REASON III: Why smart people lie

Politics without Principles - Even dead fish can go with the flow.

 

 

Throughout history, government has been the authority and final word on law and order. Decisions from those holding positions of authority were rarely ever challenged. In light of having no other information, the general public merely accepted what it was told.

The ground rules have changed. Anyone who has access to a computer, a phone line, and an Internet connection can have access to knowledge and information. As a result of media, television and technology, we are now an informed public. We are no longer forced into submissive. blind obedience, nor do we have to accept 'because I said so' as an explanation.

 

 

 

The Government institution is no longer held up as some sacred cow. There have been enough chinks in the armour of our judges, lawyers, mayors, and politicians brought to the public's attention to substantiate the need for real transparency and accountability from everyone and by anyone who has reason to question it.

Smart people believe others are too stupid to know any different.

 

Trust me. I know more than you.

MHRC Intake Investigator Pat Daniels in a telephone conversation suggested I should drop my MHRC complaint because the matter was already being investigated by the Government's Respectful Workplace Policy and the "RWP is the same as Human Rights Code."

 

• If you ask an authority to document what they have just said to you, and they display signs of annoyance, or become irritated, or worried and/or appear guilty and refuse to put it in writing; you then need to recap what was said in a letter to them. Be forewarned, they REALLY hate that, and will likely treat you with contempt and disgust. My response to Daniels:

As I understand it, the Respectful Workplace Policy, is just that--'a policy'; a policy implemented as a result of our laws… 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 Human Rights Code…I would like to confirm (as per our telephone conversation) it is my intention to proceed with the Human Rights complaint.

The ‘nice guy’ who does nothing but keep YOU busy.

The first formal complaint to the Ombudsman was July 15, 2009 and assigned to Investigator Bob Baker who advised me, over the phone that the complaint was not accepted for investigation. When asked for the reasons--in writing--he then did, well, 'sort of'' changed his mind, and then asked for more information. For close to a year, he kept me busy asking for more clarification and more information--well into 2010.

• If you notice that almost a year has gone by and at NO time is your case ever assigned a file number, and then the matter is closed a year later without a formal Ombudsman’s report but rather just an informal letter with nothing more than bland content -- you know you have been taken for a moron. In contrast to the Ombudsman's pseudo-investigation, my own investigation (through access of information in 2011) provided concrete evidence that the allegations against the Government of Manitoba were valid.

• If you are feeling hurt, disappointed, disbelieving, and/or disgusted that your crusader of justice is dropping you like last night's date -- an abrupt sudden dismissal of you and your complaint, more than likely he was never that nice guy but rather just a player: consider yourself 'played'.

 

 Forms, forms and more forms - bureaucratic red tape.

There are many instances that I was asked to re-submit the same form, as was the case with a complaint filed with the Manitoba Ombudsman regarding the Labour Board’s violation of FIPPA laws which I was asked to resubmit on three separate occasions (no doubt to re-start the clock, and not show that the complaint had been initially submitted to Bob Baker in July 2009.) Each time I  would provide copies of the original complaint, always insistent that the date submitted remain as July 2009.

• see Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board violated Privacy Laws.

Defiant compliance

If the authority goes with the authoritarian position: “I’m in control and you’re not telling me what to do” -- consider yourself to be in a power struggle: fight all instincts to meekly bow down to your self-appointed God or Goddess, and then go over their head to their superior and force them to abide by the rules. Some applies if you are feeling challenged, threatened, defeated--you have likely encountered a wall of defiant compliance.

• Although a complainant may worry that being "too pushy" may harm their position, the reality is, if you are encountering nothing but resistance, chances are your complaint isn't going anywhere anyway. The last thing you should do in the case of stonewalling is nothing.

That had been my mistake (first) with The Labour Board. There was no one assigned, so any attempts to speak to a Board member or Chairperson was stopped dead by its formidable gatekeeper, Registrar Janet Duff. As stated earlier, Labour Board stonewalled for 260 days (median time is 48 days) and when they felt safe enough to do so (assured of no intervention), simply dismissed the complaint. You need to keep 'poking the bear', and in this case that means taking it to a higher authority.

 

Passive Aggressive Behaviour

In response to FIPPA request for information made on MHRC after the dismissal, the Commission eventually released (after the due date) a large bundle of loose paper (nothing stapled and in no particular order). Think of the card game 52 Pick Up with five decks of cards thrown down on the floor. After 14 hours of compiling the documents, first by assessing and separating from the pile my documents, I was then able to determine which were the Government's and which documents were missing (the ones Government did not want me to have.)

 

In the end, through repeated requests more documents were eventually provided but many are still missing. This was brought forward to the Ombudsman's office. Investigator, Kris Ramchandar has yet to complete (or more than likely even start) his investigation from the complaint personally delivered to Manitoba Ombudsman, Irene Hamilton October 2010 and in the presence of Liberal Leader Dr. Jon Gerrard.

• See related posting:  When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal

 

Stonewalling

Initially MHRC said it would allow Government all the time they needed (stating there were no time restrictions) to file its Reply to the complaint I initiated back in June 2008. It is quite likely, that had I not persisted, it would never had happened. In reality, the law only says the employer has an option to reply, there is nothing that states that the Commission needs to wait for a reply to start its investigation. No doubt because I pressured the Commission on this point, voila, the very next day--Dec 10, 2008--Government had allegedly submitted its Reply.

 

The fact that the MHRC refused to provide me with a copy, and gave really feeble and contradicting excuses as to why they would not provide me with a copy (they had no one to make copies was one excuse), led me to believe that there likely was no Reply on file--just said so to stall. I did offer to come to the office just to review the Reply,  to avoid the need for photocopying at that time (and to confirm it actually was there). But MHRC 'flipped out' and told me not to come to their office in a very stern letter stating, "seeing you have to have everything in writing....We will do our best to disclose it (Gov't Reply) as soon as we can, but it is not expected to be before January."

Question: If Government's rule is document, document, document; why is it viewed as rude and disrespectful on my part to request information be in writing?

  

No response?

If you have done everything by the books, and believe you have proven your case fairly and honestly and yet --

• nothing happens
• there is no longer any promise as to when a response can be expected
• there is no longer any communication or response for updates; and
• years have gone by and still NO final response has been provided as that authority is legislated to do...

and you have had no group, or someone of importance advocate on your behalf...

and you are experiencing symptoms of severe, traumatic mental abuse: feeling despair, hopeless, helpless and/or inadequate...

It is obvious that authorities have now grown quite tired of you. Based on Government's expert legal resources it has concluded that no one would even notice, let alone care, if it just told you to "F--K Off already!"

Can Government do this?  "Yes We Can" says Manitoba Government.

 

Formal complaint proceedings are similar to any court proceeding. Each party must comply with specific procedural rules, appear before the investigative authority, and file documents that address legal issues of that court or tribunal. Parties are usually represented by lawyers, however, those most vulnerable usually do not have access to legal representation. I went forward with my complaint on my own trusting that if I follow the rules and the law, a fair investigation would be conducted on the matter. The regulations governing the procedures are government. There are legal ramifications if the rules are not followed. 

 

An inspirational quote from the Movie "Taken":

 

I do not have money. But what I do have is a particular set of skills. Skills that I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.

 

REASON II: Why Smart People Lie

Why would someone so prominent and respected in the community lie and chance a character assassination? 

See no evil. Hear no evil.
But then there's ... EVIL.

The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing article published September 30, 2010 (Andrew Jameton (1984) defined moral distress as “a phenomenon in which one knows the right action to take, but is constrained from taking it.” Moral distress can occur in any situation or workplace environment. It occurs when one is forced to put aside values and principles and carry out an action against their own better judgment.


A certain amount of submission is expected when you work in a hierarchy (government, or otherwise), but there are times when what you are expected to do for the privilege of keeping your job: prostration, literal groveling, sucking up to and kissing body parts crosses over to a "hazing" mentality which is totally unacceptable. We often think of hazing in terms of fraternities and with team sports but I witnessed it first-hand at the Civil Service Commission and in my department, Organization Staff Development (OSD). Hazing was allowed to go on, albeit in somewhat secrecy, despite being totally contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy. No doubt, it was able to do so, due to the fact it made sure it had no union interference.


Although my clerk position was open to be filled on a permanent basis, I was offered 'terms' at OSD. Three terms in fact, despite the fact that my work was said to be exemplary, and it was stated that I excelled in taking initiative of taking on projects: described as an "asset to the organization."


I made several requests under the Access of Information Act for copies of Staffing Requests and CSC postings for various 'term' and suspiciously filled positions. CSC ignored, refused and even pleaded ignorance: what I don't recall. Eventually, CSC just "denied" access to the majority of the requests, alleging that the document requested either "does not exist or cannot be located."

 

It is in the lack of documentation that supports my case that claims were being made to the tribunals without any documents in evidence to corroborate said testimony. The lack of documentation is also in violation of 'abuse of term positions' as regulated by Government's own Principles and Policies for Human Resource Management Staffing 2.1.5.

See other related postings:

Reason I: Why Smart People Lie - Smart people follow their anger into some pretty stupid places.

Mean Girls vs Civil Subservient - termination meeting held on June 4th following the RWP Investigation meeting. Beauchamp Schmidt was told to proceed to accommodation but instead carried out an attack in violation of HRC. 

RWP(2) - Beauchamp Schmidt provided an unfair uncorroborated employment reference to employment agency.

In the same (behind-closed-door) fashion, Anna Beauchamp Schmidt was given a one-year term position in an Acting Status as Chief Operating Officer of OSD even though there was no reason not to fill the position as a permanent position. There was no incumbent holding that position, as the former COO had left government altogether to work in the private sector.

 

It should be evident that the Civil Service Commission filled its positions by hand-picking the woman they wanted: rather than posting it in accordance with policy, and in compliance with employment equity. CSC would place the chosen woman, first, in a temporary position then later, after the woman had proved her solidarity, would then unceremoniously transition the 'Acting'  into a permanent status, without competition, and without any questions asked. The end result was then a perfectly homogeneous group of scary think-like mid-life white women.

 

Anna Beauchamp Schmidt’s one-year initiation came to a successful conclusion after only four months coinciding with the successful execution of the dirty deed in terminating my employment as ordered by the Commissioner.

 

This then leads us to Reason II: Why Smart People Lie. Smart people will stupidly follow leaders to gain a position, promotion or for continued employment.

 

Remember The Patriot (the movie)? 

"I'm a parent I haven't got the luxury of principles."

 

It is easy to understand how a vulnerable person (like newly divorced Beauchamp Schmidt) can become morally upended when she finds herself in a most precarious situation: paying maintenance to an ex husband, as well as primary caregiver to two teenaged daughters--one of which was going through more than just the usual teen angst.

 

Unlike the former COO, "Anna" (as referred to in this section only) brown-bagged it for lunch. The small dinette table provided an opportunity get close to Anna. I found Anna to be "real," kind and approachable. There were many discussions regarding the difficulties she faced, and given I also had teens and had experienced a year-long separation in my marriage, a friendship developed. 

 

When Anna invited me for a meeting to discuss ways to improve processes at OSD, I was hopeful of positive change for the future. [Anna's notes, later accessed through FIPPA, stated she found something ‘off’ with me at this point and that I had “approached the meeting different that anyone else." The following day Anna sent me an email and asked for medical emergency phone numbers. I accepted that she was likely concerned because, no doubt, I must have seemed a little accelerated. I also gathered that my supervisor had likely informed her about my mental illness history: I responded to the email request by providing four emergency numbers.

 

I viewed the request for medical information as a positive sign of Anna's caring. There were a number of other telltale signs of care and concern from Anna. Most compelling was when Anna responded to my lengthy manic email that I had sent from home at the start of her 3.5 weeks stress leave. It was indicated in the email that the harassment I endured at the hands of my supervisor had grown to a crisis level. Accordingly, I advised that I would be filing a formal RWP complaint. Anna had immediately responded with what seemed to be genuine concern by email, in addition to emailing me a  personal Get Well card and then sent a follow up email giving her assurance that the “matter outlined in this email will be appropriately addressed... your return to health is of primary importance.”

 

Upon returning to work, the Anna I knew was transformed into a cold and distant COO. There were no meetings. No girl chit chat about family and life. No casual inquiries about my health or whether any accommodation was needed. There was no re-entry to work process: I felt 'frozen out'.

 

In addition to gaining a permanent status as Chief Operating Officer, Beauchamp Schmidt was also made a Director at CSC. No doubt she had favourably ingratiated herself within the cluster of the CSC Executive Society and the full physical transformation into a 'mean girl' occurred.

 

Although it is not likely that it was Beauchamp Schmidt's intent from the onset to cause me harm--that had collaterally occurred. The change in Anna's attitude and the actions taken against me could only have occurred on order by her supervisor, Civil Service Commissioner Debra Woodgate: alternatively, if the Commissioner had no clue what was going on--she should have. There is no other plausible explanation as to why someone with Beauchamp Schmidt's solid background in education: Director of Manitoba Adult Learning & Literacy, (Supporting Lifelong Learning program), transitioning into a completely new position as COO at OSD in an "Acting Status" would, on her own, launch an attack on a person known to have a mood disorder: disability was known, procedures and policy were not followed, and conflicting testimony supports the claim of perjury.

 

Beauchamp Schmidt's testimony in the MHRC investigation as to why support was not given, "I am not a psychiatrist." And that was good enough for MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft. Her assessment report stated: "employers are not psychiatrists" which defies all sane and reasonable logic of what accommodation is all about.

 

When you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance baffle 'em with bullshit.

What is even more incredible is that someone would commit an illegal act seemingly without conscience by lying under oath in violation of the Manitoba Evidence Act to tribunals: Labour Board, Human Rights Commission and their oversight body--Provincial Ombudsman. No one would dare do that unless that person had some assurances (friends in high places) that would guarantee to them that there would be no retaliation.

 

Heck, Government will likely even create a new job for you. Right Irene? (see Ombudsman moves to Government Job Winnipeg Free Press January 5, 2012)

 

Sources:

 

Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/

Hazing is the US English term used to describe various ritual and other activities involving harassment, abuse or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into a group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazing

 

 

Epstein, E.G., Delgado, S., (Sept 30, 2010) "Understanding and Addressing Moral Distress" OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 15, No. 3, Manuscript 1.

 

The Movie Mean Girls (2004) Synopsis (self-explanatory)

The Patriot - a widowed father of seven children, does what he can to avoid fighting in the Revolutionary War knowing the implications surrounding it.