Press one of the expand buttons to see the full text of an article. Later press collapse to revert to the original form. The buttons below expand or collapse all articles.
Ottawa CAS Board Meeting
June 12, 2008 permalink
John Dunn reports on a CAS board meeting yesterday.
I attended last nights Ottawa CAS Board meeting and a couple of things happened of interest.
1. Last month's board meeting I asked the board to clarify what "conducting business" means in their bylaws pertaining to eligibility requirements for membership. You either have to reside in Ottawa, or be conducting business in Ottawa. So I asked for clarification because the Society has rejected a sixty-year-old, former crown ward of the Society membership because he lives just outside the jurisdiction. Clarification of "Conducting Business" assist us in determining if the real reason they are banning his membership application. (We suspect it is because he fought for copies of his records recently and upon doing so, learned he was not an only child and found his sister who lives locally and whom he has now met as a result of getting access to his files after a long CFSA Board review etc. and complaint process.)
At last month's meeting they told me that they [pre]vented me from speaking to my issue of concern through a pre-emptive discussion on a potential agenda item you see? Very smooth, but very effective.
3. The big one. Since all agenda items were agreed upon during the "Approval of the Agenda"... this means that if you have anything to add or amend or delete from the agenda, you do it right there and then. Not after. So anyhow, they approve the agenda, and move on. They do a presentation regarding recent and new initiatives etc... then my turn. Public Presentations, to which I make positive comments regarding the recent initiatives on getting Wards networked with the community (schools, Universities, Work places etc) Then since the agenda is supposedly approved I see nothing more to speak to of concern to me and sit down.
Once they finally get around to item 6 on the agenda, and 6.1 and 6.2, ready to move on to 7, the Treasurer/HR Financial Head Merv Sabey interjects and starts ask " and how whistleblower policies are redundant.
Then he recommends that instead they simply offer to amend the current "code of conduct" of employees so that if they have complaints they bring them to the head of the Board (President) or Executive Director or the head of the Finance Committee.. (that's him) etc... (don't forget the charges I have against them are based on the fact that they hired a lawyer to commit the offence they are currently charged for and each one of those three persons are involved)
After his long detailed description of how burdened they are by such measures, he lets the board discuss or vote.
I beg leave from the board to speak since this was not on the agenda. To which a rather confused board looks around at each other.. and says approves my request to speak. I then say, what if hypothetically speaking, the persons who have done the wrongdoing, such as illegal spending of monies etc.. are the head of the Board?
The Foster Care Council of Canada
Source: email from John Dunn