On January 31, 2014, a television news item: “UPAC visits English school boards,” Chairperson Suanne Stein Day states:
“Parents should be pleased because once again in a very transparent measure, we are trying to make sure that our administrators, and our governing body, the Council of Commissioners, are working together to prevent any corruption.“
I am not pleased at all because the board has repeatedly refused to include Article 175.1 (4)
of the Education Act.
Furthermore, the board has refused to answer these questions :
1. Why is it at the LBPSB, a commissioner can start doing business, by advertising, with the board, weeks after leaving the board, yet is expected to remain silent ( 4) years after leaving the board?
2. Without Article 175.1 (4), at what point does the LBPSB define and identify a conflict of interest matter? What are the rules on parting commissioners?
3. Why is it that suddenly a company ( Johnson Controls ) which had a good history with the LBPSB suddenly drop out of competition for a Phase 3 Energy contract?
4. Considering the awards and press releases, praising Johnson Controls, why is it that a company whose representative was the former chairman of the Pearson board, who quit mid year to work for this company, win the contract?
5. To avoid, or spot, conflicts of interest, what advice did UPAC offer the Quebec English School Boards Association?
It is important that the board and its officers act in a manner which would demand the highest ethical standards. Consequently, in the event I am elected, the new Council will pass a resolution to follow the law and apply Article 175.1 (4).
Transparency will be in ; four-year ‘omerta’ will be out.