@OECTA June 2017 by @OECTA

JUNE 2017

AIN’T NO SUNSHINE WHEN YOU’RE ON

EXAMINING ONTARIO’S SUNSHINE LIST

THE OCT INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

FACT OR FICTION?

GUARDING AGAINST THE RISE IN FAKE NEWS

EMAIL COMMUNICATION

HOW TO AVOID THE PITFALLS

PLUS:

Using gospel values to teach social activism Dan de Souza’s final blog Ontario’s “free” tuition? Summer “reflections” Discipline Panel decision

Summer 2017 REGISTRATION OPENS ........................................ April 6 REGISTRATION CLOSES ....................................... June 2 COURSES START ................................................... July 4 COURSES END .................................................... July 28

Fall 2017 REGISTRATION OPENS ........................................ June 6 REGISTRATION CLOSES ............................ September 8 COURSES START .................................... September 25 COURSES END ......................................... December 15

A limited number of $450 AQ subsidies are available for ALL Math, Kindergarten and Technology (ICT) courses.

A discount of $200 for anyone who takes an OECTA AQ Specialist in an instructional course, that is not subsidized.

CLOSING DATES WILL BE EXTENDED IF SPACES ARE STILL AVAILABLE

Co-operative Education Part I

Reading

Teaching English Language Learners

Religious Education in Catholic Schools

French as a Second Language (all 3 parts

Special Education

Guidance and Career Education

Teaching Students with Communication Needs (Autism Spectrum Disorders)

now available online)

Integration of Information and Computer Technology in Instruction Kindergarten Teacher Librarian Mathematics

ORDER ONE TO FIT YOUR NEEDS

catholicteachers.ca

Student Assessment and Evaluation Teaching Combined Grades Writing

CONTENTS/JUNE2017

INBOX 4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 5

UP FRONT

6 CALENDAR / OECTA INDEX 8 EVENTS

FEATURES

12 AIN’T NO SUNSHINE WHEN YOU’RE ON Examining the utility of the annual Sunshine List By Mark Tagliaferri 14

IF THIS WERE PROVEN TO BE TRUE

What teachers need to know about the Ontario College of Teachers’

Investigations Unit By Robert Smol 16

FALSE HOAX : THE RISE OF FAKE NEWS STORIES

And how we can learn to spot them

By Cynthia Bifolchi

TEACHERS AID

18 TEACHER ADVISOR Communicating by em@il By Joe Pece 19 LEGAL BRIEF Kill a worker, go to jail? By Charlene Theodore 20 INSIGHT Finding your diamonds By Michelle Despault 21 CATHOLIC CONNECTION Summer by the “reflecting” pool By Shannon Hogan

PEOPLE WORTH WATCHING

22 TEACHING SOCIAL ACTIVISM THROUGH GOSPEL VALUES By Cynthia Bifolchi 23 LOOKING BEYOND THE GLASS By Dan de Souza

VIEWPOINT 24 IT COSTS ME, IT COSTS ME NOT Ontario’s “free tuition” is not free, but that’s okay By Mark Tagliaferri

MEMBER MATTERS

27 DISCIPLINE PANEL DECISION Regarding member Vince Lepore

INBOX

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Teaching is, in my opinion, the best job in the world. From the moment I entered my first classroom, I could not imagine wanting to do anything else. The ability to help young people build their skills and develop their values is a unique honour, and I will be forever grateful to have had the opportunity. But every teacher knows that the job is virtually impossible without the support of our colleagues. We lean on each other to share knowledge and strategies, improve our practice, or simply to talk through a rough day. In essence, that is what this Association is all about: Catholic teachers joining together to look out for one another. Through our collective agreements, professional development offerings, counselling services, and more, we make sure that all of our fellow teachers can thrive in the classroom and beyond. It has been a great honour and privilege to lead this Association for the past two years, and to be part of this important work. As I step away from my time as OECTA President, I am proud to look back on our accomplishments. Together, we have made real progress for Catholic teachers and our students. Another element fell into place last month, when the last remaining bargaining unit reached a settlement on local terms for the 2014-17 collective agreement. With this final deal having been reached, and a twoyear extension agreement already approved, Catholic teachers now have a collective agreement until August 31, 2019. Once again, I want to thank all members and bargaining teams for your patience, determination, hard work, and solidarity throughout this process. Of course, we still face challenges. Over my term, no issue has been raised more frequently or ardently than violence in the classroom. Growing behavioural issues, and a lack of supports, means that teachers are under increased risk and stress. I have spoken to government leaders about this on a number of occasions, and recently you were invited to participate in a member survey, to help us illustrate the scope and scale of the problem. I can assure you that this Association will continue to push for the safety and well-being of all teachers and students. We will also continue to protect and promote publicly funded Catholic education. In Saskatchewan, a judge has ruled that public funding for non-Catholic students to attend Catholic schools violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision is being appealed, and the provincial government has announced its intention to keep the existing system in place, but our opponents here in Ontario have no doubt been heartened. The threat of school closures, especially in rural areas, has also led some to argue that it is time to amalgamate our school systems. The evidence shows that the financial savings to be reaped from amalgamation are largely mythological. But this is not the most compelling reason to support Catholic education. The best arguments in our favour are the work you do every day, and the contributions that Catholic school students and graduates make in communities across the province and around the world. Over the past month, you may have seen the next phase of our Lessons for Life initiative, including advertisements online and on buses, subways, and transit shelters. We have also joined with the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association and the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario on the Together in Faith campaign, which is a way for the many supporters of publicly funded Catholic education to show our pride in our schools and our commitment to working together to maintain the system. I urge you to learn more at catholicteachers.ca and togetherinfaith.ca, and to take advantage of these avenues to share your stories. More than ever, I believe that it is essential for this Association and its members to have a vocal and visible presence in the education sector as well as the broader labour and social justice movements. Catholic teachers bring highly valuable knowledge, talents, and perspectives to the table. As I move into retirement, I want to thank you all for the messages of support and kind words of encouragement you have provided throughout my presidency, and ask that you stand together in solidarity as we continue moving this Association forward and fighting the good fight.

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

Michelle Despault Editor Mark Tagliaferri Associate Editor Cynthia Bifolchi Writer/Researcher Fernanda Monteiro Production Anna Anezyris Advertising EDITORIAL BOARD Ann Hawkins President Liz Stuart First Vice-President Marshall Jarvis General Secretary David Church Deputy General Secretary Adam Lemieux Executive Resource Assistant

@OECTA is published five times during the school year. Opinions and ideas expressed in @OECTA are not necessarily those of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association. @OECTA is a member of the Canadian Educational Press Association, and the Canadian Association of Labour Media. Return undelivered Canadian addresses to: Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, 65 St. Clair Ave. E., Suite 400 Toronto, ON M4T 2Y8 PHONE 416-925-2493 TOLL-FREE 1-800-268-7230 FAX 416-925-7764 catholicteachers.ca Publication Mail Agreement No. 0040062510 Account No. 0001681016

Cover: Teacher and students at St. Brendan Catholic School in Stouffville, Ontario.

INBOX

UP FRONT STUDENTS BEFORE PROFIT

Every year the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF) hosts a Forum on Public Education. The forum is an opportunity for a broad group of individuals and organizations interested in public education to consider an issue of concern. This year’s theme is “Students Before Profit.” The forum will be held in Ottawa, July 10 and 11. Participants will discuss the growing trend of privatization in public education in Canada and around the world. They will also hear from featured speakers, including Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, and David Edwards, Deputy General Secretary of Education International. For more information, and to register for the forum, visit ctf-fce.ca CELEBRATING OUR DIVERSITY: SHARING OUR STORY

That is the theme of this year’s biennial Educating for the Common Good Conference. The conference will run July 6 and 7 in Toronto. Keynote speakers include Niigaan Sinclair and Tracey Lindberg. Visit catholicteachers.ca for information on workshops and to register. HEALTH AND SAFETY CURRICULUM RESOURCE GUIDES

The Scope and Sequence documents for Health and Safety in Kindergarten to Grade 8 and Health and Safety in Grades 9 to 12 have been published on the Ministry of Education website. For the elementary document, visit http://bit.ly/2oTPP5n. For the secondary document, visit http://bit.ly/2qoQ8VM NEW RESOURCES FROM TVO

Last fall TVO introduced mPower – an innovative online game that engages students in problemsolving and critical thinking through math – for students in Kindergarten to Grade 2. Now, TVO has launched mPower for students in Grades 3 to 6! Teachers can find mPower at mpower.tvo.org/educators Teachers of students in Grades 7 to 12 can now quickly and easily access TVO’s free films, documentaries, and interviews to support teaching and learning in their classrooms. Join TVO’s Current Affairs and Documentaries community by signing up for their newsletter at http://bit.ly/2pEpcRd, and receive links to current affairs coverage and a preview of the evening’s documentary.

MAKE A DIFFERENCE OVERSEAS

WITH

PROJECT

Want a chance to travel, while providing professional development in-services to colleagues in other countries? OECTA, through the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), sends elementary and secondary teachers to developing countries, primarily in Africa and the Caribbean, every summer. Participants’ basic travel and living expenses are covered. Applications for travel in the summer of 2018 will be available at the beginning of September, and due by November 1, 2017. Application forms and program information will be available at catholicteachers.ca in the For Your Career section, under Leadership Opportunities. TRADE PLACES AND TEACH IN AUSTRALIA

OECTA members are invited to trade places for a year with a teacher in an Australian Catholic school as part of an exchange program organized by the Canadian Education Exchange Foundation (CEEF), a non-profit charitable organization that provides national and international exchange programs and services for students and educators. Members will exchange their teaching position with a Catholic teacher in Australia for one year. Members will also trade residences, or provide appropriate living accommodation for the incoming exchange partner. Members will continue to be employed and paid by their home school board, and all benefits and seniority are retained. Visit the For Your Career section at catholicteachers.ca for a list of current exchange opportunities. For more information or to register, contact Mariana Rakiteansky, Teacher Exchange Coordinator, via email at teachers@ceef.ca or phone at 705-739-7596.

CLASSIFIED ADS THE BULLY AND THE PURPLE PANTS – A DYNAMIC SCHOOL ASSEMBLY. Award-winning songs are combined with motivational speaking to provide students with effective strategies for dealing with bullies. Hundreds of schools across Canada have experienced this fabulous presentation! Call 519-655-2379 or visit www.paulbehnke.on.ca for complete details. Acceptance of advertisements in @OECTA neither endorses nor warranties any products or services. We welcome ads for teacher resources, travel, and teaching overseas. Personal ads are not accepted. Rate: $50 for the first 25 words and $3 per word thereafter.

JUNE 2017 |

@ OECTA

JUNE

CALENDAR

OECTA INDEX

Summer AQ Courses Registration Closes

Fall AQ Courses Registration Opens

By Mark Tagliaferri

GSN Workshop

On April 27, the Government of Ontario delivered its 2017 Budget. Much of the fanfare ahead of this year’s budget centred on the Liberals’ declaration that the government would balance the books for the first time in nearly a decade.

8, 9

Summer Council of Presidents’ Meeting

12 World Day Against Child Labour

J U LY

INBOX

Canada Day

Summer AQ Courses Start

6-7 10-11 28

Educating for the Common Good Conference

CTF Canadian Forum on Public Education

Summer AQ Courses End

Opposition parties were quick to protest, arguing that “balancing” the budget was nothing more than an accounting trick; the Liberals included revenue generated from one-time sales, such as of Hydro One, as well as federal transfer payments, which amounted to a combined $5 billion and helped them get into the black. PC Leader Patrick Brown called it the “fudge it budget,” noting that despite balancing the books, Ontario’s debt will still rise to $312 billion this year, and is estimated to reach $336 billion by 2019-20. Opinion on this matter divided sharply along partisan lines. All budgets are political documents, and this year’s seemed especially so; the Liberals’ claim to have balanced the budget, along with the breadth of spending areas, has led many to view this as the first campaign action ahead of the June 2018 election. All told, the budget included a $141 billion spending plan. Most of the headlines focused on the Liberals’ pharmacare plan, which will provide free prescription drugs for all citizens 24 and under. There was also big money for health care, skills-development, and child care. Announced in the days leading up to the budget, the government followed through on its plan to test a basic income program, with pilot projects planned in Hamilton, Lindsay, and Thunder Bay.

SEPTEMBER

AU G U S T

Highlights of the 290-page document include:

July & August Summer Institutes

Civic Holiday

International Youth Day

Health and Wellness

• Four million children up to age 24 will be covered for prescription drugs. • A $7 billion hike in health care funding over the next three years. • Tobacco tax increase of $10 per carton over the next three years, beginning with an immediate hike of $2. Housing

21-23 OTF Annual Meeting

Labour Day

Fall AQ Courses Registration Closes

International Literacy Day

Fall AQ Courses Start

27-28 Grievance Officers Seminar

• The province will allocate some of its unused lands, worth between $75 million and $100 million, for the development of 2,000 new housing units in Toronto. • Eliminating the 1991 loophole and extending rent control to all rental units in Ontario, in addition to other measures to help protect tenants and keep costs affordable. • Introducing a 15 per cent Non-Resident Speculation Tax (NRST) in an effort to make housing more affordable. • The government will amend legislation to give municipalities the ability to bring in a hotel and Airbnb tax. Youth and Young Workers

• A pledge to open 100,000 new child care spaces, with 24,000 of those spots set to open this year. • A new pledge of $190 million over three years for a Career Kick-Start program, where high school and post-secondary students can access co-op

programs and other training to better prepare them for the workforce. • Post-secondary graduates can delay repaying their loans until after they start earning $35,000 a year, up from $25,000, starting in 2018. Public Education – Grants for Student Needs

Education did not produce the attention-grabbing budget lines it has in years past, and much of the spending had been announced weeks earlier as part of the Grants for Student Needs (GSN), some of which was tied to recently ratified extension agreements, including with Catholic teachers. Overall, GSN funding is divided as follows:

Some of the specific highlights include: • A 1.5 per cent salary benchmark increase for staff in 2017-18 (projected to be $257.2 million). • Funding for a one-time payment in 2017-18 for professional

development, equivalent to the amount that would have been generated if the salary benchmarks for these staff had been increased by 0.5 per cent (projected to be $85.7 million).

• Establish a Local Priorities Fund (LPF) of $218.9 million

in 2017-18 to address a range of priorities including more special education staffing to support children in need, “at -risk” students, and adult education.

• Implement a class size cap that will prevent large FDK

classes. This investment will lower the funded average class size to 25.75 in 2017-18 (projected to be $16.7 million) to provide additional funding to help boards manage the costs associated with meeting caps.

• Funded average class size for Grades 4 to 8 will be reduced

to 24.17 (projected to be $39.6 million). Over five years, the funded class size average for Grades 4 to 8 will be reduced to 22.85 for all school boards.

• The ministry is dedicating $25.3 million to support programs FUNDING FOR CLASSROOMS Pupil Foundation Grant Continuing Education and Other Programs Grant Cost Adjustment & Qualifications and Experience Grant Total

$10,806.4M $142.4M $2,290.9M $13,239.7M

FUNDING FOR SPECIFIC EDUCATION PRIORITIES Special Education Grant $2,807.2M Language Grant $755.0M Indigenous Education Grant $66.3M Learning Opportunities Grant $759.2M Safe & Accepting Schools Supplement $48.1M Total $4,435.8M FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS School Foundation Grant School Facility Operations and Renewal Grant Total

and initiatives aimed at improving Indigenous student achievement and well-being, and closing the achievement gap between Indigenous students and all students.

• The GSN has been updated to assist school boards in

managing increases to electricity, transportation, and other non-staff school operations costs. In 2017-18, the projected cost is $31.4 million.

• The government will launch an engagement on new

approaches to supporting education in rural and remote communities. This initiative will include regional inperson engagements throughout rural Ontario as well as an online survey.

$1,460.6M $2,417.8M $3,878.4M

FUNDING FOR A LOCALLY MANAGED SYSTEM Geographic Circumstance Grant $185.1M Declining Enrolment Adjustment $17.3M School Board Administration and Governance Grant $612.4M Debt Service $457.7M Student Transportation Grant $905.1M Total $2,177.7M

Mark Tagliaferri is Communications Specialist in the Communications department at the OECTA Provincial Office.

JUNE 2017 |

@ OECTA

INBOX

EVENTS WORKING FOR A FAIR FUTURE

The 28th Constitutional Convention of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) was held May 8 to 12 at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. The Association had a full 59-person delegation in attendance, including two youth delegates. The week started off by looking backward. In his address, CLC President Hassan Yussuff recounted the large number of successes the Congress has achieved since the last convention, including the defeat of the anti-union Harper government, the expansion of the Canada Pension Plan, and a comprehensive ban on asbestos. There was also a tribute to iconic Canadian labour leader Bob White, who died in February. Mr. White, who was instrumental in the creation of the Canadian Auto Workers, served as CLC President in the late-1990s. The rest of the week was spent looking forward. This year’s convention, with the theme of “Together for a #FairFuture,” was guided by four policy papers: • Working for a #FairFuture, about issues related to economic shifts and increased precarity in the labour market. • Equity for a #FairFuture, about issues related to fair treatment and inclusion. • Green Jobs for a #FairFuture, about the CLC’s vision of a society and economy that can respond to climate change while ensuring fairness and prosperity. • Organizing for a #FairFuture, about the importance of increasing union density, reaching out to non-unionized workers, and ensuring a legal framework that supports union certification and collective bargaining. These papers were all endorsed by the delegates, along with dozens of accompanying resolutions. Additional resolutions dealt with a range of issues, such as child care, public services and privatization, health care, and women’s economic justice.

OECTA delegates at CLC 2017

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

There were also emergency resolutions dealing with Canada’s renewed dispute with the United States over softwood lumber, the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, the genocide of gay men in Chechnya, privacy rights, and the treatment of Palestinian prisoners. Other highlights included guest speakers, panel discussions, and an engaging plenary session on organizing and mobilizing for a fair future. The final piece of major business was the election of the Executive Officers. This year, the Congress is saying goodbye to Barb Byers, who is retiring after several decades of dedication to Canada’s labour movement. Replacing Ms. Byers as SecretaryTreasurer is Marie Clarke Walker (Canadian Union of Public Employees). Donald Lafleur (Canadian Union of Postal Workers) will be returning as an Executive Vice-President, while Larry Rousseau (Public Service Alliance of Canada) will take over the Executive Vice-President position vacated by Ms. Clarke Walker. Hassan Yussuff (Unifor) will be staying on as President, having run unopposed. It is always interesting and valuable to meet with union representatives from all over the country, who work in a wide variety of sectors and occupations. As teachers we do not always think of ourselves as “workers,” but we share many interests with others in the labour movement. The more that we can gather to discuss our concerns, overcome any differences, and develop a common front, the better our economy and society will work for everyone. And Catholic teachers certainly did our part at this year’s convention, by speaking with knowledge, and passion, offering important perspective on issues such as mental health, youth employment, child care, and Indigenous rights. We left no doubt in anyone’s mind about where we stand on issues of social justice and solidarity.

INBOX

OECTA’S DISCIPLINE PROCEDURE

DAY OF MOURNING

Like all unions and other regulatory bodies, the Association has procedures that define how a violation of our constitution, bylaws, polices, or procedures is to be dealt with. These are outlined in the Association’s Handbook and made available on our website for all members to access.

Every year, millions of workers around the world suffer injury, illness, or death as a result of their working conditions. In Canada alone, 852 workers died from workplace-related injuries or illnesses in 2015, and another 232,629 suffered a lost-time injury or illness.

The Association by-laws detail the requirement for, and duties of, the Discipline Board. The most significant duty for members of the Discipline Board is the requirement to sit on a Discipline Panel. A Discipline Panel, made up of three board members, is tasked with receiving complaints about an alleged breach of the Association’s constitution, by-laws, policies, or procedures; conducting hearings into those complaints, to determine if a breach has occurred; and, if a breach has occurred, determining an appropriate penalty.

The National Day of Mourning, which took place April 28, is an opportunity to remember and honour those lives affected by workplace tragedies, and to renew our commitment to improving health and safety in the workplace. Events and services were held across the country.

As per the Handbook, members of the Discipline Board must be either a retired member who has extensive local and provincial experience, or a retired former secretariat member. Candidate names are solicited by the General Secretary and provided to the Provincial Executive, which appoints the Board members. The Discipline Board meets on an annual basis and Discipline Panels are convened as needed. No panels were necessary last year, but this year four have been convened. The Association Handbook also allows for publication of a Discipline Panel decision. A recent decision is included in this issue of @OECTA.

Discipline Board members Back row L-R: Joe Pece (Staff Liaison), Bill Brazeau, Carolyn Stevens, Helen Biales, Gary Tomcko, and Kathy McVean. Front row L-R: Kathleen Gardiner, Suzann Jones, Joe Ryan, and Horst Schweinbenz

This year, we also observed the 25th anniversary of the Westray Mine explosion. Despite considerable evidence of negligence, the mine’s owners were not held criminally liable for the tragedy that killed 26 workers. The victims’ families and the United Steelworkers pushed for years for laws that would punish those responsible for worker deaths, eventually resulting in the introduction of new criminal liabilities on managers and directors of corporations that fail to protect the lives of their employees. However, these laws have not often been used. “Lack of enforcement is costing lives,” said Canadian Labour Congress President Hassan Yussuff in a statement on the Day of Mourning. “Too many workplace fatalities are never properly investigated and only a handful have resulted in criminal charges.” In response, the federal government has said that it will work toward more proactive enforcement and effective co-ordination, to ensure that the possibility of criminal charges is not overlooked when workplace tragedies occur.

Brian Hogan (far left), President of Windsor-Essex Secondary Unit, and the Windsor and District Labour Council speaking at an Injured Workers monument in Windsor

JUNE 2017 |

@ OECTA

INBOX

EVENTS CHANGING WORKPLACES REVIEW

GETTING OUR HEADS OUT OF OUR APPS

After some delay, the final report and recommendations of the Changing Workplaces Review was released on May 23.

While the tongue-in-cheek title sounds a little like we are being dragged kicking and screaming into the age of technology, the energy and enthusiasm from attendees at the Association’s inaugural Tech Summit told a very different story.

The review was initially launched in February 2015, with a mandate to consider changes to the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act, in light of the broad, ongoing shifts in the labour market, workplace, and economy. Two special advisors with extensive experience in labour law were appointed to study the issues and receive submissions from businesses, unions, and others. The labour community has been actively involved from the beginning. Hundreds of written and in-person submissions were made, including one from OECTA. And the Ontario Federation of Labour’s Make it Fair campaign, as well as the $15 and Fairness initiative, have consistently urged politicians and the public to take the review seriously. Throughout the process, the advisors have expressed a desire to ensure fairness and dignity for all workers, while maintaining a competitive business climate. An interim report was released in July 2016, detailing policy options and soliciting further feedback. In the final report, which contains more than 170 recommendations, the advisors readily acknowledge the growing problem of precarious work, and the widespread lack of awareness about workplace rights and obligations. At the same time, they recognize the role that businesses play in creating economic growth, and endeavour to take “the bona fide interests” of all stakeholders into account. At the time of writing, we are awaiting the government’s response to the recommendations. Formal legislation will likely not be introduced until the fall. While there has been some speculation regarding potential changes, we will wait for official announcements before making judgments. In the meantime, we will continue to urge the government to take bold action. Although it appears that not all of the reforms suggested by the labour community are on the table, there is still an opportunity to make a significant and positive difference in the lives of all workers in this province.

Held April 28 and 29 in Markham, Get Your Head out of Your Apps, A Practical Look at Integrating Technology in the Classroom was fully subscribed, seeing more than 150 Catholic teachers come together from across Ontario to learn and share experiences –and to play with a Bee-Bot! The idea of the conference was to show educators that tech is not something to be afraid of – in fact, it can enhance the teaching and learning experience; the key is to dive in and try. Anthony Carabache’s keynote speech set the tone for the event. Anthony engaged the audience with a talk that highlighted the key features of integrating technology into teaching. The summit also involved panel discussions and presentations by a diverse group, representing various areas of the education sector across the province, including teachers, TVO, the Ministry of Education, and pre-service teaching programs. The “official” event hashtag #GYHOOYA17 was as colorful and spirited as the tweets it inspired. Engagement across social media over the two days was awesome, with speakers, panellists, and delegates sharing insights that brought the conference to life and told a story of collaboration, energy, and possibility. If you weren’t able to attend the event, you can search #GYHOOYA17 on Twitter to get a good sense of the goings on at this year’s conference. As well, conference materials will be posted in the Member’s Area at catholicteachers.ca after June 1, for members to review and use. #GYHOOYA17 by the numbers 500 tweets . 268,928 reach . 119 users

. 1,774,190 impressions

The report and recommendations can be found at: http:// bit.ly/2rwS67g. For information on how you can join the campaign to improve labour laws, visit www.makeitfair.ca or www.15andfairness.org.

Anthony Carabache speaking at the Tech Conference in Markham

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

Catholic teachers are awesome! Each and every day, Catholic teachers have an amazing impact on students and communities across Ontario. We teach more than math, science, and reading. Through our lessons, the values we promote, like respect, empathy, and resilience, help prepare our students for the ultimate test â&#x20AC;&#x201C; life. Lessons for Life is about sharing the incredible stories and impact of Catholic teachers with all Ontarians. Tell us about an awesome Catholic teacher you know who is delivering â&#x20AC;&#x153;lessons for life.â&#x20AC;?

Write to us at: lessonsforlife@catholicteachers.ca JUNE 2017 | @ OECTA catholicteachers.ca/lessonsforlife

FEATURE

AIN’T NO SUNSHINE WHEN YOU’RE ON Examining the utility of the annual Sunshine List By Mark Tagliaferri

If you happened to pick up a Toronto Sun (or Star, or Globe and Mail, or pretty much any publication) during April, you almost certainly came across at least one article about the infamous “Sunshine List” – the annual listing of salaries, benefits, and severance information for public employees. The headlines make for great clickbait, and teachers are a popular target: “The Rise of the $100,000 Teacher;” “Since Wynne Became Premier Number of Teachers on Sunshine List Nearly Tripled, Costing Taxpayers $765M;” “Government Created ETFO Monster!” It’s easy to get caught up in the reactionary media and temporary public outrage; but doing so misses a key question: Is the Sunshine List effective as a policy tool? It is sometimes easy to forget that the Sunshine List is a legislative act, with its own political history. Passed under the Harris government in 1996, the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act required any organization that receives public funds to disclose the names, positions, salaries, and taxable benefits of employees paid $100,000 or more in a given year. On the surface, the Act was designed to “[make] Ontario’s public sector more open and accountable to taxpayers.” Fair enough. But dig a little deeper, and you discover that Harris actually designed the Act with twofold motivation. First, Harris used the Act as retaliation against his predecessor Bob Rae, who mandated salary disclosure from executives of publicly traded companies. Second, and more to the point, Harris saw disclosure as a way to provide ex-ante justification to attack the public sector and restrain public sector growth. From the beginning, the Act was an overtly political tool, with overtly political objectives – and these objectives informed the policy’s design. Every year the release of the Sunshine List creates a political storm – this is a given. Yet, too often people talk around the list, rather than about it as a specific policy tool. This is a mistake, because the Sunshine List is not just bad policy, it is dangerously bad policy. Data expert Dr. Judith Beach put it best: “Sometimes no data is better than bad data.” The Sunshine List exemplifies this point.

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

If there is a word that encapsulates the measurement tools at the heart of the list, the word is “arbitrary.” When the list was created, it included a detailed explanation as to what would be included in calculating public sector workers’ salaries. Noticeably absent, however, was any rationale as to why the government chose $100,000 as a threshold in the first place. There was a certain aesthetic to choosing $100,000: it is the point at which a five-figure salary becomes six figures. But from an explanatory standpoint, the threshold is useless. Why not $200,000? Or $90,000? In 1996, the average Ontario citizen was earning a bit more than $27,000 per year. Why not make the threshold $30,000, and capture all public servants earning above the provincial average? Ultimately, it is absurd to handpick an arbitrary threshold with no statistical significance, and then publicly shame people for surpassing that threshold. There is also the problem of the hard “step function” – that is, people go from not being on the list, to suddenly being on the list once they reach $100,000. There are lots of scenarios where a step function is helpful, but the Sunshine List is not one of them. Minor changes in individual earnings result in a massive change in the raw number of people who are on the list, and in a media environment that dwells on totals, this creates hazardous misperceptions of public sector spending. Perhaps the most critical problem with the Sunshine List is that it has not kept pace with inflation. Pretty much every government policy tool you can think of pegs financial figures against the Consumer Price Index, or Consumer Purchasing Power, or something that recognizes that a dollar in 2017 is not the same as a dollar in 1950. But not the Sunshine List. For 21 years and counting, the Sunshine List has maintained the $100,000 threshold, without any adjustment whatsoever. Some simple back-of-the-envelope math illustrates how dubious this is. The most recent downloadable Sunshine List data is from 2016. That year, 18,417 people employed by Ontario school boards made the list. Stripping superintendents, administrators, and the like leaves you with approximately 6,900 teachers. That

the number of teachers on the list had reached almost 7,000 was the cause of much hand-wringing from right-wing media outlets, as yet another sign of lazy, fat cat teachers robbing citizens of their hard-earned tax dollars. But look again. When you adjust for inflation, you realize that $100,000 in 1996 is worth $144,500 in 2016. When you reexamine the list in this light, you can cross a few more teachers off. A lot more teachers, actually. Adjusted for inflation, the total number of teachers who would have made the 2016 Sunshine List is… 85. Eighty-five out of 125,500 teachers in Ontario. And these are people with multiple degrees and years of teaching experience, who have taken on additional duties or positions of significant responsibility in their boards or unions. This does not exactly conjure up images of public sector wages spiralling out of control. This speaks to the central philosophical problem with using the Sunshine List as a policy tool: it says absolutely nothing about the value and impact derived from public sector spending. It tells us nothing about a person’s responsibilities or

contributions to society. Instead, the list is predicated on the faulty assumption that public employees do not deserve the money they have earned. This assumption was embedded into the policy’s design when Mike Harris created it in 1996, and it has persisted to this day. This is what makes the Sunshine List a dangerous policy. With the Liberal government in power for the past decade, the Sunshine List has mostly provided fodder for headlines. The real danger here is that a government unfriendly to public services might one day use this as license to gut the public sector. And so the Sunshine List must be exposed for what it is: an arbitrary tool that explains little about the workings of the public sector. It obscures more than it reveals. You might even say that, as policy, the Sunshine List is downright shady. Mark Tagliaferri is Communications Specialist in the Communications department at the OECTA Provincial Office.

This summer OECTA will offer institutes on a range of Math, Technology and Kindergarten topics for various grade levels from K-12. Two-day summer institutes will be offered in July and August, led by OECTA members. Full course descriptions, dates and locations are available at catholicteachers.ca For more information email summerprogram@catholicteachers.ca or call 1-800-268-7230 ext 476

A SUBSIDY OF UP TO $200 IS AVAILABLE TO PARTICIPANTS WHO WILL INCUR TRAVEL COSTS.

REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN Mississauga Guelph Sudbury Markham Toronto

Kingston Sault Ste. Marie Muskoka Barrie Ottawa

Windsor Perth Cornwall Walkerton Thunder Bay

Hamilton St. Catharines London

JUNE 2017 |

@ OECTA

FEATURE

IF THIS WERE PROVEN TO BE TRUE What teachers need to know about the Ontario College of Teachers’ Investigations Unit By Robert Smol

They are the sharp end of the Ontario College of Teachers’ (OCT) investigative function, with the power to seek out and gather information against members of the profession. The 17-member Investigations Unit of the Ontario College of Teachers are the people who investigate “discipline” and “fitness to practice” complaints initiated by the public or by the College’s Registrar. They are also tasked, according to the OCT website, with preparing “reports on complaint investigations for review by Investigations, Discipline, and Fitness to Practice Committees.” And while conscientious, self-respecting teachers may not appreciate its existence, the Investigations Unit, like the College it represents, is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Members should be aware of who these “teacher police” are, and what legal powers they have to seek out and compile evidence against teachers. More importantly, members should be aware of their rights should they find themselves in a situation where they encounter an investigator from the Ontario College of Teachers. Who they are

The College’s Investigations Unit is an eclectic group of former police detectives, private investigators, legal and social workers, rounded off with the active involvement of four certified Ontario teachers. The Unit is managed by OCT staff person Lynn Latulippe, a former Speech and Language Pathologist with the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board. The Lead Investigator is Chris Buck, a retired Detective Sergeant with the Toronto Police Service. The Investigations Unit reports to the College’s seven-member Investigation Committee, which consists of four elected members of the OCT Council and three appointed members, including a chartered accountant, a business executive, and an RCMP officer. Together this group has significant powers of investigation. What they do

After a complaint is made, the actual process of investigating a teacher begins with the case being assigned to one of the staff investigators who, according to OCT spokesperson Gabrielle Barkany, “prepares a summary of the allegations and requests confirmation from the complainant that the summary is an accurate reflection of the complaint.”

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

The member is then notified of the complaint and advised that the member has at least 30 days in which to submit in writing any explanations or representations concerning the matter. The investigator usually telephones to inform the teacher of the complaint.

OECTA ADVICE

• If you receive a call from an OCT investigator, DO NOT engage in a conversation. • Tell the investigator, “I am willing to co-operate, but I am unable to comment until I have spoken with OECTA or a legal representative.” • Contact your local OECTA unit office.

If a complaint has been filed against you, details of the complaint will be mailed to you. You should forward this correspondence to OECTA. Once OECTA receives the complaint, legal counsel will let the OCT know that all future correspondence is to be directed to their office. Typically, during the course of an investigation, the investigator will communicate with the OECTA legal counsel acting on behalf of the teacher. However, during the course of an investigation, colleagues may be contacted by the Investigations Unit. Under the College of Teachers Act, teachers are legally bound to co-operate if approached by the OCT in an investigation. Failure to do so could result in the potential witness being charged with professional misconduct. Nonteachers may refuse to speak to an investigator. However, they could be subpoenaed to appear later if the matter is referred to a hearing. If you are contacted by an investigator to speak as a witness in a complaint regarding another teacher, you should still contact OECTA for advice before speaking with the investigator. You can refer to the advice above to let them know you are willing to co-operate after you have spoken with OECTA.

OECTA ADVICE

• Do not offer any opinion. Stick only to the facts. Even what might appear as a positive statement on behalf of a colleague could be used against them by the OCT. • Do not try to answer questions you cannot answer. • Do not feel pressured to make a statement if you do not have the information.

Teachers interviewed by the Investigations Unit should also be aware that under the Teaching Profession Act, an accused party has the right to be informed within 72 hours that a potentially adverse report was made about them to the College. The accused teacher should never be in the dark as with whom exactly the OCT spoke during the investigation. Once the investigation is completed, a report is forwarded to the Investigations Committee, which can then decide whether to dismiss the complaint, admonish the teacher, refer the matter back to the Investigations Unit, or proceed with a hearing before the Discipline Committee. Why you should care

Even if the police, the Children’s Aid Society, and the employer refuse to proceed with a complaint, the College might still consider itself justified in prosecuting a teacher for misconduct. Part of the reason that the College has the power to do this is because, unlike the real world of criminal investigation, the facts that make up an OCT case are not necessarily required to be judged for evidence of guilt. Instead, the procedural test that validates an OCT case is simply, “If this were to be proven to be true, would it amount to professional misconduct, incompetence, or incapacity?” A simple affirmative to this hypothetical question is sufficient for the case to be referred to the appropriate committee (Discipline or Fitness to Practice) for follow up.

school boards with some discretion to deal with cases of professional misconduct, many boards tend to refer the matter to the College, even though they are not obliged to do so. “We accept any formal complaint that is properly filed,” stated Latulippe in a 2011 OCT publication explaining the College’s investigation function. “Then we ensure that the Investigation Committee has the information it needs to consider it.” Equally formidable is the scope of actions that could fall under the College’s definition of professional misconduct. Apart from obvious and understandable categories like abusing students and failing to maintain the standards of the profession, the College can also apply its hypothetical procedural test of “if this were to be proven to be true” to such catch-all categories as “an act or omission that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.” “The impact of an allegation on an innocent teacher can be enormous,” adds Pece. “The teacher is usually sent home during the investigation, which can take anywhere from one day to several months or even years. During this time the teacher is often stigmatized and isolated by family, friends, neighbours, and colleagues.” Robert Smol is a teacher with the Dufferin-Peel Secondary Unit. He also works as a freelance journalist and columnist. His work has appeared on CBC News, the National Post, iPolitics, and the Toronto Star, among others.

The OCT is aware of this low evidentiary bar. “The threshold for proving professional misconduct within the administrative law setting is based on a balance of probabilities,” says Barkany. “In certain circumstances, the conduct would not rise to the level of criminal threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thus, it should not come as a surprise that teachers under suspicion might feel more legally vulnerable being investigated by the OCT “teacher police” than by an actual police service. Furthermore, Joe Pece, Head of the Counselling and Member Services department at the OECTA Provincial Office, points out that while the Ontario College of Teachers Act does provide

For More Information

Members should refer to On Thin Ice and other publications of the Counselling and Member Services department – found at catholicteachers.ca under For Your Career / Professional Advice JUNE 2017 |

@ OECTA

FEATURE

FALSE HOAX: THE RISE OF FAKE NEWS STORIES And how we can learn to spot them By Cynthia Bifolchi

“Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President,” read the headline. The Pope had not endorsed Trump. It was a fake news story. But on Facebook, it was shared, commented on, and reacted to almost a million times – and no doubt many people took it as fact. Discussing current events in the classroom – when appropriate, of course – is an essential part of developing reflective, informed students with strong critical thinking skills. But what if the news stories we have brought up for discussion are not true? With the advent of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, how we consume information has changed dramatically. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has not been dubbed “the world’s most powerful editor” for nothing: numerous studies suggest that Facebook is the primary news source for many. In fact, a 2015 study from the Pew Research Center and the Knight Foundation found that 63 per cent of Facebook and Twitter users in the US get their news through social networks. Platforms like these have heralded a never-before-seen age of information-overload. However, since social media does not really have an editorial standards filter, it has become challenging to discern the real news from the bogus. You might be thinking, “Why on earth would someone go to

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

the trouble of creating fake stories?” There is no one-sizefits-all answer; people push out false content for a number of nefarious reasons: financial gain, to advance an agenda for ideological or political purposes, or simply to cause confusion and mischief. While Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has acknowledged that fake content is a real problem, he is quick to point out the issue is far more complicated than we might think. “While some hoaxes can be completely debunked,” he said in a recent statement, “a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted. An even greater volume of stories express an opinion that many will disagree with and flag as incorrect even when factual. I believe we must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.” Despite this, Zuckerberg insists that Facebook is committed to clamping down on fake content: the organization has recently taken proactive steps to tackle the issue, offering users tips on how to spot and report hoax stories, as well as teaming up with MediaSmarts – the Canadian not-for-profit for digital and media literacy – with the goal to “build the authentication skills” of all Canadians. One of the resources launched through the partnership is “The 5 Ws,” a practical tip sheet that offers valuable advice on how to recognize false or misleading content.

THE “5 Ws”: HOW TO SPOT FAKE NEWS STORIES WHAT kinds of false content should I watch out for?

First, think about what kinds of false content exists – and do a check to see if what you are reading falls into one of those categories. Generally, these include: hoax news, spread to mislead people; scams, with the purpose of separating you from your money, gaining your personal information, or getting you to click on a link that will download malware onto your computer; or ads disguised as “real” content. The exception here is legitimate satire and parody content from sites like The Onion – while it obviously should not be confused with actual news, this content can often be meaningful, as it uses humour to offer social or political critique. WHY is it being spread?

Objectively assess the content and ask yourself if it is manipulative, or seeking an obvious emotional reaction. Is it trying to scare you? To make you laugh? To make you angry? Does it use emotionally loaded words or images to get a rise out of you? Important here is to be especially wary of content that fits your worldview or that you want to believe, as this can cloud your judgement. WHO is spreading it? Do they have a good track record for accuracy?

Always track the post back to the original poster. Once you have established the source, dig a little further. Find out who they are and why they may or may not be a valid source. - If it claims to be from a newspaper or other news source, do a search to make sure the publication really exists. - If it’s a science or health story, is the author a recognized expert? Do a search on their name and see what comes up. - If it’s a photo of something that’s happening in a particular place, do they really live there? - Have they posted on this subject before? If not, be cautious. - Do they post a lot of spreadable stuff? If so, be cautious. - Look at the source’s network. Are they connected mostly to people and groups who all have similar opinions? Advertisers? People and groups who have no connection to the thing they’re spreading? Nobody?

WHEN did it start spreading?

A lot of things get spread more than once, like some of the photos of flooding that go around every time there’s a big storm. You can do a reverse image search to see if a photo has been posted before, or search a description of the photo. How long has the original poster’s account been active? If an account appears new or recently started posting with no prior history, be cautious. And don’t forget to be extra careful about anything posted on the first of April! WHERE else can I find out if something is real?

- Do a search for the subject with the words “hoax,” “fake,” “viral,” or “scam,” as in “shark subway station hoax.” - For pictures, you can do a reverse search for images at tineye.com. This will tell you where else the picture has appeared, and also show you similar pictures (which is a good way to find out if a picture has been photoshopped). - Check out hoax-busting sites like snopes.com. - If you use Facebook, go to the “help” section on the top right of your homepage and search “false news”. This will throw up tips on spotting false content and will show you how to report stories you think may be fake. Particularly for teachers, being fooled by fake content can feel especially sore. There is more of a pressure to be irreproachable , which is difficult in a vocation that’s underpinned by perpetual learning! If you have found yourself taken in by a fake news story, do not beat yourself up about it. It can easily happen, especially if we don’t know what to look for. The social media landscape is still relatively new, and we’re still learning how to navigate it. And that, is the truth.

Cynthia Bifolchi is Writer/Researcher in the Communications and Government Relations departments at the OECTA Provincial Office.

JUNE 2017 |

@ OECTA

TEACHER ADVISOR

TEACHERS AID

COMMUNICATING BY EM@IL By Joe Pece

Email is convenient, accessible, and useful for most people; many members use it frequently. But it can also be a source of issues for teachers. In recent years we have seen a greater demand on teachers to communicate electronically with parents. This demand can negatively impact teacher health and well-being, as it not only adds to teachers’ workloads, but also blurs lines between professional duties and personal time. If you are going to engage in email communications with parents, here are some guidelines to help protect you, and facilitate effective communication:

• Be professional - Use proper sentence structure, spelling, and grammar. - Focus only on the issue being communicated and not on personal communication. - Abide by the Ontario College of Teachers’ Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, found at: http://bit.ly/1sKHtJe. • Be concise - Keep in mind that messages and tone in email can sometimes be misread. Sensitive information should always be delivered directly to parents (by phone or in person) to avoid misunderstanding. - If an email devolves into a lengthy back and forth, request to continue the discussion by telephone or in person. • Maintain confidentiality - All matters and materials electronically communicated are bound by the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), which states that unless explicit consent is given, all information is to be kept confidential. Email is NOT private

• Engage in electronic communication with parents only during the instructional day - Some teachers report receiving messages from parents at a variety of times, both day and night, as well as on weekends. Manage parental expectations by being upfront about when parents can expect to receive a response from you, both in terms of time of day and how long it will take you to respond. • Provide your school board email address, never your personal email address

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

Email is not a secure mode of communication. Email messages can be printed, forwarded, forwarded with attachments, and/or copied, often without the knowledge or consent of the author. Once you send a message via email, you lose control and ownership of the message. Although there is a reasonable expectation for privacy on the employer’s email system, there is no statutory right to privacy. Most school boards have a policy on the employer’s right to monitor email. Any such policy will include the circumstances under which third-party access is permitted. Employees should be aware of all policies. Be aware that whoever operates the email system has a right to control the system and establish

codes of conduct, ethical standards, and other operating policies to which users must adhere. And remember that even deleted emails might be recovered and brought forward as evidence, if ever you found yourself the subject of an investigation. Inappropriate use of email can lead to discipline

Most school board policies make it clear that the email system is to be used for professional purposes only. These policies prohibit attacks on personnel, use of foul or inappropriate language or comments, and exchanges of confidential information about students or personnel. When such material is widely broadcast by the sender or recipient, the damage is compounded. Disapproval about a decision or board action should not be aired through the school board email system. Should you experience situations where you are being questioned about your use of email or electronic communication, please contact your local OECTA unit office or the OECTA Provincial Office for advice and direction.

Other resources for members on this topic include:

Building Positive Relationships with Parents Appropriate and Professional Use of Electronic Communication Found at: http://bit.ly/2r66K4x Ontario College of Teachers Advisory on Social Media: http://bit.ly/1wcV2m1

Joe Pece is Department Head in the Counselling and Member Services department at the OECTA Provincial Office.

LEGAL BRIEF

TEACHERS AID

KILL A WORKER, GO TO JAIL? By Charlene Theodore

The safety of the people shall be the highest law.

long recognized that imprisonment for a strict liability offence is a violation of the constitutional right to liberty.

According to the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada, an average of two workers die on the job every day in Canada.

The Crown took the position that Mr. Fournier’s actions and inactions were so dangerous that he ought to have known that they would put his employee at risk of serious injury or death. In that context, an “unlawful act” can stem from a breach of provincial legislation.

MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO

Unions across this country, including OECTA, have amassed a groundswell of support for more serious penalties against employers who fail to adhere to workplace safety standards. In Quebec, a workplace manslaughter case with potential consequences for employers nationwide is making its way through the courts. R. c. Fournier Mr. Fournier owned a relatively small construction company. On the day of the fatality he and his employee, Gilles Levesque, were working onsite at a construction project that was subject to the Quebec Safety Code standards. Their work involved an excavation. The walls of the pit were not supported in accordance with the standards set out in the Quebec Safety Code and Mr. Fournier’s employee died when the walls of the excavated hole collapsed onto him.

After a preliminary inquiry hearing, Mr. Fournier was ordered to stand trial on the following charges: Causing death by criminal negligence

Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. Section 220(b) Homicide (Manslaughter)

A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, causes the death of a human being by means of an unlawful act. Section 222(5)(a) Mr. Fournier did not challenge the first charge, but he did take issue with the second charge. He appealed the decision to the Quebec Superior Court. The judge in the preliminary inquiry decided that the worksite conditions that breached the safety legislation were tantamount to an unlawful act, as stated in Section 222(5)(a) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Fournier’s lawyers took the position that merely breaching safety laws are not equivalent to unlawful criminal acts. The defence argued that health and safety offences are strict liability offences, ones that do not require proof of a guilty intent like criminal offences, and Canadian criminal law has

The Decision

The Superior Court determined that the preliminary inquiry judge was correct in ruling that Mr. Fournier should stand trial on the manslaughter charge. The Superior Court judge did clarify that when the basis of a manslaughter charge is in breach of health and safety legislation, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct of the person charged is a significant departure from the actions of a reasonable person in order for criminal liability to be found. The Future

It has been rare for managers or supervisors to suffer criminal consequences for worker deaths. The exception was the jailing of a supervisor for criminal negligence, following the Metron Construction scaffolding accident, which took place on Christmas Eve, 2009 in Toronto. With this decision, employers now also assume the risk of manslaughter charges in workplace fatalities. It will be interesting to see whether Mr. Fournier’s criminal trial will result in criminal law and health and safety legislation being brought even closer together.

Charlene Theodore is in-house Legal Counsel at the OECTA Provincial Office.

TEACHERS AID

INSIGHT

FINDING YOUR DIAMONDS I recently came across a great story by Earl Nightingale, called Acres of Diamonds, which superbly illustrates the idea of being present to what we have in our lives. I thought I would use the space this month to share the story with you.

The Acres of Diamonds story “a true one” is told of an African farmer who heard tales about other farmers who had made millions by discovering diamond mines. These tales so excited the farmer that he could hardly wait to sell his farm and go prospecting for diamonds himself. He sold the farm and spent the rest of his life wandering the African continent searching unsuccessfully for the gleaming gems that brought such high prices on the markets of the world. Finally, worn out and in a fit of despondency, he threw himself into a river and drowned. Meanwhile, the man who had bought his farm happened to be crossing the small stream on the property one day, when suddenly there was a bright flash of blue and red light from the stream bottom. He bent down and picked up a stone. It was a good-sized stone, and admiring it, he brought it home and put it on his fireplace mantel as an interesting curiosity. Several weeks later a visitor picked up the stone, looked closely at it, hefted it in his hand and nearly fainted. He asked the farmer if he knew what he’d found. When the farmer said no, that he thought it was a piece of crystal, the visitor told him he had found one of the largest diamonds ever discovered. The farmer had trouble believing that. He told the man that his creek was full of such stones, not all as large as the one on the mantel, but sprinkled generously throughout the creek bottom. The farm the first farmer had sold, so that he might find a diamond mine, turned out to be one of the most productive diamond mines on the entire African continent. The first farmer had owned, free and clear… acres of diamonds. But he had sold them for practically nothing, in order to look for them elsewhere. The moral is clear: if the first farmer had only taken the time to study and prepare himself to learn what diamonds looked like in their rough state, and to thoroughly explore the property he had before looking elsewhere, all of his wildest dreams would have come true. n

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

What Nightingale points out in his story is “the idea that each of us is, at this very moment, standing in the middle of our own acres of diamonds.” If we have the “wisdom and patience to intelligently and effectively explore the work in which we’re now engaged, to explore ourselves, we would most likely find the riches we seek, whether they be financial or intangible or both.” Just like the farmer had the diamonds, we have all the tools we need to create joy, abundance, or whatever it is we seek in our lives. As we enter the summer months – with it is warmer weather, sunnier skies, barbeques, swimming pools, and slower pace of life – take time to engage meaningfully and purposefully with family and friends, and get present to the acres of diamonds we have in our lives. Michelle Despault is Director in the Communications department at the OECTA Provincial Office.

CATHOLIC CONNECTION

TEACHERS AID

SUMMER BY THE “REFLECTING” POOL By Shannon Hogan

“Our discovery of God is, in a way, God’s discovery of us. We cannot go to heaven to find God because we have no way of knowing where heaven is or what it is. God comes down from heaven and finds us.” THOMAS MERTON, Seeds of Contemplation

So, on that spring evening, my mother called to have a chat. At one point, she asked me if I knew what she was doing. I did not, so she told me. She said that she was sitting up in bed reading a book. There was nothing extraordinary about that, as she was a voracious reader, as all of my family were and are. She then told me that while reading, she looked up and saw a dust bunny under the dresser in their room. I listened and worried a bit that maybe she should get out more.

One of the many unique things about the vocation of teaching is that there is a time each year when we collectively shift gears from the high speed days and nights that are the hallmark of our work to a different pace of life – one that is not necessarily quiet and removed from all the things life often unexpectedly presents to us, but is a shift nevertheless.

Then she said to me, “When I saw the dust bunny… do you know what I did?” Knowing my mother, she would have put down her book, gotten out of bed, swept up the dust, and while she was at it, swept the whole floor, down the hall, and up the stairs. When I told her what I thought she would do, she responded with a delighted chuckle and said, “No, I didn’t put down my book and get out of bed. I turned the page!”

As Catholic teachers, the summer does offer to us, in this shift, a chance to reflect on the school year that has passed. At the core of our Catholic tradition is an invitation to step back, breathe deeply, and stand before the God of our lives. St. Augustine once said, “The greatest tragedy is an unreflected life.” Reflection, meditation, and even prayer can sometimes feel alien to many of us who barely have time to think as we run through the gauntlet of our days, falling into the sleep of the exhausted each night. But in our shifting of gears, there is an invitation to take some time to care for ourselves – the core of ourselves, as teachers – and as a reflection of the one God. The beauty of the Catholic faith tradition is that we do not always have to go to mountaintops, build three tents, or hide in a cloister to let the shift take hold. God’s grace and holy interruption in our daily lives can come in the most ordinary of moments. When I think of the holy interruptions of God in our “ordinary time,” I am reminded of a phone call I received from my mother some years ago, on a warm spring evening. My mother, being a woman of her era, took great pride in her family and in her home. I remember her, seemingly effortlessly, keeping all pistons pinging (and being raised in the Motor City, this meant something).

She turned the page. And in that one ordinary motion, the ground beneath her shifted; her core shifted, and she was new, free, “herself.” Thomas Merton has written at length on how the closest we can be to God is when we are truly, authentically ourselves – in our own skin. As we are created in God’s image, we are closest to God when we are living that image, of God among us and God in us. As Catholic teachers, we have a powerful invitation during the summer months to shift gear, and let the shift “shift us.” In that shift in the everyday ordinariness of our lives, we too can become new, free, “ourselves.” Whether it is done metaphorically or literally, this summer I invite you, along with all of our colleagues, to turn the page. Happy reading!

Shannon Hogan is a member of the Counselling and Member Services department at the OECTA Provincial Office, and staff liaison to the Catholic Education Committee.

JUNE 2017 |

@ OECTA

PEOPLE WORTH WATCHING

TEACHING SOCIAL ACTIVISM THROUGH GOSPEL VALUES By Cynthia Bifolchi

Infusing gospel values into the curriculum is a cornerstone of Catholic education. Yes, we want our students to succeed academically, but this is just one facet of education; developing kind, reflective, socially responsible human beings is just as critical. Halton Elementary teacher John MacPhail knows this all too well. Recently, Mr. MacPhail designed an inquiry project with his Grade 8 class on an important, timely topic: the Changing Workplaces Review that was just released by the Ontario Government. Mr. MacPhail told his class that in a couple of years they would be entering the paid workforce, perhaps in a grocery store or a fast-food restaurant. Even after graduating from college or university, they are likely to be impacted by the changing nature of the workplace and the growth in precarious work, unless they make their voices heard. The class began the project with a question: “As much as working conditions have changed in Canada, have they become better over time?” This question led them to analyze key similarities and differences between Canada in 1890–1914 and the present day, with a focus on the challenges facing different groups and individuals.

Catholics, we should respond to this given set of facts.” Solidifying the empowering message that it is possible for young people to bring about change, the students made their voices heard at the government level, with Minister of Labour Kevin Flynn visiting the students to discuss their project. “The day was very engaging, and I found the discussion and comments from the students to be insightful,” Minister Flynn stated. For the students, there is no disputing the value they got from taking part in the project. It taught them much about the workplace environment in which they may soon find themselves – as well as the importance of speaking out against injustice, demanding change, and joining together in solidarity for a cause. “Human dignity means being created in the image of God,” says student Karl Sader. “Solidarity means working together as one, no matter your skin color, religion, race, or background to accomplish goals.”

“Solidarity means that we acknowledge that we are all John McPhail (front) with his Grade 8 class and one spiritual human family Kevin Flynn, Minister of Labour (behind), and Nina as siblings,” adds classmate March, president of the Halton Elementary Unit. When investigating these Noah Brozny. “If we all truly issues, the class used two Focus have solidarity, then we would on Faith themes as a lens to inform their inquiry, as well as a acknowledge this is clearly an issue that, if left untouched, only quote from Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudito Si: “Work should worsens. This issue requires active participation to fix, and no be the setting for this rich personal growth, where many one person can make a difference without supporters.” aspects of life enter into play: creativity, planning for the future, developing our talents, living out our values, relating to Practical, socially responsible, and spiritual – it is an excellent others, giving glory to God.” lesson in how a curriculum fused with gospel values enhances learning and helps develop strong-minded, critical-thinking Other biblical quotes were applied to current issues facing students. labour, such as Deuteronomy 24:14-15: “Do not withhold wages from your workers, for their livelihood depends on them;” and “I will be in the same position as many of these workers in a James 5:1-6: “Those who become rich by abusing their workers few years, and I will not have a boss who treats me unfairly,” have sinned against God.” asserts student Amanda Walczak. “Jeremiah 22:13: ‘Woe to him who treats his workers unjustly.’ Dignity is a God-given gift and “In Grade 7 [Focus on Faith] is Human Dignity, and in Grade 8 no one can take that away.” it is Solidarity,” Mr. MacPhail explains. “Solidarity is a perfect complement to this historical inquiry as it is the basis of all Cynthia Bifolchi is Writer/Researcher in the Communications and labour movements and is a part of Catholic Social Teaching. Government Relations departments at the OECTA Provincial Office. Therefore, part of their inquiry was to tie the historical issues and questions into the FoF theme and determine how, as

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

PEOPLE WORTH WATCHING

LOOKING BEYOND THE GLASS By Dan de Souza

Coaching basketball sends me from one end of the province to the other, and between games during tournaments that seemingly have no end, I’ve seen your school, and I’ve seen the pictures. You walk past them every day. Brush into them, jostle them as you make your way to your class. There are heroes and villains among them, champions and participants. Stars and stagehands hide within in their frames. If you stop and look and maybe even listen, you could learn a lot from those pictures. Look there, the school’s first championship team from 1989. The uniforms are dated and the teachers are wearing glasses that are far too wide for their faces. But among those grins is the portrait of an older coach, mentoring a younger one. That coach will teach the young one how to run a team, how to manage kids, and how to speak to parents. The lessons learned will be part of every team at the school for the next three decades. Here’s a picture of another team. It never won a championship, but the players became good friends. They still get together. They still call their coach and tell him about their families, about how they are coaching now, and how much they appreciated what he did for them. If you walk farther along, you will see the graduation pictures. Composites of smiling graduates stare back at you; but if you look closely, you will see them anew. There will be students in those pictures who are memorable to you, and some you wish to forget. You’ll see the valedictorians who got the accolades, and right beside them, because of the karma of alphabetical order, you will see the student only you got to know. You

will see in that picture a student who worked so hard, never getting the results, and you will smile quietly to yourself in the silence of that hall, at the beauty of that effort, which prepared that student for success later in life. That graduation photo contains the portraits of administrators or lead teachers long gone. See the principal from the 1990s? Remember him? Remember how he somehow demanded and got the best performance out of the staff without being a tyrant? He walked picket lines after he was removed from the union. He tried to re-energize a battered staff after years of provincial acrimony. He succeeded to a degree. He had a personal touch, stopping to console a young teacher who was having a particularly bad day. The cyclical nature of schools does not lend itself to long-term memory. I am under no delusion that I will be remembered more than a semester or two after I am gone. True, there will be a teacher or colleague I have worked with, or with whom I’ve taught, who will remember I was here; but really, that memory will remain only with them. Yes, some of my former students will remember me when they get together; they may even tell a story or two about “good ‘ol de Souza,” or “that jerk de Souza.” But for the most part, when I leave this place after thirty years, the only permanent markings I leave will be within the framed picture that hangs in your school, placed behind glass and beyond touch. Generations of students and teachers will walk by me and I will not be able to wave or call out. I won’t be able to point

You can follow Dan’s final year blog at http://teach1coach1. blogspot.ca / You can also follow him on twitter @teach1desouza

to what I did here, or what others did for me, or what we did together. I will want to shout from my perch, “I know what you are going through, and I could help.” I will, like so many before me, want to wish you well. I will want to encourage you, the young teacher, in what you are doing. I will want you to know that when your days are done in teaching, there will be a place for you with us, the ones who have gone before you, the ones behind the glass. It is strange to imagine yourself only as a photo, and one that will be passed by for generations. And so I hope you will stop. I hope you will take a moment from the strange and hectic pace of a school. Maybe you will look as you make your way down the halls for parent night, or maybe as you’ve finished the longest day of your career and the school is dark and absolutely quiet. When you do stop, I hope you will see the beauty here. There is comfort and nostalgia, and permanence too. There is stability and a beauty that comes with the discovery of the everyday. You will see that others have gone before you and legions, many of whom you teach now, will follow. If you stop and look, you may recognize you are becoming part of a larger picture. You are part of a moment in time that is building a history, a tradition, a culture, a school, a country, a democracy. Ultimately, this is the most one could ask from a profession; that for a moment, you made a difference and became part of a larger whole. All I ask is that on occasion – just that rare occasion – you stop and give a wink to those of us who live beyond the glass.

Dan de Souza is in his last year of teaching at Sacred Heart CHS in Newmarket. He teaches English.

VIEWPOINT

IT COSTS ME, IT COSTS ME NOT Ontario’s “free tuition” is not free, but that’s okay By Mark Tagliaferri

Unless you have been living abroad for the past couple of years, you are likely aware that in 2016 the Ontario government rolled out a “Free Tuition” plan as part of its provincial budget. The initial reaction to the announcement was overwhelmingly positive – a big win for a Liberal Party that really needed one. But after the dust settled, there was (and remains) a sense of confusion and skepticism. In the weeks following the announcement, university and college registrars from across the province were flooded with calls from enthusiastic students wanting to enrol in post-secondary education, “because it was now free.” At the same time, the opposition parties, and even some Liberal supporters, were quick to ask how the government could afford to make tuition free without taxing, borrowing, or spending a single extra dollar. Well, the answer is they can’t. Because they didn’t. At the end of the day, tuition is not “free.” And without an extensive overhaul in funding, it will not be truly free for the foreseeable future. Still, what the Liberals did was actually pretty innovative from a policy standpoint. And more important, it just might have a drastic impact on who chooses to attend post-secondary education. It is easy to get caught up in the “net”

A few years back, a research organization I was involved with looked at the issue of student access and financial aid. More specifically, we looked at something called “net tuition” – that is, the “sticker price” of tuition, minus all of the grants, tax credits, and loan remission that families at different income levels get over the course of a year. To the surprise of many, we found that in most provinces – including Ontario – lower-middle income families already paid roughly nothing in “net tuition.” What’s more, since the

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

mid-2000s, low-income families (those families earning less than about $50,000/year) were actually eligible for more government money at the end of the year from various grant sources than schools were charging them in tuition fees. By and large, people had absolutely no idea this was the case. This is partly because the various pots of money got distributed at different points throughout the year, making them difficult to track. But the bigger issue was that, since its beginning, the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) has been about as clear as mud in explaining net costs. Even for experts, trying to wade through the policy swamp of Ontario’s student financial assistance is enough to drown a person. Families simply could not be expected to know the amount of non-repayable assistance already available to them. Government was admittedly late in coming to this realization; but when they did, it was like mana from heaven. Making tuition (sort of) free, for some people

Despite the slogans, it is important to reiterate that technically speaking tuition will not be free. It costs a lot of money to run a post-secondary institution, and so unless government is willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more in subsidies, schools will continue to charge. Even those students from lowand middle-income families who benefit from these changes are still going to get a tuition bill. But, to invert a popular saying: the more things stay the same, the more they change. Basically, rather than add new money, the Ontario government took all the existing pots of money, bundled them together, and repurposed it as one big, up-front grant. All of those hidden,

VIEWPOINT

obscure, and time-delayed subsidies that people had no clue about are now one big grant, available at the time tuition is due. This is addition by simplification, and it is a pretty big deal. From families’ perspective, students who receive as much – or more – in subsidies than they pay in tuition will actually see this fact when their tuition bill arrives. On the other hand, government gets to claim that it made tuition free, but really doesn’t have to dip an extra finger into the public coffers. At the end of the day, families aren’t going to see a whole lot more, or less, money than they got previously. But they will see that money more clearly. So it is probably better to think of this as a repackaging and a re-branding. And it’s a pretty good one, because optics matter. But there is another piece here that is just as important. Starting in 2018-19, OSAP plans to change its processes, allowing students to see financial aid decisions at the same time that they receive acceptance letters. No more being accepted in January, and then having to wait weeks, even months, to see how much financial aid you qualify for. Once this change kicks in, Jane Doe will open a letter that says, “Congratulations, you’ve been accepted to XYZ University. Your tuition is $6,500, and you’ve qualified for $7,000 in student aid.” Potential impact

With these changes, we are entering a massive social psychology study: how will upfront, net cost billing impact perceptions of affordability? What will this mean for students (and there are

plenty of them) who pass on post-secondary education simply because they do not think they can afford it? Exciting times lay ahead. Ultimately, we are still left to deal with how to go about lowering fees for post-secondary education. Do we simply eliminate tuition? This seems like the easiest route, but research out of Sweden and the US suggests that this may not create long-term reductions in socioeconomic inequalities, or per capita student debt. Another possibility is to increase funding for targeted grants. This would provide more money to ensure lower-income families have proportionally better access to post-secondary education, but it would not eliminate fees outright. Much discussion remains. Irrespective of this debate, the changes to Ontario’s student aid system means that a bunch of families are about to think that school just got a lot more affordable. And if even one child attends who otherwise would not have, then the policy will be a success. This is a great example of policy innovation at work: the government recognized an issue, used an evidencedbased approach to identify solutions, and ultimately was able to improve policy by reconstituting existing files. In the end, students win, and the government wins – and with an election on the horizon, this is a Wynne-win. Mark Tagliaferri is Communications Specialist in the Communications department at the OECTA Provincial Office.

LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM 2017-2018 Develop your career, build your union's future OECTA’s Leadership Training Program is a reflection of the Association’s commitment to training strong member advocates and activists. In 2017-2018, OECTA will offer the Foundational Program and Specialized programs.

Foundational Program Runs November 2-3, 2017 and April 5-6, 2018 Register is open September 5-17, 2017

Specialized Program March 1-2, 2018 and May 31 - June 1, 2018 Registration is open December 1-15, 2017

A full description of the program and courses can be found in the For Your Career section, under Leadership Training Program, at catholicteachers.ca. The sessions will be held in Toronto. The Association will cover participants’ release time, travel, accommodations, and program costs.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING, SPEAK TO YOUR UNIT PRESIDENT.

JUNE 2017 |

@ OECTA

Home is where your flexible, low rate mortgage is. 5-Year Low Rate Mortgage

Today’s rate:

2.59%*

Welcome to stress-free home ownership. Our 5 -Year Low Rate Mortgage offers DirecTCU™ members one of the best rates around, along with exclusive features such as a 10 -month payment option and payment relief during unexpected income interruptions. With rates this low and terms this accommodating, you’ll find life a lot more comfortable. Apply online at directcu.ca.

DirecTCU is a division of Tandia (formerly Teachers Credit Union). *This fixed annual percentage rate (APR) assumes no fees apply. Legal and appraisal fees would increase the APR. Interest is calculated half-yearly, not in advance. Applications are subject to credit approval and some conditions apply. Rate is subject to change and offer subject to end without notice. DirecTCU is a division of Tandia Financial Credit Union Limited operating as Tandia. TM DirecTCU is a trademark of the Canadian Credit Union Association and is used under license.

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

directcu.ca 1.800.598.2891

MEMBER MATTERS

In the matter of a discipline hearing Between: Sergio Cacoilo, Tony Delville, Sean Bates, Brian Harrington, and Martin Helling (Complainants) - and Vince Lepore (Respondent)

The Panel received the following Information as evidence: Exhibit #1 Notice of Complaint Exhibit #2 Notice of Hearing Exhibit #3 Documents submitted by the Complainants

Before a panel of the Ontario English Catholic Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Association (OECTA) Discipline Board March 1, 2017 Kathy McVean, Chairperson Carolyn Stevens Gary Tomcko

Exhibit #4 Documents submitted by the Respondent, save

and except. Tab 34 Video Evidence (Videos A through E). The admissibility of that evidence was addressed at the outset of the Hearing.

Exhibit #5 The Will Says of Rosanna Arduini, Sean Bates,

Michael Borrelli, Tony Delville, Attlla Felkai, Massimo Grilli, Brian Harrington, Martin Helling and Jeff Zwolak submitted by the Complainants.

Exhibit #6 The Will Says of John DiBenedetto, Gord Chiarot,

/ORIGIN OF THE CASE

The General Secretary of OECTA has referred the following statements of complaint to the Discipline Board of OECTA: The Complainants Sergio Cacoilo, Tony Delville, Sean Bates, Brian Harrington, and Martin Helling, have made the following complaint: The allegations are: The actions of Mr. Vince Lepore, First Vice-President of the Hamilton Secondary Unit of OECTA are in violation of the Handbook, specifically By-Laws; a) 2.117.1 to assist the president in her/his duties. In the absence of the president, duties shall be performed by the vice-presidents in order of rank or, in their absence, by the treasurer or one of the councillors; b) 2.108.1 The duties of the unit executive shall be: to promote the Interests of the Association; /THE HEARING

The Hearing into this complaint was convened on Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at the Provincial Office of OECTA, 65 St. Clair Ave. E., Toronto, Ontario.

Matt Chiarot, Dino Cavarzan, Joe Cappadocia and Paul Bertola submitted by the Respondent.

The parties were given direction by the General Secretary to submit their documents of evidence by February 7, 2017. The documents contained in Exhibit #3 and #4 were provided to both parties and all members of the Discipline Panel by February 9, 2017. The parties and the members of the Discipline Panel received the Will Say statements contained in Exhibit #5 and Exhibit #6 by February 27, 2017. There was no Agreed Statement of Facts. The parties received the Discipline Hearing Procedure and Rules on February 3, 2017. The Chair provided an overview of the procedure to be followed in the Hearing and there was no objection raised by either party regarding the Rules and Procedures for the hearing. Several issues were raised and subsequently addressed by the Panel at the outset of the Hearing: 1. The agent for the Complainants, Mr. Marcon asked if he would be able to cross-examine a witness based on the content of their Will Say or would cross-examination be limited to what their direct testimony would be in these proceedings? 2. Mr. Marcon asked if the Will Says that are provided by people

who are not appearing to give testimony could be JUNE 2017 |

@ OECTA

MEMBER MATTERS

questioned or are they just read Into the record unchallenged? 3. Mr. Marcon stated that the complaint was filed on

September 29, 2016, and certain pieces of evidence are dated after that date. Mr. Marcon was seeking direction from the Panel regarding the admissibility of any evidence that came to light after September 29, 2016. Will it be allowable under the procedures outlined at the outset of the Hearing?

4. The agent for the Respondent, Mr. Pecsenye asked a question about some of the documents which make reference to â&#x20AC;&#x153;in cameraâ&#x20AC;? events and conversations that had taken place at unit executive meetings. Are those conversations allowed to be Introduced during this proceeding? 5. Mr. Pecsenye raised the issue of the complainants sitting in

the hearing room who are also identified as witnesses. He asked whether or not they can be excluded from the proceedings while their colleagues, the fellow witnesses for the complainants, are providing their testimony.

Both parties, through their agents presented arguments and positions regarding the issues and questions that were raised. The Panel recessed to consider the issues and concerns raised by the agents. The Panel made decisions regarding the issues raised and the Chair conveyed the following: 1. Regarding the question of who can be present in the room:

The parties or the signatories to either the complaint or the response have always been allowed to be present in the room. Historically, that has been our practice and we will continue that practice.

2. Regarding the question of Will Says and whether they are open

to cross-examination: The purpose of the Will Say is to reduce duplication in testimony being given during the hearing. And so with that in mind. It is understood that the agents for either party are free to bring out evidence contained in the Will Says during their examination or their cross-examination of any of the witnesses who are testifying. The agents were reminded that they will have the opportunity to bring up any points they wish to bring up in those Will Says during their closing remarks.

3. Regarding the dates of materials: All evidence presented to

the dates that the material was to be submitted, in this case February 7, is admissible. If thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s any objection to a specific item, then the Chair advised the agents to raise an objection at that time when it comes forward.

4. Regarding materials that are in camera stemming from an in

camera meeting: if the information is germane to the issue that we are dealing with today and is being given by someone who was present in the room and heard that information first-hand, then we would deem it to be admissible. At this time, the Chair asked some questions

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

with respect to video evidence that had been provided by the Respondent at Tab 34 in their Documents of Evidence. The questions were directed to the agent of the Respondent. 1. Will that video evidence add any relevant evidence to what is

already present in the materials entered as exhibits?

2. What is the evidence that the Respondent intends to take from the videos that were provided? 3. Mr. Pecsenye had indicated that the videos were taken with the full knowledge of individuals in the video. Was this knowledge for both the videos taken at the executive meeting and at the video taken at the meeting in a school? 4. How was the video obtained? 5. Who was in possession of the video between the time it was

taken and the time it was submitted to the Panel and the Complainants? Both parties presented their arguments regarding the admissibility of the video evidence. The Panel caucused and considered the responses to the above noted questions. The Panel decided the following: With respect to the video evidence, there is a concern among members of the Panel regarding the circumstances surrounding the collection of that video evidence, around the distribution of that evidence and around the disclosure of the intended use of that evidence. Although the Respondent indicated there was consent provided by the affected individuals, there was no evidence provided that indicated all participants had provided formal consent. The Panel was not convinced that the video evidence would add any further evidence to the existing evidence presented by the Respondent. For these reasons the Panel would not allow video evidence to be admissible as evidence in this hearing. Mr. Marcon further questioned the admissibility of Tab 24 and 32 of the Respondents Document binder because they were letters not specifically addressed to anyone and were not contemporaneous to one another. Mr. Pecsenye provided arguments regarding the admissibility of these documents.

The Panel caucused and upon return made the following decision: The Panel had set aside a day here primarily for the deliberation of this case wherein the complainant and the respondent have an opportunity to present their case and give evidence that they have provided and to question and to cross-examine. And so on that basis, they are not going to rule on the inadmissibility of any further evidence. The Panel felt that there would be ample opportunity for the concerns that might be had by either party to raise those questions or issues during their examination or cross-examination of the witnesses. Mr. Marcon made a brief opening statement on behalf of the

MEMBER MATTERS

Complainants. Mr. Pecsenye making a brief opening statement on behalf of the Respondent. At this time, Mr. Marcon presented the Complainants’ case. The following witnesses for the Complainants testified: Rosanna Arduini, Brian Harrington, Jeff Zwolak. Mr. Pecsenye cross-examined these witnesses. Mr. Marcon re-directed questions to these witnesses. Michael Borrelli was called to the witness stand by Mr. Marcon. At this time, the recorder had an issue with her computer, so the Chair called for a brief recess. During the recess, the Chair was asked to meet privately with the agents of the respective parties. The Chair was asked about allowing the admission of new evidence by the Respondent’s agent. The Chair caucused with the Panel. The Panel issued the following decision regarding the admissibility of brand new evidence: The parties were directed to Exhibit 1, which is the actual complaint. The Chair stated that the Panel is focused on the wording of the complaint which, in general terms, says that there is an allegation that the respondent did not represent the interests of the association and that the respondent did not support the president in his role as first vice-president. The parties were directed by the General Secretary to provide the evidence they intended to rely upon by the date of February 7, 2017. The Chair was not given any indication that there was any new information with respect to the complaint. That is what the panel is focused on. And so our ruling is that no additional evidence will be introduced. At this point, Mr. Pecsenye asked to meet with the Respondent. Upon return, Mr. Pecsenye asked if Mr. Lepore could make a statement. The Chair indicated that the Respondent could make a statement through his agent, Mr. Pecsenye. Mr. Lepore began to make comment regarding additional evidence he wanted to include. The Chair stopped the statement. Mr. Pecsenye resumed speaking on behalf of the Respondent. Mr. Lepore again started to make further comment. The Chair reminded him that he was not on the stand and he did not have the floor to speak at that time. Mr. Lepore packed up his materials and left the room. Mr. Pecsenye asked for a brief recess to speak to the Respondent. The Chair called for a recess of 10 minutes. Upon resuming the hearing, the Chair stated the following for the record: ”I would like you to note that at approximately 3:55 Mr. Lepore abandoned the hearing. The general secretary, Marshall Jarvis, spoke to him and advised him that the hearings will be proceeding and a decision will be rendered whether he is present or not. That conversation was in front of the members of the Panel and Mr. Pecsenye.”

Mr. Pecsenye indicated to the Panel that before abandoning the hearing, Mr. Lepore announced he wanted to act as his own agent and that Mr. Pecsenye would no longer be acting as the agent. He provided no additional instructions to Mr. Pecsenye. Mr. Pecsenye was deemed to no longer be acting as the agent for the Respondent. Mr. Lepore had been advised that the hearing would be proceeding. The Panel had indicated several times throughout the hearing that there was only one day set aside for the hearing. The Panel had indicated as well, that they were prepared to stay into the evening if required. Therefore, the Panel felt that it was within their powers as a Panel to make the decision to proceed with the hearing. This is analogous to By-Law 2.219 of the OECTA Handbook, which states that a hearing may proceed if a party chooses not to attend. At this point, Mr. Marcon conferred with the Complainants and called no further witnesses. Mr. Marcon provided his closing remarks, which included the Complainants disposition regarding penalty. The Panel adjourned the hearing on March 1, 2017 at approximately 4:42 p.m. The Panel met on March 2, 2017 to deliberate. /DECISIONS OF THE PANEL

After consideration of the evidence and testimony presented, the Panel arrived at the following decisions: 1. With respect to the complaint against Vince Lepore, First Vice-

President of the Hamilton Secondary Unit of OECTA, he was in violation of By-Law 2.117.1.

2. With respect to the complaint against Vince Lepore, First Vice-President of the Hamilton Secondary Unit of OECTA he was not in violation of By-Law 2.108.1.

/REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Mr. Lepore failed in his duty as vice-president, to assist the president in his duties (By-laws 2.117.1). One of those duties of the president is to promote the interests of the Association (2.116.1). Mr. Lepore, as a member of the unit executive, had a further duty to represent the interests of the Association (2.108.1). In failing to do the above, his actions caused concern, stress and fear among the membership of the Hamilton Secondary Unit regarding one of their retirement benefits, the Long Term Service Plan (“Gift Fund”). The Panel decided that an individual cannot be in violation of the duty of a collective group, the unit executive, however, the Panel deemed it to be an implicit duty of a member of that group. 1. Mr. Lepore publicly challenged the information being

provided by the Unit President at a Unit General Meeting regarding the long term health and stability of the Gift Fund. He claimed that the Gift Plan was short $1.2 M, and was overheard to continue making that assertion after the budget was passed.

JUNE 2017 |

@ OECTA

MEMBER MATTERS

2. Mr. Lepore was heard to imply that the Unit President was responsible for misappropriating, under funding and misrepresenting the health of the Gift Fund. 3. Mr. Lepore publicly challenged the experts invited to the

unit general meeting by the unit president. He challenged the actuarial assumptions used by the actuary, Alan Exiey, to show that the Gift Plan was fullyfunded. Mr. Lepore also challenged the comments of Rosanna Arduini, OECTA’s Chief Financial Officer, who assured the members that the provincial office had reviewed the books of the Hamilton Secondary Unit and they were among the best kept books among the units. Ms. Arduini, in her Will Say and in testimony during the hearing, reported that the auditor’s report for the unit was a clean opinion. She also had reviewed Mr. Exiey’s actuarial report on the Gift Plan. She stated that the Hamilton Secondary Unit had not been misled about the current state of the unit’s finances. Mr. Lepore continued to question the soundness of the Plan, even after hearing their reports.

It was the belief of the panel that by Mr. Lepore’s actions in challenging the information presented by the expert witnesses, he caused a great deal of angst and concern among the members of the unit. The panel believed that his actions caused the members to lose confidence that the executive was making good decisions about the Gift Fund and that this retirement benefit could be negatively impacted.

4. Mr. Lepore caused stress for the Unit Treasurer such that it

affected his professional life at school and his personal life at home. The anxiety created caused him to fear presenting the financial statements to the membership in case he made a mistake. As a result, he asked another member of the executive to present for him.

5. Mr. Lepore failed to use a provision of the local by-law

(Article VI, Section 2b) to compel the President to call a special meeting to deal with his concerns.

6. Mr. Lepore failed to use provisions of the Association

Handbook wherein the unit executive could have brought to the attention of the General Secretary, a breach of the Handbook by a member (By-law 2.108.2, page 32) or to have a matter referred for legal advice (By-law 2.108.5, page 32). The Panel believed that Mr. Lepore was sufficiently familiar with this provision because he was signatory to a letter of complaint to the General Secretary on another matter.

7. Mr. Lepore failed to support the positions taken by the unit

executive regarding the Gift Fund, and he did not formally register his dissent at any time by asking for a recorded vote when votes were taken. 8. The Gift Fund is a part of the collective agreement of the

Hamilton Secondary Unit and is deemed to be a superior provision for the members within that local collective agreement. It is protected by the centrally bargained

@ OECTA

| JUNE 2017

provincial agreement. Mr. Lepore had a duty as vicepresident and a member of the unit executive to uphold all aspects of the collective agreement, which includes the Gift Fund. However, he publicly referred to the Fund as a white elephant, and has spoken in favour of collapsing it, so that the money could be used to release additional unit officers such as the elementary unit does.

/PENALTY

1. That effective immediately, the membership privileges of

Vince Lepore, First Vice-President of the Hamilton Secondary Unit of OECTA be suspended for the period ending on March 31, 2019.

2. That effective immediately Vince Lepore, First Vice-President

of the Hamilton Secondary Unit of OECTA be prohibited from holding any elected or appointed position within OECTA provincially and/or locally, prior to April 1, 2019.

3. That the decision of the Discipline Panel shall be published in the next official OECTA publication. 4. That the General Secretary is directed by the panel to provide

a copy of the panel’s decision, a statement of the reasons for it and the penalty to be imposed to the respondent and the complainants, as per the OECTA Handbook.

/REASONS FOR THE PENALTY

The panel chose the penalty of the removal of membership privileges for Mr. Lepore, effective immediately, and until March 31, 2019, for the following reasons: 1. Time is needed for the Unit Executive to reclaim their

credibility and respect with the membership of the Hamilton Secondary Unit.

2. Time is needed for the Unit Executive to “build solidarity through actions that foster trust and collegiality”, with the membership. This is one of the fundamental principles of the Association. 3. Mr. Lepore’s presence on the Unit Executive and involvement

in any local or provincial activities during that time would not be conducive to working towards those goals.

4. It is important for the membership to know that Mr. Lepore

is unable to exercise his membership privileges, particularly those of holding an elected or appointed position for a defined period of time. For this reason, publication of the decision is necessary.

As per Section 2.227.4 of the Association Handbook, the Discipline Panel has directed that this decision be published.

SIT BACK AND RELAX. YOUR RETIREMENT IS FULL OF CHOICES. Choose from three flexible health insurance plans from OTIP's Retired Teachers Insurance Plan (RTIP). Pick the plan that's right for you, and easily apply online! • • • •

Get faster refunds with online claims and direct deposit Add dental coverage at any time, without penalty 95 consecutive days of deluxe travel insurance coverage included in all plans PLUS get retiree discounts on auto and home insurance rates

To learn more and apply online, visit www.otip.com/RTIP-choose or call 1-866-206-6138.