Public school board decides trustee Mike Ramsay breached code of conduct

WATERLOO Location — Waterloo Area District College Board trustee Mike Ramsay was censured for owning breached the board’s code of carry out at a unique meeting held Monday night time.

His fellow board users imposed all out there sanctions for the carry out breach, such as a censure and barring him from attending equally community and in-camera conferences as effectively as sitting down on committees right until Sept. 30.

The particular assembly adopted the board receiving a private report by the integrity commissioner on a code of carry out criticism filed against Ramsay on Feb. 24. The grievance versus Ramsay was not created general public.

The grievance and the report are private due to the fact they were section of a closed assembly, the faculty board stated Tuesday in a statement.

The report was talked about by trustees initial at the shut session attended by the integrity commissioner, who for the investigation had interviewed Ramsay, the complainant and other trustees as well as reviewed documentation provided by Ramsay, the complainant and witnesses.

“The integrity commissioner is not to make any recommendations and did not do so. As a substitute, the report is a obtaining of details,” chair Scott Piatkowski stated at the start off of the public meeting. “It is up to trustees to make a decision regardless of whether the code of carry out has been breached and, if so, no matter if any of the sanctions offered to trustees will be imposed.”

A movement that the board found Ramsay breached the trustee code of perform was released and moved in the course of the in-digital camera session then voted on through the subsequent general public assembly.

The votes on the breach of perform and on the imposition of sanctions every involve a two-thirds vast majority. That threshold was satisfied for each and every vote, with 6 trustees voting in favour for each and every vote — Jayne Herring, Karen Meissner, Carol Millar, Piatkowski, Joanne Weston and Kathleen Woodcock — and a few opposed — Kathi Smith, Cindy Watson and Crystal Whetham.

Ramsay and the complainant ended up not allowed to vote.

Trustee Laurie Tremble was current at the assembly but did not vote.

The integrity commissioner is an independent officer contracted by the board to perform formal investigations into allegations of a breach of the trustee code of carry out, which is a board policy that outlines “acceptable and respectful behaviours.”

In accordance to the code: “A trustee holds an elected place which carries with it the comprehension that the electorate will make a decision at election time its guidance for the success of a trustee. At the exact same time, it is important to realize the community rely on and accountability the collective body carries and that this have confidence in and accountability is honoured through identifying and implementing norms of suitable conduct.”

The board launched a assertion midday Tuesday about the particular meeting, describing the course of action for a trustee code of carry out complaint and why the report continues to be personal.

“The Education and learning Act authorizes school boards to undertake a code of carry out for trustees that provides a system for boards to hold trustees accountable by means of imposing their code of conduct at the community stage.”

It states the board followed the approach and a formal critique was conducted by the integrity commissioner, which guide to a confidential report that’s a obtaining of specifics only.

“Per board plan G201, the board of trustees are responsible to ascertain no matter whether the code of conduct has been breached and, if so, whether any of the sanctions accessible to trustees will be imposed.”

The meeting which reviewed the report was held privately, next prerequisites of the Instruction Act.

“As the report was a component of the non-public in-camera session, it can’t be shared publicly as per the act. The Education and learning Act also requires that all resolutions involving resolve of a breach of the code of conduct and any sanction imposed by the board is to be held in community session.”

“As community officials, university board trustees are duty certain to be accountable to the community and the WRDSB code of perform is our tool to ensure general public accountability,” Piatkowski reported in the statement.

SHARE: