Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Rights and Democracy: Dept. of Office Memos

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:57pm - 73 Comments

The document I’ve posted below after the jump was one of several that were tabled today at the Foreign Affairs Committee by three former members of Rights and Democracy. The three, Marie-France Cloutier, Razmik Panossian and Charles Vallerand, were fired weeks ago by bailiff’s letter on the order of interim president Jacques Gauthier, a member of the new Rights and Democracy board majority, on the day before the appointment of Gérard Latulippe as the agency’s president. The document lists several “incidents” between members of the Rights and Democracy staff and members of its board over the past 15 months. While this document has been tabled at the Foreign Affairs committee, none of the assertions in it has been proven. It should be considered only a list of allegations made by one aggrieved party in a continuing dispute. — pw

INVENTORY OF INCIDENTS BETWEEN
members of THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AND THE STAFF OF RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY,
BETWEEN February 2009 and January 2010

Note: The incident of the performance evaluation of President Beauregard,
already well documented in the media, is not included in this table.

Date	Board member(s)	Employee(s)	Incident	issue
February 2009	Jacques Gauthier	Rémy Beauregard Razmik Panossian Michael Wodzicki Nicholas Galletti Charles Vallerand	Press release on “Operation Cast Lead conducted by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip.	The draft statement quoted from a position of Rights & Democracy already published (in June 2006, under Jean-Louis Roy) calling on both parties to respect the human rights of non-combatants. Mr. Gauthier, then acting president of the board of directors has asked us to issue instead a statement accusing the Palestinian authorities to be behind this latest escalation of violence. Rights & Democracy did not issue a statement.
March 2009	Jacques Gauthier	Rémy Beauregard Marie-France Cloutier Dominic Tremblay	Mr. Gauthier has insistently sought to know the amount of severance package paid to an employee, first by his questions during meetings of the Board of Directors, then the finance committee then by asking Marie-France Cloutier directly.	Mr. Beauregard has refused to disclose the amount for two reasons: 1. The board of directors of the Center approves projects, not staff salaries. This is the President’s prerogative pursuant to Article 15.1 of the Act 2. Pay scales can be revealed, but not the exact wages which remain confidential under the federal Privacy Act. The Office of the Auditor General of Canada noted that the agreement giving rise to a severance payment after resignation was legal, but unusual. The OAG approved the financial statements without reservation. Wage policy adopted since for non unionized employee state that no premium is paid in cases of voluntary departure. The Board nevertheless seeks to adopt a bylaw to that effect. No consensus was reached around the wording submitted by Mr. Beauregard at the June 2009 board meeting. The board has not addressed this issue since.
Mars 2009	Aurel Braun	Razmik Panossian Michael Wodzicki	Mr. Braun is informed of funding for Al Haq, B’Tselem and Al Mezan during the briefing session given to him on the eve of his first participation to the board.	Mr. Braun was visibly angry and very upset. He said how that decision was wrong and what negative consequences it could have if the matter became public. The funding for these three organizations came from the Urgent Action Fund: The urgent action fund was established in 2000. Expenses over $5,000 were originally subject to board approval. Following an external evaluation conducted in 2002, the board deemed that given the amounts involved and the need for rapid response, authority over the fund would be delegated to the President of the Centre who would report back to the board. This change occurred in 2003. The decision to provide funding to Al Haq, Al Mezan and B’Tselem was in line with this procedure.
March 2009	Aurel Braun	Rémy Beauregard Razmik Panossian	Mr. Braun gets adopted a resolution requiring President Beauregard to consult members of the executive committee of the board on all expenditures of the urgent action and the important opportunities funds until this matter it reconsidered at the June meeting of the board.	Funding of $ 7,000 to support the visit in Colombia of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people is approved by all members of the Executive Committee, except Mr. Braun, who says has a veto. Funding is finally granted at the next meeting of the Board of Directors in June 2009. At its meeting on 7-8 January 2010, the Board adopts a resolution providing for a freeze of the urgent action and the important opportunities funds pending further consideration. The freezing of the funds forced the management team to support the disaster relief effort to Haiti in January 2010 out of regular budgets. The board later changed its mind later and approved that the funding come from the urgent action fund.
March 2009	Jacques Gauthier	Sylvain Beauchamp, Senior Advisor, Partnerships	At meetings of the Board, it is customary to invite employees to meet board members during a buffet style luncheon.	In his conversation with Sylvain Beauchamp, Mr. Gauthier indicated that it could be expected that important changes would be made to the orientations of the Centre.
March 2009	Jacques Gauthier	Razmik Panossian	After each meeting of the Board, it is customary for the management team to join directors for dinner.	Mr. Gauthier questioned Razmik Panossian at length about his ethnic origin, religion, migrations from Armenia, to Lebanon, London and then Canada. Mr. Gauthier later wrote that he had been offended by Razmik’s questions following set of questions on his own origins and the possibility that he or his wife would be Jewish given his great interest in the status of Jerusalem.
March 2009 (and throughout the year, as evidenced by conversations with Cynthia Gervais in October 2009 in particular)	Aurel Braun Jacques Gauthier	Rémy Beauregard Marie-France Cloutier	The Board was informed by Mr. Beauregard at the meeting in March 2009 of its decision that Rights and Democracy would not participate in any way to the Durban Review Conference, nor to parallel events reserved for civil society organizations even if we had been invited to attend by the civil society unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.	During a telephone conversation with Secretary of the Board, Ms. Cloutier, Mr. Braun tried to amend the minutes to attribute this decision to himself. She refused. Mr. Braun insisted after this incident that the deliberations of the Board be recorded, which was done. Despite assurances given by Mr. Beauregard, Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Braun continued to investigate whether Rights & Democracy had not participated in one way or the other at the conference. Both have interviewed, each in turn, the director of the Geneva Office of Rights & Democracy, Cynthia Gervais, on the subject. (see incident dated October 2009). They have refused all offers to meet with the Assistant Program Director, France-Isabelle Langlois, to whom Cynthia Gervais reports. In his memorandum announcing the postponement of the October board meeting, Mr. Braun continued to believe that Rights & Democracy participated in Durban II, that the intern at the Geneva Office had played an active role in it and that the decision to commission an external evaluation of the Geneva Office at great expense (in his words) was made without consulting with him.
May 2009	Aurel Braun	Rémy Beauregard Razmik Panossian Charles Vallerand Michael Wodzicki	The adoption of family law by the Shia Family Law in Afghanistan has raised international outcry and brought a lot of media visibility to Rights and Democracy.	Mr. Braun was outraged that we had embarrassed the Minister Cannon in an article in Embassy magazine which suggested that the government knew of the Bill. Mr. Braun insisted that a letter of apology be sent to the Minister. It was decided not to send a letter, since in fact the journalist had drawn his own conclusions. The offices of Minister of Foreign Affairs and CIDA, with which we were in constant contact during this period, understood and accepted our position. Our collaboration with our counterparts continued as well as the coordination of messages. The editorial board of the Embassy Magazine later published a long interview with Mr. Beauregard on our projects in Afghanistan, setting the record straight. Mr. Beauregard has clarified this matter before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development at its meeting on May 7, 2009.
June 2009	Board of directors	Rémy Beauregard Marie-France Cloutier	At the meeting of the Board of Directors in March 2009, the first chaired by Mr. Braun, the director Guido Riveros Franck recommends training on rules of governance.	Mr. Braun did not recall this discussion and attempted to remove reference made to it in the minutes of the meeting. A consultant is selected following a recommendation by staff of the Treasury Board and in coordination with the Office of the Privy Council and DFAIT. Mr. Braun considers the cost of this consultant excessive. Mr. Gauthier did not participate in training. Mr. Braun refused repeatedly to meet with officials of the Privy Council Office, which sought to explain to him the duties and obligations of a Chairman of the Board.
August 2009	Aurel Braun	Rémy Beauregard Charles Vallerand	Mr. Braun expected to approve the Annual Report 2008-09	The established practice since the inception of the Center was that the board’s chair would approve his introductory remarks only. The report on the organization activities is prepared in close collaboration with the program officers who have intimate knowledge of their achievements. Mr. Braun took office at the end of the fiscal year 2008-09 and could not have been able to comment on the annual report for the period ending March 31^st 2009. Mr. Beauregard agreed, in an email dated September 10, 2009, to submit to Mr. Braun drafts of the next annual report in advance.
September 2009	Aurel Braun	Rémy Beauregard Marie-France Cloutier Charles Vallerand	Preparing for an interview with journalist Graeme Hamilton of the National Post for a new article on Phase 1 of the Special Review conducted by DFAIT’s Office of the Inspector General following allegations of mismanagement.	Mr. Braun is consulted by telephone on our set of anticipated questions and answers. He considers them to be inaccurate. He said there are serious problems at Rights & Democracy. We cannot hide them from reporters. “Press gets upset when they are in denial.” If we do not talk, he will do and make public the problems within the board. He also mentioned that there was “an alternate view about human rights”. It was decided to explain as planned to the reporter that his first articles made references to past events, and that administrative controls had since been implemented and the programming of the Centre was successful.
September 2009	Aurel Braun	Rémy Beauregard Razmik Panossian Nicholas Galletti	Identify human rights experts who will bring new perspectives to the Board of Directors, following a suggestion by Marco Navarro-Genie at the June Board meeting.	Telephone consultation with Mr. Braun to identify experts: Charles Taylor (McGill), Andrew Arato (New School in NYC), Gerald Steinberg (Bar Ilan University). Gerald Steinberg, head of Israel’s NGO Monitor, is not approached contrary to what had been discussed. Other board members are strongly against the idea to invite him. Decision made by Razmik Panossian, in consultation with the management committee that, given the travel costs to bring Mr. Steinberg to Canada and the short time before the Board meeting in October, it would be better to invite him at the next meeting which would also allow to better plan his visit. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Arato are not available. We then turn to Frank Chalk (Concordia) who enthusiastically agrees to talk about his latest book on the “Will to Protect”, widely covered in the media at the time. Mr. Braun was outraged that we had not approached or asked Mr. Steinberg.
October 2009	Aurel Braun Jacques Gauthier Brad Farquhar Marco Navarro-Génie Elliott Tepper	Rémy Beauregard Marie-France Cloutier	Mr. Braun announces postponement of the 22-23 October board meeting 48 hours before it is to take place	The board’s international members are insulted that the announcement is made while they are en route to the airport Cancellation fee of $ 15 000 Cancellation decided by a minority group of 5 members (out of 11) without consultation with the others. Cited reasons to cancel are as valid reasons to hold the meeting without any delay. Since the issue of the performance appraisal of the President had not been resolved, there was a risk that the October board meeting would face the same outcome as the previous June meeting. Minority members can now hope that the two vacancies on the board will be filled to their advantage.
October 2009	Aurel Braun Jacques Gauthier Elliott Tepper Brad Farquhar Marco Navarro-Génie	Rémy Beauregard Marie-France Cloutier	The letter announcing the postponement of the Board meeting of October invokes the Government’s intention to create a new institution to promote democracy in the world. The adoption of the new Five-Year Plan 2010 – 2015 is jeopardized.	Mr. Beauregard and the staff have devoted considerable energy to preparing this plan, which had been adopted in the form of a white paper by the board at its June 2009 meeting. The adoption of the final version of five-year plan at the meeting of October 2009 would have allowed for it to be presented before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs in October 2009, in support of our request for a consolidated funding. The preliminary agenda for the Board meeting of January 2010, prepared by Mr. Braun, did not include any discussion on the five-year plan, only a few months away from the new fiscal year. The item was added to the agenda at the request of Payam Akhavan, but was never discussed following the death of President Beauregard.
October 2009	Aurel Braun et Jacques Gauthier	Pierre Robert, international consultant	Mr. Robert had planned to interview Mr. Braun and Mr. Gauthier as part of his mandate to evaluate the Geneva office project. Mr. Robert was selected after an international call for tender. The external evaluation had been approved as part of the initial project submitted to Rights & Democracy board of directors in 2006.	Cancellation of the Board of Directors meeting to be held in October in Montreal has not allowed Mr. Robert to meet them. He had travelled from Berlin to Montreal for the occasion. Mr. Braun and Mr. Gauthier finally did a phone interview with him, but did not answer his questions. They instead asked about the Durban II Conference, on the relationship between Rights & Democracy and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, with the Council on Human Rights, or with Ms. Arbor or Ms. Pillay. In his report, Mr Robert noted the governance issues that he had observed at Rights & Democracy.
October 2009	Aurel Braun et Jacques Gauthier	Cynthia Gervais, Director of the Geneva office (non-unionized employee, but not part of the management team)	Telephone conversation over an hour with Ms. Gervais, on her motivations, on the origins and coordinates of the intern in the Geneva office.	On a few occasions, Mr. Gauthier and other board members tried to visit Ms. Gervais at our Geneva office. For various reasons (illness, travels) such a meeting never took place. Mr. Beauregard was very uncomfortable with the idea that board members would deal directly with employees. Normally, it is up to the President to respond to their inquiries, to ensure that answers provided are accurate and complete. Mr. Braun and Mr. Gauthier did manage, through persistence, to question Cynthia Gervais each in turn. They have both asked the same questions on the Durban II Conference, the presence (repeatedly denied) of the office’s intern at the Conference, on the relationships between Rights & Democracy and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and with the Council of Human Rights. There were also questions on the choice of the external consultant Mr. Robert, the decision to conduct an external evaluation, the role of the Geneva office’s own board of directors – all of which seemed to show a misunderstanding of roles and responsibilities. They also raised personal issues (history, contact information, skills, future projects, cause of sick leave), which are clearly a violation of the rights of persons concerned.
29 October 2009	Aurel Braun	Rémy Beauregard Razmik Panossian Nicholas Galletti Charles Vallerand Marie-France Cloutier	Appearance before the SCFAID on Rights & Democracy five-year review, and in order to get support for a consolidated funding.	Mr. Braun asked that we address the existing issues within Rights and Democracy, especially between the Board and the President. It was decided to that this was not the appropriate occasion since the purpose of our appearance is to discuss the five-year review, which is positive, and a consolidated funding On the eve of our appearance, Mr. Braun declined Mr. Beauregard’s invitation to appear with him Jean Guilbeault and Payam Akhavan joined the President, Razmik and Marie-France for the presentation. Elliott Tepper and Brad Farquhar, who did not announce their presence, showed up at the meeting.
30 October 2009	All	Rémy Beauregard Marie-France Cloutier	A majority of members of the Board agree to convene a meeting of the Executive Committee, after obtaining a legal opinion prepared by the Mercier Leduc law firm confirming the legality of their decision.	The Executive Committee is convened to approve the renewal of two international members whose term expires (Sima Samar and Guido Riveros Franck) and to adopt three projects. This meeting triggered a fiery email exchange between the two opposing factions on the Board. At its 7-8 January, 2010, the Board challenges the validity of decisions made by the Executive Committee and reviews them one by one. The mandate of the Mercier Leduc law firm is terminated, considering that there could be a perceived conflict of interest and that the legal opinion was flawed. The mandate of Sima Samar is extended but not that of Guido Riveros Franck. Sima Samar and Payam Akhavan then resign. The three-year project “Sexual Violence in the Demoractic Republic of the Congo” is approved for the current fiscal year, and will again be discussed at the next meeting once new board members have had a chance to read the proposal.
November 2009	Elliott Tepper	Nicholas Galletti, Senior Policy Advisor to the President	Mr. Tepper visits Nicholas shortly after the opening of Rights & Democracy’s Ottawa offices..	Mr. Tepper has hinted that there could be consequences if the Ottawa office was spreading rumours and helped to publicize the problems of the board of directors. He also said that there was no possibility of reconciliation between President Beauregard and some members of the Board following the events arising from the June meeting. He said “We have an impasse and the solution will not be pretty.”
January 2010	Board of directors	Rémy Beauregard	The board adopts a resolution to terminate the contractual agreement with the law firm Mercier Leduc	The statutes provide that the Center’s President Rémy Beauregard has full authority to hire consultants.
January 2010	Board of directors	Rémy Beauregard	Mr. Braun presented at the meeting of the Board of January 7-8, a modified agenda and cut short all discussion on the reasons for the changes proposed by imposing the vote.	Mr. Beauregard was not entitled to an explanation of the reasons that motivated Mr. Braun to move the President’s report towards the end of the meeting rather than at the opening as was customary. Mr. Beauregard did not understand that one could hold an informed Board meeting without members having first heard the report of the President.
January 2010	Aurel Braun David Matas	Rémy Beauregard	Mr. Matas came at the meeting of the board with in hand a 15-page document arguing that that Al Haq, B’Tselem and Al Mezan were toxic and vicious groups making use of the technique of “lawfare” to attack Israel.	Mr. Braun did not see fit to limit the speaking time of Mr. Matas, as he had demanded of other members during the meeting, given the tight schedule. Mr. Braun did not refrain from insulting Mr. Beauregard, going as far as saying that his undergraduate students would have done better than the staff Rights and Democracy in their research on the three groups. Mr. Navarro-Génie used a similar insult with Mr. Beauregard in denouncing the decision to hold the executive committee in October 30, 2009.
January 2010	Board of directors		Despite the briefing notes, the many questions asked during board meetings or interviews with Cynthia Gervais and Pierre Robert, the board adopted a resolution entrusting Brad Farquhar and David Matas to revise the partnership between Rights & Democracy and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.	The partnership agreement terminated on March 31, 2009.
January 2010	Brad Farquhar	Maxime Longangué, president of the union	The day after sending the union had sent its own letter in support of the letter signed by all members of the management committee requesting the postponement of the meeting of the Board of Directors to be held in Montreal on the eve of Mr. Beauregard’s funeral service, Mr. Farquhar left a voice-mail to Maxime and wrote him an email commenting on the action taken by unionized members of the staff and his responsibility as union leader.	It is not common for board members to deal directly with employees. The union filed a grievance against the member of the board of directors Brad Farquhar for his communication of 20 January with the union president, Maxime Longangué.

Tags: Charles Vallerand, Marie-France Cloutier, Razmik Panossian, Rights and Democracy

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/LaxAtlDfwYow LaxAtlDfwYow

Visceral reaction to this list… much ado about little. I'll grant you it seems the new Chair and some Board members clearly had a particular agenda.– one at odds with that of the President and management team, and one with which reasonable people may disagree.

However, the listed "INCIDENTS" are largely without substance. Indeed, it looks (from this material) more like Management trying to protect their little cookie jar from a more activist Board than a Board trying to do something untoward. In the real world, management reports to the Board, not the other way around. Admittedly, many Boards are hands-off, but they can and do get very hands-on when they believe it necessary. Nothing special nor unusual in that.

If the Board or Board members want compensation information, then they bloody well get it. It's not at all unreasonable nor unusual for Boards to approve sr. mgmnt. compensation. Board mtgs can be run however the Chair wishes – in accordance with corp. bylaws – so objecting to the agenda order of the President's report is just childish. Trying to tweak/change Board minutes, well that happens regularly as reasonable people can reasonably have different recollections. Doing it surreptitiously, isn't appropriate. Modifying the President's authority to contract may be objectionable to the incumbent and management, but is absolutely fair game. Life in the big leagues, suck it up.

This material confirms what we already knew: that management was rebelling against the refreshed (?) Board and Chair. But frankly, the list doesn't seem to provide much rationale for that rebellion beyond "we're accustomed to running this show our way, so leave us alone".

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I had a similar reaction to the list of "incidents" and "issues". Is this really what all the fuss is about?

http://intensedebate.com/people/LaxAtlDfwYow LaxAtlDfwYow

I think the "real" rebellion is over the sharp shift in RnD policy. But, of course, management and staff can't very well take that fight public, nor can they win. So, they're chosen to fight on the hill of administrative and procedural trivia and hope to create a public furor and damage some of the more "troublesome" Board members.

It may well be worth fighting over RnD grant policy. But I say, if that's your fight, then have to courage to go for it. Don't damage your credibility by tossing out lame administrative quibbles

commentator

I agree with these comments. What seems apparent here is that management and staff did not do what the board directs. It'sa not surprising that the board got angry.
Who made this molehill into a public mountain?

Orson Bean

Ditto. A bunch of thin-skinned and petty people squabbling. My reaction is much like Rodney King's — Can't we all just get along?

S. Galore

A board's role is governance, not management. These incidents clearly describe board members who don't know the difference.
S. Galore

A board's role is governance, not management. These incidents clearly describe board members who don't know the difference.

MacLean's Regular

"I had a similar reaction to the list of "incidents" and "issues"

I'm shocked.

canada101

Nothing to be shocked about, there is not a big smoking gun.

Tappen

"Mr. Gauthier questioned Razmik Panossian at length about his ethnic origin, religion, migrations from Armenia, to Lebanon, London and then Canada.
Mr. Gauthier later wrote that he had been offended by Razmik’s questions following set of questions on his own origins and the possibility that he or his wife would be Jewish given his great interest in the status of Jerusalem."

What a kind inquisitive fellow.

"The draft statement quoted from a position of Rights & Democracy already published (in June 2006, under Jean-Louis Roy) calling on both parties to respect the human rights of non-combatants.
Mr. Gauthier, then acting president of the board of directors has asked us to issue instead a statement accusing the Palestinian authorities to be behind this latest escalation of violence. Rights & Democracy did not issue a statement."

It's like Canwest got to run government departments!
Dot

What is Marie-France Cloutier's role in the Board meetings? Is she secretary? If so, I would consider her disclosures of specific proceedings of board meetings to be a serious breach of confidence.

This whole memo looks awfully unprofessional to me, and petty in many respects. Too much free time on their hands, it seems.
http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

Ethnocentric hooligans.

That is about the only description that fits these despicable thugs Harper appointed to wreck R&D.
Standing By

Looks like what one would expect when you appoint a political hacks to run amuk in an established public organization whose mission is, at best, seen as peripheral to the government, and at worst, seen as working contrary to its priorities.

It is a good example of how the Harperites are profoundly changing Canada administratively, without passing or amending any legislation.

The Bush administration is the definitive model for this approach to dismantling and deforming government and democracy. It is well documented in Thomas Frank's highly readable "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule".
Sue

After 20 years in 5 departments in Ottawa, any civil servant recognizes that this Board is out to destroy. Roles and responsibilities are ignored and clearly illegal actions are being taken against employees. I pity those working in Ottawa under the Harper government. Standing By has got it right.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LaxAtlDfwYow LaxAtlDfwYow

Sue, sorry to be so frank, but "…after 20 year in 5 departments in Ottawa…", you need to get out more.

I'm not defending the new Chair and Board members at RnD. I suspect they are on a witch hunt and from what Paul has reported over the past couple of months, it sure seems that they are taking RnD in a very partisan direction. So, shame on them and shame on the politicians (if any) behind it.

However, it's really over the top to suggest – based on the information Paul posted above – that "…clearly illegal actions are being taken against employees." What that list reveals is staff unwilling to take direction from the Board and the Board being ham-handed about trying to force compliance. It's amateur hour on both sides.

MacLean's Regular

"What that list reveals is staff unwilling to take direction from the Board."

Which staff? Only staff who report to the chairman or the executive committee have to take direction from him/her/it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LaxAtlDfwYow LaxAtlDfwYow

So if the PM calls Helena Guergis' EA and tells her not to write any more glowing letters about her Minister, the EA is free to disregard the instruction becasue there is no direct line from the PM to the EA on some stinkin' org. chart?

Get serious.

Holly Stick

More likely he would tell Guergis to rebuke her, or to fire her. That would be the proper line of authority.

Holly Stick

"20 years in 5 departments" means that Sue knows what she is talking about and you do not, Laxawhatever. And you are not being frank, but offensive. And you didn't notice the illegal actions there? You don't know much about government.

March 2009: Gauthier insisting on being given information which is confidential by law. Gauthier grilling a director about his ethnic origins, religion, etc. Braun demanding that minutes be changed (and apparently thus falsified).

Daveyy

your comment reminds me of the one often heard: why are university politics so nasty ? Because the stakes are so small !

Joops

Wow, Aurel Braun, Jacques Gauthier, David Matas and Marco N-G seem like lovely people to work with. This list is worse than I expected. Toxic work environment, indeed.

Side note:
Why would Aurel Braun try to veto funding for the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights & Indigenous Freedoms in Colombia (See table at March 2009)? Interesting given the Cda-Colombia FTA is now going ahead despite serious concerns about human rights violations.

Jan

Because Harper has taken a 'see no evil' appproach to signing a trade agreement with Colombia.

canaidreform

As petty as some of these incidents seem, and if they are true, they suggest (i) Aurel Braun has been on a witch hunt since he was appointed Board Chair and (ii) the Board members don’t have the foggiest notion of the proper division of roles and responsibilities between Board and management. The June 2009 comments of former Board member, Guido Riveros Franck, were prescient; “we need some governance training here!!”
matt

Bang on.
Orson Bean

Bang on squared.

Daveyy

bang on au cube

http://www.canpalnet-ottawa.org Linda

It may look like a little conflict of personalities but what is happening in R&D is happening throughout the federal public service. Harper is a Christian Zionist. Harper believes that he will fly directly to heaven when all the Jews return to Israel and the End Times come. Hence, Harper appoints former members of B'nai Brith, an org whose sole purpose is to lobby for Israel and cover its 60+ years of human rights violations and defiance of UN Resolutions. Matas and Braun are totally not what rights and democracy are all about. In fact, their world view are enough to make anyone puke but nonetheless, they go in there guns a blazin with no regard for diplomacy, compromise or consensus building. They trample not only the views but the rights of employees who have been there for some time and have made the promotion of rights and democracy a lifelong mission. Matas and Braun work for Israel and Israel alone; not for Canada, not for rights and democracy and not for Rights and Democracy. Hurray for the employees for standing up to these low life thugs.

David

Well and truly said!! Harper is a nineteenth century Islamaphobe throwback, totally out of touch with what is happening in the world. In 20-25 years: 3 billion Muslims worldwide with an average age below 20 (1.75 billion today); 700 million Arabs, inclulding 12-15 million Palestinians between the River Jordan and the Med. Sea. In terms of geopolitics, resources, markets, and international trade, the implications are obvious. China, Japan, Russia, the E.U., India, etc., understand (as does the United States under Obama) that a new era is dawning. The handwriting is on the wall. Regrettably, both Harper and Israel refuse to read it.

DPT

dhimmitude, by all means capitulate now, it will make it easier for you later.

P. Bombardier

Dimmitude???? Cut the crap. Jews co-existed for centuries in the Arab world – before Zionism poisoned relations with the theft of Palestine. Israel's creation is proving to be a disaster for Jews. Sold as a solution for anti-Semitism, the forecful transformation of a predominantly Arab Palestine into a Jewish state only spread the largely European virus of Jew-hatred to the Muslim world. And meant to provide security, Israel is now one of the most dangerous places for Jews, with Berlin and Tehran actually safer for Jews than East Jerusalem or Hebron. And the thuggish Israel lobby is doing more to create anti-Semitism than any Palestinian can.

Orson Bean

I don't disagree with some of the points in your post, but . . .

1. In most circles, the creation of Israel was not "sold as a solution for anti-Semitism." Most people involved were more wordly wise than that.

2. There was plenty of Jew-hatred in the Arab/Muslim world prior to the creation of Israel. Arguably the creation of Israel made it worse, or at least created a handy lightning rod to channel that hatred, but to imply that the creation of Israel essentially created Jew-hatred in the Arab/Muslim world is not borne out by the historical facts.
Deir Yassin

Lets see: Under Christendom, Jews suffered forced conversions, blood libels, accusations of "Christ-killers" pogroms and the holocaust. Under Islam, they were respected as "people of the book" and paid a tax as they were exempt from military service (not unlike Arabs in Israel who are exempt from military service and therefore unable to qualify for a host of social service
Orson Bean

News flash: anti-Semitism has existed, and continues to exist, all over the place. Not just in Arab and muslim countries.

I sort of knew that already, but thanks for the reminder.

Orson Bean

Thanks for the objective, dispassionate, unbiased, just-the-facts-ma'am account.

Holly Stick

She's more accurate than the usual talking points crowd, who are still bleating "It's a non-issue… Nothing to see here folks, move along now… Duh, I don't see nothing to get excieted about… Look over there, a shiny object!…."

If you think it's a non-issue, why do you keep posting about it?

DPT

why do you keep defending the Lindas who post crap like that.
Orson Bean

I don't think it's a non-issue. I just think that usually, there are two sides to every story, and that both sides deserve to be told and considered. Apparently you and Linda don't.

Jan

The pro-Israel theme keeps poking through. Are we to ignore that?

Tony

Take it to court then ….there is no need for a special tribunal; take it to a real judge, as opposed to having a retired judge looking into it. Do you not have faith in our justice system?

Or offer the aggrieved a spot at Horse Magazine. ( My Boss was really mean to me today too)

Tony

Or if the staff Rights + Democracy are so invaluable, so educated, then go find a new job. That is the reality of the majority of Canadians; whether they are a welder, a cook, a graphic artist, an engineer, a research scientist, or a salesman.

Tony

And if successful in court, then all employees have a right to choose their boss, to define the goals of their organization – not under threat of leaving or failure of forced goals, but under threat of government intervention? or political wind? What are you fighting for Mr Wells?

David

Stephen Harper's slavish devotion to Israel and its Canadian lobby does nothing to bring peace to the Middle East, ill serves Canada on the world stage and for what should be obvious reasons to any thinking person, also puts Canadian Jews in an increasingly awkward position.

JamesHalifax

By "awkward" do you mean in the sense that Jewish Canadians finally have a PM that can tell the difference between Palestinian terrorists and their supporters, and a Jewish people who are trying to survive in a tiny geographic area surrounded by hostile countries?

I'm sure most Jewish Canadians don't find it awkward at all. I think "refreshing change" would better describe the differences between the Libs and the Conservatives.

Tony

Once again, I will ask Paul Wells to provide to his readers a detailed outline of the significant work, and achievement through this work, that Rights+Democracy achieved before they were derailed by the Conservatives.

Holly Stick

Do your own research.

JamesHalifax

Holly, I think perhaps Tony (above) has already done his research. He's testing to see whether Paul Wells has.

Jan

Or you could do a little googling. The 'just shut it down' option is available to Harper but he seems to have other things in mind.

http://stranicyk.ru/85/ Егор Макаров

Просто замечательно – очень интересные мысли. Разжевано специально как будто для меня :)
Eric Vehkalahti

Why does this board even exsist. The monies being spent by these children is tax payer hard earned money. Just another example of waste. Iam positive there is no impact anywhere in the world that thay have funneled money into. I am so disgusted every tike I read about another world service we provide while many Canadians are suffering
John Dirlik

Harper's pandering to the Israeli lobby (or more accurately, the Likud lobby) is as disgraceful as it is transparent. His policies towards Israel are contrary to Canadian values, harmful to our international standing and a betrayal to the long-suffering Palestinians.
When will Canadians wake up and vote these political whores out of office?

JamesHalifax

Canadian Values?

Sorry, John, speak to your own values.

Canadian values are usually understood to be freedom, democracy, and human rights. Israel is the only country in that region that possesses them.

I'm afraid you have your values backwards.

Janet

I'm not quite sure what Israel has on us, but it looks to me like we are defending Israel always at any cost; in Rights and Democracy, in the United Nations, in their continuing illegal occupation. If Canada were a man I'd think he was being blackmailed.

JamesHalifax

If Canada were a man……I"m sure you would hate it more.

L. Magliola

A shrewed strategist, Harper knows well Napoleon's dictum that "Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets," Hence his slavish pandering to the Zionist-owned Canwest media that would tear him to shreds if he ever did anything the Aspers considered inimical to Israel.
I second the opinion alreaady expressed here: When are we going to get rid of this political whore?
RightsNoExceptions

How sad that even a press statement, calling on both sides during Gaza crisis to "respect the human rights of non-combatants" was opposed by the board's acting president.

By refusing to support the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians, Braun, Gauthier, Matas, Navarro-Genie and their gang are actually undermining universal human rights and international humanitarian law.

Time for them to go. Their "alternative view of human rights" is rejected by Canadians of all stripes.

Jan

Well said.

Beesting

Likudnik bulls let loose in a china shop. The destruction of R&D, a respected NGO, makes it easier for Harper to create his new super rights organization, propably staffed by his own people who will make sure that our 'friends' violations are never mentioned. The Harper-Israel love wedding/welding is bad for Canada and Canadians. Where are the transparency and accountability Harper promised before coming to power? Bull….
Ottawavalleyvoice

This list is a valient but insufficient effort to bring a bit more light to the deteriortion of the internal environment at R&D as a result of the political agenda of the recently appointed Board members. It clearly illustrates the real frustrations and growing conflict as the staff and management tried to respond to an ever increasing attack by Braun, Gauthier and their buddies on the integrity and the human rights mandate of R & D. I suspect this list is only the tip of the iceburg in terms the poisonnous and destructive actions taken by these Board members. The staff comments should be seen in this light and not as a definitive set of evidence-based incidents. It is what it is, a cry for help and a show of despair at the wrongful actions of misguided Board members.
AshamedCanadian

Harper's government stands practically alone in supporting an apartheid state whose policies are increasingly alienating more and more of the world. How embarrassing it is to be called Israel's best friend. Furthermore, this government is completely blind to the fact that this is not helping Jews, but is bound to make things more difficuult for them. This government does not speak for Canadians, in its blind slavish support of a state founded on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, begun over 60 years ago and continuing today. This brings Canada's reputation down the drain too.
Holly Stick

Harper has evangelical activists as top advisors:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/…

About reactions to the above article:

http://communities.canada.com/VANCOUVERSUN/blogs/…

Orson Bean

Christians.

Participating in government.

Holding senior government jobs.

In Canada.

We're not making this up.

Holly Stick

Extreme rightwing fundamentalists; whether they should be called "Christian" is open to argument (they are pretty far away from mainstream Christianity). But they do tend to be people who want to impose their narrow religious and moral beliefs on everybody else and this is not acceptable.

We must not allow our government to degenerate into a theocracy.

Orson Bean

Holly, I'm not a Christian. I actually think Christianity is laughable as a belief system in many respects (e.g., virgin birth, resurrection, etc.). But here's the thing: unlike a lot of other people who claim to believe in tolerance, diversity and all that in one breath — and then suggest that those with views different from theirs should not be allowed to particpate in public life or hold high public office — I actually am tolerant. I abhor right-wing religious fundamentalism, but I realize that if I'm going to walk the talk as a believer in democracy, I must — and do — respect the fact that religious fundamentalists have the same right to participate in public life and hold high office as any other Canadian. Do you?

Holly Stick

As a mainstream Christian, I consider freedom of religion to be important, and I think religious fundamentalists tend to attack freedom of religion. If they want to participate in public life, they will have to refrain from doing that. The Harper minority government are imposing their fundmentalist views on Rights and Democracy, in cutting funding to Kairos whcih is not fundamentalist enough for them, in appointing anti-science people as Ministers and to boards which control science funding.

The problem is when they misuse public office to impose their narrow religious beliefs.
Orson Bean

I take it that that is your long-winded and obfuscatory way of admitting that no, you do not believe that religious fundamentalists should have the same right to participate in public life and hold public office as any other Canadian.

Res ipsa loquitur.

And BTW, religious fundamentalists are hardly the only people who misuse public office (see, e.g., "Sponsorship Scandal" or "Watergate").
Holly Stick

You have problems with reading comprehension. What part of keeping church and state separate do you not understand?

Orson Bean

To assert that Canada is in danger of degenerating into a theocracy is beyond delusional — it's positively hallucinatory.

JamesHalifax

Given the number of posters on this board who are decidedly hostile to Jews…er, I mean, Zionists……one would have to ask,

"Why are so many Liberals typing away when they should be working?"

(I'm on lunch break)