Peggy Revell
The true origins of a complaint filed with the Justices of the Peace Review Council by the previous Rainy River District School Board was questioned last night by trustee David Kircher.
A complaint was sent to the review council in 2008 by then board chair Dan Belluz on behalf of the board—but there are no existing records, minutes, or resolutions that the board had directed him to do so, Kircher noted during last night’s regular monthly meeting.
Kircher stated that in January, 2009, he was contacted by a lawyer from Toronto, representing the Justices of the Peace Review Council, who said they were investigating a complaint filed by the public school board—and that he was named in the complaint.
“The complaint alleged that I was the public surrogate for a Justice of the Peace, in pursuit of answers from the board regarding the [Fort High fraud],” Kircher said.
“I unequivocally told the council’s lawyer that the justice referred to had absolutely nothing to do with my campaign for answers from the RRDSB.”
Kircher added he’s had no further contact with this lawyer concerning the complaint.
Kircher was elected to the school board in October, 2010 in a landslide and on the platform of bringing more transparency to the board, especially concerning the theft of more than $300,000 in funds from Fort Frances High School by then head secretary Fawn Lindberg.
Following last year’s revelation over the outgoing board’s amendments to severance packages of senior administration, and how they were enacted, Kircher said he began looking into the board’s complaint submitted to the Justices of the Peace Review Council.
With the assistance of current board chair Mike Lewis and current Director of Education Heather Campbell, and after a “thorough search,” Kircher said no copy or record of the complaint was found, nor were there any recorded board resolutions in either public or in-camera meetings found concerning the complaint.
Kircher said he also contacted the Justices of the Peace Review Council for similar requests.
“I finally secured a copy of the complaint filed,” he remarked. “The complaint consists of a three-page letter, fax cover sheet, and several appendices.
“The content of the complaint and allegations made are not the issue here, except to say the basis of the complaint, like the proponent, was fabricated,” Kircher charged.
The letter portion of the complaint was on RRDSB letterhead, dated Friday, Nov. 7, 2008, and was signed by Belluz, who was chair at that time.
The complaint had been sent using the fax machine of then Director of Education Jack McMaster, Kircher noted, “adding further verification to the source of the complaint.”
“If Mr. Belluz had filed this complaint as a private citizen, I would not take issue with his right to do so,” said Kircher.
“However, the submission of this complaint as a board initiative is, at best, a misrepresentation of the RRDSB, and an abuse of authority for what perhaps may be construed as personal satisfaction or gain.
“Board resources were employed to compile and file this complaint, without the required board authority and with no evidence of the complaint left at the board office,” he stressed.
Kircher noted that submitting the complaint as chair provided Belluz with “a certain amount of security while substantially increasing the weight of the complaint” to the review council, as compared to being submitted by a private citizen.
In response to these allegations, Belluz stated he did, in fact, act on the direction of the board—despite the lack of this being in the minutes or there being any resolutions.
“I did not do it on my own personal behalf,” he stressed. “It was a board direction.”
In speaking with the Times, Belluz said the board initiated the complaint based on information it had acquired from some Fort High staff.
It was “compelling” enough for them to file the complaint, he noted, which the board did so on behalf of some of its employees.
“I can’t go into detail about what the letter was, as it was confidential, and the judiciary [review rep] advised me that everything was confidential and I should hold it as such,” Belluz remarked.
“They would review all the facts that were presented to them, and the evidence, and they would determine whether or not there would be a judicial review.”
Belluz said it was likely at the time that the board decided no resolution was needed, noting a similar example would see a resolution not needed if, say, the board directed the director of education to take action if a student was being harassed by a teacher.
The review council did interview personnel and look at the evidence, he added. But he doesn’t know the status and hasn’t had any contact with the council, nor does he know the outcome of the review.
“I had hoped that as a board we could move past this, instead of one trustee constantly trying to discredit the previous board,” said Belluz.
“Get on with it.”
Kircher told the Times he will not be pursuing the issue any further.
“This incident, together with the severance resolutions of the November, 2010 board, are clear examples of the perils our society may encounter as a result of our democratic institutions becoming closed and inaccessible to constituents,” he said during his statement to the board.
“I hope this information will help us, and others, to conduct our operations in a transparent and accessible environment to ensure board accountability to all our stakeholders,” he added.
