In the redacted report on harassing and bullying of Vancouver School Board staff by Vancouver school trustees, external investigator Roslyn Goldner quoted one witness who noted that in 2016 there was the “perfect storm.”
A board and staff dealing with the complex issues of balancing the budget and school closures were further burdened by the activities of a special advisor and an external audit team assigned to comb through their records by the minister of education.
But the event that broke the back of whatever relationship existed between the board and senior staff was a public board meeting on school closures on Sept. 26 at Sir Charles Tupper high school.
According to Goldner’s report, amidst the uproar of a passionate and partisan crowd, “once again the superintendent approached the meeting chair, trustee [Mike] Lombardi, to advise him of staff concerns and to ask that he maintain control in the meeting to ensure there was a respectful and psychologically safe environment for discussion of the recommendations and board decisions.”
By then, of course, the wheels were already falling off the machine. A day earlier, secretary-treasurer Russell Horswill commenced an indefinite leave.
The following morning VSB chair Lombardi expected to have a debriefing meeting with superintendent Scott Robinson, only to learn that Robinson, too, was booked off on indefinite leave.
In all, six senior staffers would book off, while two may have had reasons other than the “toxic” work environment.
That was soon followed by a series of letters to the Ministry of Education expressing dismay at the actions of the Vancouver School Board. The most explicit and damaging came from the president of the B.C. School Superintendents Association, Sherry Elwood, addressed to the
Deputy Minister of Education David Byng. In that letter, she claimed senior VSB staffers thought their “positions may be in jeopardy” and that they were unable to perform their duties in a toxic environment.
The letter was conveniently leaked to the media but was followed by three more letters (which seemed to come at the invitation of the Ministry of Education) disparaging what was going at the VSB — one from the B.C. School Trustees Association, a second from the organization representing secretary treasurers and a final one from the association representing B.C.’s principals and vice-principals.
Education Minister Mike Bernier forwarded the Elwood letter to WorkSafe B.C., which was now conducting its own investigation into workplace conditions. The acting VSB superintendent engaged Goldner to produce the report issued in a redacted form on March 7.
Unlike Goldner’s executive summary, which did not name names, nor tell you who did what to whom, the actual full report is more explicit in placing the blame.
In what I have confirmed was a reference to the Vision trustees, Goldner noted: “Four ex-trustees were represented by counsel who attended their individual interviews. These ex-trustees requested and were provided with a summary of the particularized allegations in advance of their interviews.” Then she stated: “This group of ex-trustees included individual trustees against whom allegations of bullying and harassment were made in the course of the investigation.” And, most often in her commentary, she referred to actions by both Vision trustees Patti Bacchus and Lombardi.
Those trustees would argue they were simply asking staff tough questions about school closures and they saw themselves as advocates for the children of the folks who elected them.
Vision has been a thorn in the side of the provincial government for years. In the past, they have managed to make their point without losing the confidence of their senior staff.
They deliberately refused to meet their fiduciary responsibility under the school act, which required them to pass a balanced budget — only agreeing to do that when it was too late. So the whole board was fired.
And then there was the allegation of harassment and bullying.
Lombardi was right last week when he said Goldner’s executive summary (and Elwood’s original letter) did not name names or cite specific incidents, thereby smearing all nine trustees.
While Goldner’s 79-page final report is redacted to exclude in-camera meetings and protect specific staff members, there is enough there to draw conclusions at least to where the bulk of the blame rests.
Vision trustees may not have been wholly responsible for the rude and inappropriate behaviour that took place. But based on this report, they should bear the brunt of it.
@allengarr
