Peggy Revell
Outrage over the actions of the former Rainy River District School Board made for standing room only at last night’s meeting as members of the public came out to show support for trustee David Kircher, who had been found to have breached the trustee Code of Conduct.
More than 60 people packed the boardroom, and spilled out into the hallway, to hear the new board’s decision on punishment for the breach, which occurred when Kircher admitted to sharing details with members of the public about the outgoing board’s move during the in-camera session of its final meeting in November to amend the contracts of both the director of education and superintendent of business so any severance pay would total four years’ worth of salary and benefits, not one.
Kircher has maintained that details concerning the contract amendments were open and available to the public given the new board had publicly noted the contracts had been amended at its January meeting.
As well, contract information such as this is covered under the Freedom of Information Act.
But in a 4-2 vote at last month’s meeting, the board found a breach had occurred. And since no trustee wished to change their original vote, this decision was confirmed at last night’s meeting.
As a result, another resolution was passed to censure Kircher for this breach, with board chairman Mike Lewis to write a letter to that effect.
This is basically a letter of reprimand, Lewis explained following the meeting, noting it will indicate that according to the vote, Kircher broke the confidentiality part of the Code of Conduct.
“It’s the least of all the consequences,” he said, with the most significant ones being along the lines of removing Kircher from committees, for example.
“But that wouldn’t serve anyone’s purpose,” Lewis reasoned. “ We’ll move on from here, and we’ll be as open and transparent as we possibly can.
“It’s a new board and that’s the dedication that people want to put into it—to have that transparency,” he stressed.
Kircher said afterwards that he saw the results as fair, although he still doesn’t regret his actions.
“After tonight’s meeting, it’s indicated to all trustees that there’s no one above any school board policy. Everybody must adhere,” said former board chair Dan Belluz, who originally reported these contract amendment details had been made public
But this was not a sentiment shared by the crowd that came out to the meeting to show support for Kircher, including local ratepayer Walter Horban, who made a public presentation to trustees last night.
Horban asked for answers concerning the missing funds at Fort Frances High School several years ago, the amended severance packages for senior administration, and board transparency.
“I think, as taxpayers, we are owed that. We’d like to see where our money goes,” said Horban, outlining what facts are publicly known about all of these issues.
“This comes down as a matter of interpretation. I feel that Mr. Kircher was right and the Freedom of Information Act confirms it, what do you think?” Horban said to the crowd, which broke in applause in response.
“Was Mr. Kircher fulfilling his obligation to the 1,570 people who voted for him? I think so,” he said to another round of applause.
“All the business of was he right or was he not in the revelation of the severance amendment obscures one really important point—and that is why was the amendment even considered and brought up?” Horban remarked.
Addressing questions especially towards Belluz, Horban listed those the public has been asking, including whether it was administration or the board that brought forward the changes, research and comparisons of the changes compared to other administrations across the province, as well as the impact such changes would have on negotiations at other boards and, ultimately, the effect on education.
He also asked about a possible link between this amendment and the new board investigating the missing funds at Fort High, or making it “costly” should the new board want to make changes in administration.
Having the severance packages returned to their former status is “the morally correct thing to do,” Horban told the new board.
As well, “many people in Fort Frances are waiting for answers, answers to questions that have been on our mind for several years now,” he said about the Fort High funds, in which hundreds of thousands of dollars went missing over a 38-month period.
Fawn Lindberg faces charges in the matter, which is still before the courts.
Horban questioned how the missing funds could have gone on for such a time period without being discovered.
“Didn’t somebody have the responsibility to look after these funds? Wasn’t anyone accountable? Who was minding our finances at the school?” he asked.
“Didn’t annual reviews point out that something was seriously wrong with the numbers? Whose job is it to notice this and request an audit?
“This could have been solved much sooner,” Horban argued, recalling that when Kircher began asking questions as a ratepayer, he was “stonewalled”—having to resort to the Freedom of Information Act to obtain facts pertinent to the issue at the cost of $400.
Horban asked that the public be given the final figures when it comes to what the matter has cost the board, and wondered how the current court case has to do with why the board hasn’t answered these sort of questions yet.
“We the public, to this day, have no assurance that anything has been done to implement and monitor sound financial accounting procedures at all employment levels, although I suspect that it has,” he remarked.
“There’s been no formal recognition of the [missing funds] from the board, to date it has not been publicly acknowledged,” he added, asking the new board “what has been done, and what more can be done, to secure and ensure proper financial procedures are followed?”
The actions of the former board over the severance pay amendments also “begs the question, whether or not there has been any other financial transaction which has not been revealed, which we don’t know about,” Horban questioned.
“Does this indicate the need for a forensic audit?
“The amendment to senior administration contracts and the method by which it was done, in my, our, opinion, I hope, is a violation of the public trust that the previous board was charged to protect,” argued Horban, placing a share of the responsibility for these actions on both Belluz and Marg Heyens—the only two trustees who returned to the board following the last fall’s election.
“It’s my opinion, and I’m hoping that you will agree, that these two members would do us all a favour if they resigned from the board,” Horban said to more applause from the crowd.
With the severance issue having been discussed in-camera by the board in January, then in public session in February, as well as in the local media, Lewis replied that “at this time this board can say about the issue that’s not already been said.”
But the board did pass a resolution last night authorizing the chair to contact the board’s legal counsel on labour relations to determine what discussion took place with him that led to the November, 2010 in-camera resolutions.
As to the missing funds, Lewis reiterated that because the case is still in front of the courts, the board “cannot comment further on what is already known in public until that court case has been concluded.”
But he added current trustees are “as anxious as any citizen to know the complete details of this ongoing case.”
“This board cannot account for any lack of transparency for any previous board, it can only be held accountable for its own actions,” Lewis told the crowd.
“And I can tell you that this current board will be open and transparent,” he vowed.
“It will also protect the privacy of individuals when it is required to do under the Education Act and or the Freedom of Information/Protection of Privacy Act,” Lewis stressed.
