Posts Tagged Accountability
(York School Board Trustee Nancy Elgie Tenders Her Resignation via Youtube)
Yesterday York Region District School Board [YRDSB] Trustee Nancy Elgie told her constituents via a Youtube video that she would be stepping down as a Trustee, months after uttering a racial slur by “mistake”. In the almost 10 minute heavily edited statement on youtube, Elgie stated that the whole situation is a misunderstanding, and she didn’t mean to say those hurtful words to a parent in York Region. Elgie went on to say that there is no “sanction” under employment laws for trustees under which she was investigated and she felt was wrong (Elgie under the employment investigation was ordered to take “equality training” as a sanction). She also stated she didn’t resign immediately because she wanted this to be a teachable moment for the kids and the community. I fully agree with this being a teachable moment for the community in Georgina, and also within York Region.
Over the past several months there has been a lot of questions as to why the York trustees chose to investigate this matter as one that suits “employment law” rather than the appropriate trustee code of conduct. By treating this incident under employment law, the board and its trustees effectively shielded Elgie from accountability measures that were put into place nearly 14 years ago by the Province of Ontario to deal with trustee conduct (who are publicly elected officials). Trustees are NOT employed by the board. They are employed by the tax payers of this province and the YRDSB had no authority to make this matter one of employment law.
YRDSB Chair Loralea Carruthers (who is a defeated Liberal candidate in York-Simcoe and long time YRDSB trustee) posted up a statement after a tremendous amount of public pressure was put on the board to follow through with a code of conduct review on Elgie. Carruthers stated:
The Education Act does provide Trustees with the ability to initiate a Code of Conduct complaint when a colleague commits a breach. The Trustee Code of Conduct process is complex, has limitations, must be conducted in private and its outcome is not always able to be made public. We are unable, under the rules that govern us, to even let the public know if we are proceeding with a Code of Conduct complaint. The process typically takes months, is expensive and, should a breach be confirmed, Trustees are limited in terms of what sanctions can be applied.
If the YRDSB followed through with a code of conduct complaint after Elgie was sanctioned under employment law, the board would have needed to take Elgie to court to argue the board erred in law and sanctions needed to be under the trustee code of conduct. This would have cost the tax payers and the board massive amounts of money had Elgie fought the board legally on this.
Under the trustee code of conduct, not much can be done to sanction a trustee other than short term suspensions. Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne was recently questioned on the lack of “teeth” in the trustee code of conduct, too which her reply was basically – we put that in over 13 years ago, and its better than nothing. Last year the Ontario Auditor General found the Wynne Liberals gave a $22 million blank cheque to the school unions, and just this month gave teachers across the province a 4% raise.
The huge problem not just the YRDSB is having – but boards across the province – is protectionist behavior. Protect their own, rather than be held accountable for their mistakes, which continues to this day even when the YRDSB is under investigation. This should be of great concern to the tax payers of Ontario.
York trustees on February 13th, 2017, one by one urged Elgie to resign, effectively throwing her under the bus to protect the “institution” and once again tried to sweep the misconduct of other trustees who fought to wrongfully protect Elgie from a code of conduct review under the rug. Wynne has stated in a presser earlier last week that the province has sent in investigators to the YRDSB to uncover why the YRDSB did not follow through with a code of conduct complaint, and to determine if other trustees are in violation of that code of conduct as a result. Wynne also stated that the investigators she has sent into the YRDSB may make recommendations to the province in order to tighten up and properly sanction trustees around their code of conduct laws.
Now that Elgie has stepped down, the residents of Georgina need to ask themselves; is this cover-up of misconduct by Elgie at the YRDSB an isolated incident? Over the later part of the week, the Toronto Star was in contact with Elgie, and her family for several days. Several of her constituents came forward to the Star regarding Elgie’s conduct as a trustee. The Toronto Star over these several days questioned the family and Elgie herself on several situations where she was seen to be dismissive and non-responsive to concerns of the community. In one instance the Toronto Star brought up:
“Desiree Makuto, whose son was videotaped being beaten and racially taunted by classmates in a high-profile incident at Sutton District High School in 2014, said she called and emailed Elgie for support, to no avail.
“She never did respond — she was surprisingly silent on the issue,” said Makuto. “… She had an obligation, a role to play.”
Elgie’s son Stewart dismissed the concerns of the community stating to the Star:
“these allegations are a disappointing attempt to re-write history and smear the record of a trustee who has earned consistent praise from her colleagues and constituents over the years.”
There was growing pressure for Elgie to step down over the past few months, and her resignation seems to have come following serious questions from the community she serves on her conduct, and leaves serious questions about the conduct of other trustees and the board in its wake. If we are truly looking to reform the YRDSB, than we must take a good close look at the protectionist behavior these institutions are well known for, and why it’s been allowed to continue in law for so many years while the province has known about the problems of conduct, and developed legislation with nothing meaningful in play to stop it.
As a resident of Georgina in which Elgie has served and parent myself, one can only hope that the members of my community will elect someone who understands that the role of a trustee is to hold the board to account, knows the problems in our local schools, and can properly and effectively advocate for ALL in their constituency. A board meeting will be held on February 21st, 2017 to discuss whether the board will appoint a replacement or rightfully allow the community of Georgina to go to the polls.
(Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne Likely To Read From A Blank Book On School Board Accountability)
Over the past few months, the York Region District School Board (YRDSB) in Ontario has been embroiled in controversy surrounding governance, accountability, and racial tensions. The governing Liberal Party of Ontario promised to get to the bottom of these systemic issues at the YRDSB by appointing two “arm’s length” investigators to the board to look at recommendations on how to solve systemic issues, rather than using the independent Provincial Ombudsman who in 2015 was given the legal authority and jurisdiction to look at the specific issues the YRDSB investigators have been tasked to look at. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals who have a long history of throwing blank cheques at the education unions are all that serious about systemic change at the YRDSB which would require legislation with the ability to hold those in the system to account.
Two weeks into getting the investigation set up, the YRDSB investigators (Patrick Case + Suzanne Herbert), are already hearing from a staggering number of parents. These two investigators appointed by the province seem to be ill-equipped to handle the sheer volume of complaints coming in, to which the province’s ombudsman would have been better equipped to handle. I had a conversation with Patrick Case on twitter yesterday. Here is that conversation:
Both Case and Herbert are widely connected to the education sector in Ontario. Herbert was a deputy minister in Ontario, including deputy of education (way to close to government for my liking), while Case served as former trustee for the Toronto District School Board which has had its fair share of problems. While I don’t question these investigators credibility to pin the vast majority of problems with board governance on YRDSB Director J. Philip Parappally and a few “rouge” trustees implementation of more equality training board wide, and quietly sweep this controversy under the rug to avoid any drafting of accountability legislation to deal with systemic problems province wide; I do not see how this investigation would be beneficial to the kids the public education sector serves. The only beneficiary to this investigation as it stands right now would be the education unions who have deeply embedded themselves in Wynne’s government.
Racial intolerance in any profession or work place is wrong, against our values as Canadians, and most importantly against our civil rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. One of the root causes for racial intolerance at the YRDSB is the lack of accountability on staff, directors, trustees. It’s a symptom of a much larger problem in the province. The lack of accountability in the education sector is province wide, and if we are truly looking to send a message that racial intolerance is not accepted in our public school system, than it is law and legislation with teeth that is needed to hold those in the education system to account, not non-binding “recommendations” from a rushed, arm’s length investigation.
A much better more responsible approach would be to slow down, allow the community to appropriately respond to identify systemic issues, and ensure that the investigation is done in an independent way, rather than recommendations that in the end will duck any real legislative accountability and favor political donors over that of our school children due to the closeness of the investigators to the legislative process. To do otherwise would only serve to pass the buck to the next school board to have issues due to the lack of legislative accountability, and put more of our children across the province at further risk.
(The York Region District School Board Acted To Protect Trustee Nancy Elgie From a Code of Conduct Review)
This week has been a very tough week for the York Region District School Board (YRDSB). After Tuesday’s emotional meeting with parents, and bizarre apology for racial slurs by Trustee Nancy Elgie, the Ministry of Education has appointed two investigators to come in and make “recommendations” on how to improve leadership and equality at the York Region District School Board.
Today, Ontario’s Minister of Education appeared on CBC’s Metro Morning to discuss the issues plaguing the YRDSB and did not commit to removing Nancy Elgie as a trustee after several calls from the community for her to step down. One of the reasons why, is because the YRDSB treated the racial slurs coming from this Trustee’s mouth as a human resources complaint, rather than a code of conduct complaint thus protecting her from the accountability mechanisms that are in place to hold trustees publicly accountable under board bi-laws.
By treating this as a human resources complaint, her fellow trustees at the board can not hold Elgie to account on those racial slurs on code of conduct violations and neither can the Ministry of Education. Nor can they speak publicly on it as a result of this complaint being confidential. This is precisely the problem at the York Region District School Board who continually ducks from public accountability, and I fail to see how exactly trust can be instilled back into this institution without Elgie’s outright dismissal which is unlikely to happen as a result of her racial slurs.
Patrick Case, a University of Guelph political science professor is one of the two investigators the Ministry of Education has sent into the YRDSB. In a recent interview Case stated:
“People need to look at the process as one that will take time. It’s not that the two of us are going to go in there and sprinkle pixie dust. What people should be looking for is steady progress, rather than a quick fix.”
What I think is likely to happen, is that these investigators will come in and provide “short term” solutions to equality. However, for long term solutions the board and its trustees need to be held accountable if those solutions are to be solidified within the board. Otherwise this “investigation” by the Ministry seems to be rather a public relations stunt by an unpopular premier looking to solidify votes in the 905 rather than acting on the issue of systemic racism at the YRDSB which requires that Trustee Elgie be held to account publicly under the Trustees code of conduct.
This isn’t just a YRDSB problem. The school boards are set up as self governing with public representations and accountability. If the public can’t hold a trustee to account under codes of conduct, than this is going to send a message province wide, that if you become a trustee in the school system, you can do and say what you want without fear of being held accountable. That’s not a system that has the best interests of the children and communities they serve. In fact this is and already has made our kids less safe as a result, and this systemic racism will stop short term, but it’ll be business as usual at the YRDSB a few months after the public attention has gone away.
No matter what these “investigators” recommend, if trustee accountability is not put forth regarding Elgie than those recommendations are meaningless and nonbinding.
The Toronto Star recently sat down with the Ontario Minister of Children and Youth Services Michael Coteau to discuss changes being made to autism services in Ontario. A common theme is starting to emerge over the past few months since the announcement of the new Ontario Autism Program. The way the process for “change” has presented itself, could see catastrophic consequences going forward as a result of tight budget constraints, lack of transparency and consultation needed to identify problems, analyze the system on whole and come up with sustainable solutions. The end result will be a number of children and families caught in the cross-fire and shoved aside as collateral damage.
In the interview with the Star Coteau stated:
“My job now is to deliver a program that will be considered the best program in this country”
Also from the Toronto Star article:
“It’s going to be tough transforming a system overnight,” Coteau said. “This is what I’ve been mandated to do by the premier. It’s what’s required and we’re going to get it done.”
If the goal is to create a system that is the best in the country, it cannot be done “overnight”.
There are two ways of fixing problems in any system.
1) Crisis Management
2) Structured Problem Solving and Analysis
If you try to solve problems that arise in complex systems on a case by case basis, others arise as a result of trying to solve those problems. You fix those, and more will pop up. It becomes a web of problems in large part because the extent of the problems within the system when you are using a crisis management type of approach is not known. You are not looking at the system as a whole. It’s a “whack-a-mole” type of approach where you only look at the problems you’re facing, you don’t analyze the system to anticipate problems, and develop solutions to lessen the effects of catastrophic damage that will likely occur if you don’t know the extent of the problems within the system as a whole. The end result if Coteau continues with a crisis management case by case strategy are kids falling through the cracks (like mine) and the system will end up in a much worse position than it was prior to the announcement.
Structured problem solving on the other hand, allows a much broader look into the system through analysis. Since the Auditor General’s 2013 report on autism services there hasn’t been any call for a public consultation from the government, just tightly controlled committees looking only at small pockets of the system, and the government hand picking what it wants to sell through those committee reports. The users of that system are way more knowledgeable of the problems within it because they are the ones dealing with it on a day to day basis, and you can’t have an accurate picture of the problems without first broadly consulting the users.
The system as a whole needs to be revamped. The government has stated it’s committed to that, but their actions to date seem to suggest otherwise. The expert committee laid down a path for forward, which the government is still refusing to follow because they don’t seem to want to commit the needed funds. That’s quite clear on the fact that Coteau is still steadfast on only providing expensive intensive behavior intervention therapy to kids under 5, which the expert panel has since refuted as being anything but their recommendation. The experts have also been muzzled by the government in participating in any public conversations on this public policy. That runs counter to the mandate Coteau has been given, when open public participation in the democratic process should be facilitated if the goal is to make the system rise above others nationally.
The path forward should include broad system wide open and public consultation with parents and people within the system who are the users of the system and the most valuable part of the system on whole in order to provide a complete picture of the problems within it, along with complete transparency so that the experts and the implementation committee can publicly contribute to this public conversation and consultation. Simply selecting a few hand picked people will not represent the extent of the problems, nor provide proper analysis. Putting any kind of muzzle on these people strongly suggests the government is anything but committed to doing what’s necessary to make the system the best in the country.
The proper way to deal with this in which the experts alluded too in their letter to the Minister, back a few weeks after the announcement of the new program, is to first start out testing the any new changes to system first as a “pilot project”, or in analytical terms, alpha and beta testing. I would add that alpha and beta testing commence after proper public consultation with users of the system and a proper plan has been developed as a result of those consultations. This gives the government the chance to test changes made to complex systems in a controlled environment to lessen the effects of problems limiting any damage the system might occur as a result. This does NOT happen “overnight”!
If you’ve done open consultations with the users and know the full extent of the problems, you can anticipate those problems moving forward. You need to first analyze the effects on the system in a controlled environment, work through the problems, and slowly expand those changes out, repeating the process. In a complex system like autism supports, it can take upwards of 2 years or more to fully role out. Open consultation with the users again has not happened, and Coteau has no idea of the extent of the problems in the current system because he is focusing on small samples of the user base.
Simply rolling out changes to complex systems “overnight” without knowing the extent of the problems within it it, due to lack of consultation will create a tremendous amount of collateral damage, as the government is only interested in saving face and on a budget, rather than seriously looking at a massive systemic and sustainable change, and realizing this is about children not politics. I’m sorry Mr. Coteau, but it is unacceptable in my books to use autistic children as collateral damage while your government plays politics and tries to cover up the extent of the damage you’ve already created since March by ignoring the advice of your own expert panel, and refusing to broadly consult with parents across this province which continues to this day.
The only good news is that Coteau is now looking at placing accountability mechanisms on regional service providers, and looking at their budgets. Reallocating money within the system is a step forward, but will likely not produce the funds needed to restructure the system on whole, nor cover the costs of collateral damage that has and is about to occur as a result of the lack of consultations and understanding of the problems that will inevitably be serious moving forward.
So my message to my fellow autism parents if the status quo in the current process is allowed to continue:
“Brace yourselves, the new Ontario Autism Program is coming.” Expect massive problems and collateral damage.
We need a commitment to an open and transparent process, and one that has a flexible budget, if Coteau is at all serious in delivering his mandate of creating a system of autism supports that can be looked upon as one of the best in the country. Not one child should fall victim to collateral damage as a result of political games being played by the Wynne Liberals to save face and a few bucks. A lot already have as a result of how Wynne has handled this. The government has a moral and ethical obligation to openly and transparently consult with stakeholders during this “transition” phase to ensure that no child is left behind when the new program is rolled out “overnight”.
I received a letter from the central region of your ministry while I had expected an answer regarding my complaint against Kinark directly from your office. Part of this complaint was to raise policy concerns to your office directly regarding the lack accountability of AIPs while your office further and directly investigated my complaint against Kinark. From the September 22nd Ministry letter underwritten by Ms. Cantkier:
“The Ministry is committed to monitoring the Autism Intervention Program (AIP to ensure that the program achieves its goals and objectives and makes efficient use of public resources).”
Had your office directly followed up on my complaint it would have discovered that the system to apply for AIP’s is deeply flawed. My son Matthew received a diagnosis of Autism in which it was recommended that we as parents contact Kinark directly and verbally to be put on the IBI wait list only to find for years after we did just that, multiple times Kinark refused to do so. I’ve also provided the Ministry with documentation from another family that has gone through a similar situation with Kinark.
In an electronic age, recommendations from family support network professionals to AIP programs should be done by those professionals and submitted to Kinark electronically. I have to question even in 2010 why that wasn’t done in our case. It should be an automatic electronic process. It should NOT be left for families to connect with AIPs verbally to apply. That should be handled on the back end, and allows the possibility of the AIP to manipulate the process, with little to no evidence of a verbal request to be put on wait lists often pitting the care givers word against the AIP. This policy doesn’t have any common sense in this day and age whatsoever.
I don’t understand why under these circumstances the ministry is refusing to find a viable solution for my son who has been waiting 6 ½ years for IBI (while others on the wait list who have been waiting far less than my son are entitled to support now) and why the ministry hasn’t taken the initiative to work with Kinark upon my complaint to find a solution, nor properly and fully investigated which would have revealed the policy flaws outlined above that need to be corrected in order for the Ministry too fulfill the mandate to accurately monitor the AIPs ahead of the new program.
Back to the September 22nd letter, in the same paragraph the Ministry stated:
“In situations where families have concerns with transfer payment agencies, including regional autism providers, the ministry encourages families to raise their concerns directly with these organizations and follow their complaint resolution process. This process may include the senior management, and if necessary, the board of directors to resolve differences.”
Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with policy and legislation regarding transfer payments falls directly under the Ministers portfolio. There seems to be a lack of enforcement audits by the ministry to ensure AIPs are actually monitored for compliance to ensure AIP goals and objectives are properly met and use of public resources (such as transfer payments and administered programs) are actually reaching eligible families under these circumstances. The fact that this Ministry didn’t do proper follow up on my family’s situation now TWICE is representative of that. Where there is a lack of accountability and compliance audits, one could reasonably without a doubt expect abuse and manipulation of the system as a result.
Instead of this ministry periodically questioning users of this system (parents and caregivers) electronically to ensure legislative and policy enforcement of regional AIPs on a regular basis, it is the Ministry’s position from the statements provided above that compliance with legislation, mandates, and policy, is left to the AIP’s board of directors and complaint resolution officers to self-police. I find that interesting considering it is well within the legislative scope and jurisdiction of this Ministry to ensure compliance with such upon complaint to this office.
I also find it very interesting that parents who are receiving ACSD support are subjected to compliance audits every few years, yet under the nose of this Ministry Kinark’s administration budget has ballooned yet again, while advocates list this agency as being one of the worst in Ontario regarding the treatment of eligible children and families, and providing the proper care, and following ministerial guidelines under their own mandates. The Minister even acknowledged recently to some degree that there are problems being reported to this office regarding the conduct of AIPs, and yet I’m referred back to a complaints procedure at Kinark, when it’s this ministry who has direct oversight of this organizations compliance with ministerial guidelines.
This self-policing approach to AIPs is leaving families such as mine without services (while we qualify) at great expense to the province and tax payer. As a result of the lack of compliance audits and self-policing of AIPs, this Ministry cannot at all guarantee that families in the new Ontario Autism Program (OAP) in June 2017 will meet any sort of mandate, while currently several parents are left battling out who said what because the first point of contact with AIPs is left to one that is verbal rather than professional electronic and traceable referrals to the program!
Politely, it is this ministers legal responsibility to follow up properly with Kinark’s board of directors to get this matter resolved since it is entirely a complaint based on mandates, policy, legislation and this agency’s conduct in which the minister has direct oversight. It should not be the job of the caregiver or parent upon complaint into the ministry to be chasing a moving target, adding to the frustration, stress, mistrust, and anxiety over a transition to the new autism program which should be seamless and transparent if the government at all was listening to parents concerns over the past few months.
Finally from the Ministry’s letter dated September 22nd 2016:
“The ministry funds a range of supports and services that may be of assistance to your family. I suggest that you contact with Kerry’s Place Autism Services who provide ASD consultations and respite and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) program. I encourage you to re-refer Matthew to the ABA program at which time service length and intensity will be determined”
Also from the September 22nd letter:
“The Ministry of Children and Youth Services is investing in ABA services to increase their capacity, intensity and length. In 2017 the ministry will start implementing the new Ontario Autism Program that will adjust the intensity of services to correspond with the children’s needs and will offer a single access point to autism services in each region”
I’ve been in contact with Children’s Treatment Network (CTN) who diagnosed my son and referred us to Kinark for IBI. There is currently NO community supports that are in place that are even close to the intensity he needs (as a result of the government’s policy decisions since March 2016) in which CTN is in full agreement of, along with descending views of your own expert panel your government is trying to keep quite through non-disclosure agreements.
We’ve placed my son on the ABA wait list in which the ministry acknowledged was a total of 2 – 4 hours/week as a supplementary which was sold to the people of Ontario as a transition program to the new OAP, even though he would not benefit from this program. The current wait list for that in York region is 1 ½ years which extends past the date of the new OAP which is supposed to replace this ABA program. This leaves many in “transition” with NO services while the new program is put into place. It’s been over 6 months since the announcement of this program and investments into ABA “transitional” services seem to be nonexistent. In fact the last time we applied for this useless block of ABA was in 2013, and the wait list back then was 1 year. It’s now grown to 1 ½ years wait with the government investing 6 months ago to “increase” capacity.
In conclusion Minister Coteau, your office has direct responsibility under its mandate to ensure AIPs are being compliant with legislation, transfer payments, and ministry guidelines. As outlined and acknowledged by the Ministry in its September 22nd, 2016 letter, the ministry doesn’t have the proper enforcement regime in place, nor does it investigate compliance issues properly with AIPs, all the while you directly acknowledged to parents recently you are aware of concerns regarding AIPs yet have done nothing to date to resolve those accountability concerns, nor has the ministry added any acknowledgement of that in response to my complaint against Kinark.
This ministry is refusing to work with parents upon complaint, and is refusing get involved in finding a solution for my 11 year old boy who has been eligible for IBI for 6 ½ years.
When is the ministry under your leadership Mr. Coteau, going to start following its mandate to the people of Ontario, and understand that neglect in doing so has severely impacted many families and the futures of our kids. I believe this Ministry’s responses to date regarding my sons issues and unwillingness to get involved to find solutions to those caught up in an imperfect system closely align to that in which was reported by the Ombudsman in August regarding adult services with a different Ministry which launched a multiyear systemic investigation. The culture in your office needs to change Mr. Coteau if you are expected to put forth viable solid solutions to a crisis your ministry is directly responsible for creating due to lack of enforcement and accountability mechanisms on AIPs. Do parents have to go through yet another round of protests, fights, and complaints before your office does the right thing?
We shouldn’t be fighting for services at all Mr. Coteau. I don’t think your government quite understands that point yet. We have enough on our plates, than to be dealing with this mess in which the people of Ontario pay you handsomely for. I would like a resolution to my sons situation please.
This question was asked by Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown in question period twice today, only to be asked by the speaker of the legislature to withdrawal the questions. Question I would like to pose; why is the speaker of the Ontario legislature shutting down completely legitimate questions to the government?
This latest bought in the heart wrenching autism policy war for parents, comes a day after the Toronto Star released an investigative piece on a letter of dismay written by experts tasked to revamp the new autism program shortly after Wynne’s government announced the changes. In the letter the panel of 6 experts expressed concerns regarding the government’s position on removing kids over 5 from intensive therapy; a move in which the government has not back tracked on to date. In the letter addressed to Tracy McCharles the Minister of Children and Youth Services at the time the panel stated:
The new program, as it has been described, treats children five and up as if their needs and capacities are qualitatively different from those younger than five years of age. There is no evidence to support this view.
The letter also expressed concerns regarding how the new program is being rolled out:
The autism program was “initiated prematurely, without sufficient consultation” with families, schools, professionals and the committee and should have been developed and tested first, perhaps as a pilot project.
The committee’s report cited by the ministry did not propose imposing an age cut-off. Instead, it envisioned an IBI program refocused on children ages two to four only if there were ample supports for older children provided in schools and through an enhanced version of the Ontario’s applied behaviour analysis (ABA) program.
What the Ontario Government has done is essentially stopped all treatment, and only paid some support for families that were on the wait list prior to April 1st, 2016. Others while waiting for the new program to be put in place (there is still no details as to what exactly this new autism program will look like in June 2017) are left with no support at all. A sentiment echoed by Brown today in his question to the deputy premier, in which he was not provided an answer. It was also echoed by the panel in the statement above that this transition was not properly planned. As a result, kids like my son who are over the age of 5 are falling through the cracks.
What’s more troubling is the fact that the speaker of the legislature quite obviously wants to shut down questions regarding the new autism program, and problems with this “transition”, and misleading statements by government. I find that extremely interesting, and possibly an abuse of power. The panel of experts has had their tongues cut out in the form of confidentiality agreements, and refuse to speak on the matter even though they have an ethical and moral duty to do so. I’m a Liberal, and this doesn’t represent the Liberal ideology of transparency in democracy.
I’m getting so sick of having to question Wynne as a Liberal at every turn, and getting sick and tired of seeing this woman play politics with not just my son’s future, but the future of many kids in Ontario. She has done nothing but pile on enormous amounts of stress on the backs of parents at the expense of a failed approach to spin problems that are in crisis, rather than actually show true leadership. To get this Liberal government to even acknowledge a crisis in policy is like slow Chinese water torture, while pulling your finger and toe nails out, and getting castrated all at the same time. As such this is a government that has significantly lost touch with the people they represent since Wynne has taken over, and is obsessed with narcissistic behaviors rather than concrete viable policy. It’s time for the Liberal Party of Ontario to re-boot its leader, and clean out the desks of the kids in short pants.
UPDATE: August 15th, 2016 10:45pm:
The Ontario Autism Coalition has just released a press release in which it is demanding an apology from the Minister of Children and Youth Services for misinforming parents, and will be holding protests outside the Minister’s office tomorrow. In my view this also raises very serious questions as to why the speaker of the legislature today shut down Patrick Brown on asking the government why they have misinformed parents. From the Ontario Autism Coalition press release:
“It’s about openness and transparency,” says OAC President Bruce McIntosh, “and it’s also about trust. What little trust that may have existed (between the Liberals and the autism community) has been seriously shaken … by the news that a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) was used to enable the government to promote and disseminate a false version of expert advice.”