So I finally took the time to dig up the Trustee Code of Conduct for the @HWDSB. #HamOnt

I have questions.

https://www.hwdsb.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Trustees-Code-of-Conduct.pdf

The Code is fairly straightforward. In part, it outlines procedures for dealing with formal and informal complaints about Trustees, including language about voting, sanctions, etc.

There are a couple of interesting sections:

2/x

Section 36 covers the reasons why a Board meeting can go in camera. They boil down to a) security, b) personal details about an identifiable individual, c) real estate, d) employee negotiations and e) litigation.

3/x

The actual text of b)

"the disclosure of intimate, personal or financial information in respect of a member of the Board or committee, an employee or prospective employee of the Board or a pupil or his or her parent or guardian;" 4/x

The racism probe doesn't deal with security, real estate, negotiations or litigation.

So is section B why they feel justified hiding their deliberations in a closed meeting? I don't see why this is about intimate, personal or financial information about these Trustees. 5/x

So, given all of that, why are they allowed to discuss any of this behind closed doors?

Should tonight's meeting and all previous meetings on this matter since the report was released have been held in full public view? 6/x

The next section, section 37, says "The Trustee who is alleged to have breached the Code of Conduct shall not vote on a resolution to determine whether or not there is a breach or the imposition of a sanction."
7/x

38 is also interesting:

"The Trustee who is alleged to have breached the Code of Conduct may be present during the deliberations regarding the above but shall not participate in the
deliberations, and shall not be required to answer any questions at that meeting." 8/x

And 39:

"The Trustee who is alleged to have breached the Code of Conduct shall not in any way, after the final report is completed, influence the vote on the decision of breach
or sanction, except as permitted below after these decisions have been made." 9/x

So was this not being treated as a Code of Conduct inquiry? Why not? It certainly seems more than serious enough to be subject to a formal inquiry.

Was a Formal Inquiry sidestepped to spare the Board the embarrassment of having to hold their own members accountable? 10/x

Section 40 addresses sanctions:

The Board may vote to censure the Turstee, bar them from all or part of a Board/committee meeting, or bar them from sitting on one or more committees for a specified period of time.

11/x

Section 41 deals with limits on sanctions, the most pertinent part being "The Board has no power to declare the Trustee's seat vacant" (this would seem to agree with the Ontario Municipal Act). 12/x

So:

Why is the Board not treating this as a Formal Inquiry and following its own rules accordingly? If it's because the complaint wasn't considered serious enough to justify this process, why not? If this WAS considered a Formal Inquiry, why is the Code not being followed? 13/x

Tagging some people who may be able to weigh in:

@JoeyColeman @bobbyhristova @KatrinaAClarke @craig_burley @HS4JUSTICE

Please tag anyone else who might be able to offer a comment/clarification.

14/14