Former chair says board needs to be more transparent
Judith Bishop says handling of report that found evidence of racism should be done in the open
In the face of growing criticism over the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board’s handling of a scandal involving racism, a former board chair is weighing in on what’s likely going on behind closed doors.
Judith Bishop, chair of the public school board five times during her 26-year tenure as a trustee, also says secrecy breeds public suspicion — and speculation.
For weeks, the board has been under increasing scrutiny for its handling of allegations of racism and oppression involving four trustees. The criticism has ranged from accusations the board isn’t holding those at the centre of the probe to account, to trustees lacking knowledge of board governance proceedings, to a failure to be transparent about its probe into the allegations.
“The boards have always been like this — the culture of the board has always been ‘You hide as much as possible,’ ” said Bishop in an interview with The Spectator. “But it’s gotten worse.”
Still, she knows what it’s like to tackle code of conduct issues — not fun.
“It was dreadful,” Bishop said, recalling a code of conduct complaint she dealt with a decade ago. “The process is awful; it divides the board ... all your energy is sucked into this.”
But regardless of trustees’ desire to make a situation go away or handle it privately, the board needs to be transparent — at least about process, she said.
“I think there may well be confusion over confidentiality of trustees in private settings and … process.” Bishop said. “Process is not confidential. Process is a public matter.”
On Monday, current board chair Dawn Danko, who is not implicated in the allegations, responded to growing criticism.
“We have heard from members of the community and recognize there is frustration and dissatisfaction with the process to date,” Danko said in an statement emailed Monday evening.
Danko attempted to clarify the “alternative process” the board has voted to use to probe potential code of conduct breaches involving four trustees. She said the process involves “an expedited review and investigation with legal counsel into potential board code of conduct breaches and possible sanctions.” The process is currently underway, she stated.
The new probe will be “using the information” contained in a report from a third-party law firm released earlier this month. The report followed a months-long investigation into allegations of racism and oppression made by former student trustee Ahona Mehdi.
The report found that — on a balance of probabilities — four trustees exhibited racist behaviour and/or tried to silence Mehdi’s voice when she spoke out about controversial topics during board meetings. But the report only found “potential” code of conduct breaches and the board has since clarified it was not a “formal” code of conduct investigation. (This has implications on if sanctions can be issued.)
“While the investigation that took place was thorough and provided detailed overall recommendations which we are fully committed to implementing, the report did not provide recommendations on individual code of conduct violations and sanctions,” Danko said in the Monday statement.
Her statement comes amid growing calls for the four trustees to resign.
Those at the centre of the probe are Kathy Archer, Alex Johnstone, Carole Paikin Miller and Becky Buck. The board voted to redact the report and the board refuses to name the trustees. The Spectator has independently confirmed their identities.
Following an in-camera session closed to the public Feb. 2, the board initially voted to not issue any sanctions against the four trustees — despite the report not making recommendations on sanctions. That move prompted public criticism about a lack of accountability.
Then, the following week, after another in-camera meeting, the board voted to reverse that decision, opening the door to sanctions. But Danko refused to provide more details about next steps.
Then, last week, following yet another in-camera meeting, the board voted to use an “alternative process” to probe the allegations. Again, Danko refused to provide additional information.
“It makes them seem even less accountable to the public,” Bishop said. “It makes people angrier.”
In response to a Spec request for comment Tuesday, Danko said the board recognizes “the process is not moving as swiftly as members of the community would like,” which is why they’ve initiated an expedited process.
The matter is the board’s “top priority,” she said.