Going back to the Boessenkool resignation,this is very good example of how Christy Clark spews miss information and half truths and lies.Everyone remember her standing up saying
"All of the procedures were absolutely followed."Here are the procedures,see for yourself how it is suppose to be done, then how Vaugn palmer explains how Christy Clark follows procedures.
Appointment of Adjudicator
The Employer will appoint an Adjudicator within 10 working days of receiving the written notice of referral for adjudication. The Adjudicator will either be appointed from a mutually agreed upon list, or will be someone who is agreeable to both the Employer and
the Bargaining Agent. The
written complaint will specify
the details of the allegation including: name, title and ministry of the respondent;
a description of the action, conduct, events or circumstances involved in the complaint;
the specific remedy sought to satisfy the complaint;
dates of incidents;
names of witnesses (if any); and
prior attempts to resolve (if any).
The Deputy Minister
will provide a copy of the complaint to the respondent. The Deputy Minister
will acknowledge, in writing, receipt of the
written complaint, have the matter investigated and take such steps as may be required to resolve the matter.
The employee and association representative, if applicable, will
be advised in writing of the proposed resolution within 30 days from the date the Deputy Minister
received the written complaint or a later mutually agreed upon date.
Snip: But, no. In answer to Fowlie's first request, the government responded Monday:
"Although a thorough search was conducted, no records were located in response to your request." In response to the second request: Ditto.Neither records nor correspondence. No emails, nothing from the network of BlackBerrys, not even a text message.The answer was so all-embracing, Fowlie considered the possibility that he'd filed the request to the wrong agency. Perhaps the material was on file elsewhere in the hydra-headed government.
No again.
When he put the question to the office of the premier, he was advised that the government wasn't holding back anything. There were no records of this affair. The entire matter was handled "verbally," from start to finish.
So, to recap what the Liberals have put on the public record, the complaint against the chief of staff came to the premier's office not long after the Sept. 7 incident happened. The premier herself was advised of it in short order.
Despite the severity of the allegation, she allowed Boessenkool to remain at his post while the investigation was delegated to the Public Service Agency.
The agency head handled the investigation herself, conducting the interviews, making the necessary inquiries, drawing all the conclusions. She then reported back to the premier, who concluded Boessenkool had to go, a verdict with which he himself (judging from his letter of resignation and the absence of any severance package) concurred.
All those events unfolded over the space of two weeks without anyone generating a single, solitary scrap of paper. Not even a memo that could have been redacted by the Liberals under the many options available to them in the access-to-information law, which is riddled with loopholes.
Incredible. Just incredible.
The nothing-in-writing approach does cast a somewhat different light on the premier's initial characterization of the way she handled the Boes-senkool departure.
"Our review immediately began and that review followed the processes that are set out and laid down by B.C.'s Public Service Agency," she told reporters after the news broke on Sept. 24. "All of the procedures were absolutely followed."
Really? Agency procedures are posted in detail on the government website. The emphasis is on putting things in writing, particularly regarding matters serious enough to warrant a resignation, as did this one. Not much about the word-of-mouth option.
Clark again: "After the investigation was done and I was presented with all the facts, I had a decision to make and I made that decision."
After she was presented with the facts in a strictly oral briefing. No notes, interview transcripts or written recommendations.
And again: "I think an employer has a duty to gather the facts before letting someone go."
How many employers, confronted with these circumstances involving one of the senior officials in their organization, would neglect to put the key findings in writing, just in case either the complainant or the target of the complaint were to seek legal recourse?
Lastly: "Everything that was done, was done absolutely to the letter." Which is not to say that her government generated an actual letter, or, indeed even one written word that could be sought after the fact by a pesky journalist.
Amateurish and sneaky at the same time.
But at least we now know how badly Clark wanted to keep people in the dark about her handling of the departure of one of the most powerful officials in her government.
[email protected]Read more:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Handling+Bo ... z2Atf623Nx