you may be assured that he (Leven) will not participate in any aspects of the Board processes pertaining to your complaint...the nature of which may create a reasonable apprehension of bias."

The Board met on April 7, 2010 and to everyone's [sic] surprise - Leven was in attendance. He later claimed not to remember his telephone consultation with me. And both Scarth and Flintoft said they forgot that Leven should not have been in attendance. Because of the "foul play," the decision was made to go with an independent  Commission outside of Manitoba. Three months later, delegation was made to The Yukon Human Rights Commission. 

YHRC's website has a Corner Gas feel to it. The website addresses issues of being short staffed, over-worked, frustrated, underpaid considering most times they're doing multiple jobs. The Executive Director works part time and not likely to be working the summer, or over a long weekend. 

• A Canadian favourite, Corner Gas is a show about people living in Dog River; a great big place full of nothin' but space, who hang around the one and only town's gas station/restaurant.
• Yukon has its own unique challenges in its diversity of meeting the needs of 8 First Nations groupings and 14 tribes/clans where needs go beyond available resources.

Consider the following:  a well-staffed, rich in resources, MB Government took two years to just get started on a preliminary investigation. Meanwhile, the people of Yukon gathered, seemingly overnight, to review a very large complex file consisting of:

1. A 52-page MHRC Investigator's Assessment report "Assessment" (normally maximum of ten pages)
2. MHRC Complaint plus attachments;
3. Government's MHRC Reply plus attachments;
4. My Rebuttal to the Government's Reply plus attachments;
5. Gov't Rebuttal to my Rebuttal to the Gov't Reply -  plus any attachments
6. My Comments to the Assessment (MHRC restricted Comments to 10 pages-included -not in addition to - any attachments) to the 52 page Assessment.

Flintoft in the Assessment stated there was no real documented evidence which fairly reflects that submitted by Government defence lawyer, Robert Olson. However, the real evidence submitted by me of actual Government documents, letters and emails were either given no weight, given no reference, buried -- even deleted (as can be shown). GABS 

A hearing was clearly needed to cross-examine the evidence and witnesses, including but not limited to deponent, Olson who personally signed off on the MHRC Reply in the complaint against the Government but NOT as legal counsel to the Government. Generally when a lawyer signs on behalf of its client, it would state "Rob Olson Per: Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, legal counsel for Government of MB." GABS

MHRC accepted a third party's testimony as if he had personal knowledge of the facts and information submitted in the Reply which he was giving second and third hand. Furthermore, shown through FIPPA requests to be false information. What's more, Olson does not have government signing authority. Can John Smith sign on the Government's behalf? GABS

The Likely Legal Strategy:  Better that one man execute the fabricated response (while the Government had his back) than for the Government to potentially expose itself to perjury in stating the polar opposite to that said in the LRA Reply. Brilliant considering private firms and individuals are not bothered by such nuisances like FIPPA, accountability, transparency, and so on. The only trouble though with stretching the truth (so way way out) however is that it usually comes right back at ya with a -- SNAP!!

The standard practice in an HRC investigation now is to have all evidence sent out to each panel member to see if there is enough evidence to warrant going to hearing. This is not to be a decision on the complaint - just a determination on the information presented. Two weeks is the standard amount of time required to review, interpret, and sift through the most critical and relevant issues. Notes are taken in preparation of the day's session(s).

In addition, the parties need to be given notice of, and mutually agree upon a date, time, and location. Dietary restrictions and food preferences ("Traditional", "Aboriginal", "Yukon / First Nations" or "Champagne-Aishihik") need to be respectfully considered. 

And then, one day ... at band camp...

The Yukon accepted delegation on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 and somehow managed to take care of all of the above, and have the dictated notes transcribed, typed up, scanned, emailed and mailed out to me on Tuesday August 3, 2010;  the first day back to work after the long weekend. GABS

So incredible, that I brought this (along with other issues of procedural wrongdoings to Ombudsman Investigator, Kris Ramchandar saying "What? Did they decide to get together over a case of beer over the long weekend to see who gets to use the rubber stamp?" Ramchandar laughed.

 

The Yukon decision was signed by a secretary (she did apologize for not knowing how to insert the Executive Director's electronic signature into the letter). As to the basis as to why the complaint was dismissed, it was basically, 'ditto--what the MHRC said".  GABS

After a two year stonewalling job, this was not acceptable. At the very least, I wanted to know by what authority the secretary had, to sign such an important document beyond what was given, "she has the authority". I insisted that YHRC Executive Director send a properly signed letter with the reasons for dismissal. My email was returned 'blocked' by YHRC. Instead, a response of "Good Grief!" came by way of YHRC legal counsel, advising that "since the Yukon was outside MB, the YHRC was under no obligation to respond". GABS

Although the conduct of the MHRC and YHRC has been brought forward in a formal complaint personally handed to Ombudsman Irene Hamilton on October 4, 2010 at the legislative office, and in the presence of MLA Dr. Jon Gerrard; and the Ombudsman is mandated to respond within 90 days, communications with the Ombudsman Office stopped March 2011. As to further assistance from Dr. Gerrard, other than when he called asking for my support days prior to the election, she has heard nothing further from her MLA. 

Tip to Government:  When you take a leave of your senses don't leave a forwarding address.