Computer issues and 100-hour work weeks have kept me away from the blog for a bit. There are many stories to cover but the two STAR articles in the COMMENTS section seem particularly germane to the intent of this blog.
The first one has to do with the tragic death of Darcy Allan Sheppard, the cyclist who was bumped and then dragged along by Michael Bryant in his SAAB convertible. When this story first broke, readers of this blog may recall that I did not jump in as aggressively as I often do. This is because there were no underlying signs that enabled me to infer things that others sometimes think I’m crazy for inferring–but as readers of this blog know, I have never been wrong in any of my inferences. Some people were salivating over the chance to tear down a “powerful, entitled, elite figure,” which I admit can be fun; but again, I did not take this route because that’s antithetical to critical thinking. Others made this a “class” issue or a “car vs bike” issue. Others tried to paint a sympathetic picture of Mr. Sheppard. All of this is still going on, especially since Mr. Bryant was acquitted. Some argue that he was acquitted because of his position; others argued that he was convicted too quickly because of that position–in order to prevent people from thinking he was getting special treatment. Some question why Mr. Sheppard’s past is being used against him. And on and on it goes.
For what it’s worth, here’s my take: Mr. Sheppard clearly had a tragic childhood the haunted him until his death. I have the utmost sympathy for him and I know how easy it is for someone with such a history to fall into substance abuse as he did. It’s a further tragedy that he was never able to get the help he needed to battle his demons. But those who claim he was turning his life around obviously don’t know about substance abuse: that is, most abusers make that claim at some point, long before they’re ready to do something about it. And most people who even do something about it are going to fail in their efforts the first number of times. These are FACTS.
Another FACT is that Ms. Sheppard was drunk and aggressive the morning of his death. And for weeks before, he was assaulting a number of motorists. Does he deserve to die for this? Of course not. But people have to realize that it has long been shown that we rarely act as we think we would when we’re in a “special” situation. Trained professionals have a hard enough time responding in a calm, rational manner to crises, so why would an average person be expected to do so? That is, Mr. Bryant was assaulted by a drunk, enraged cyclist who was grabbing into his convertible, trying to get at the steering wheel, with Bryant’s wife beside him. Who wouldn’t take off and try to shake loose this guy? That’s the fact. And that’s why Mr. Bryant was released before the case went to trial. It happens all the time and the prosecution is LEGALLY OBLIGED to throw out such cases before they go to court. In fact, I think it happens too often in cases I think they COULD have won. But given the facts of the case that have come to light, there’s no way that a reasonable judge or jury would have convicted Mr. Bryant. That is the fact. That’s all there is. Simple.
If you want to discuss how cycle-unfriendly Toronto is, go ahead. If you want to discuss class wars, go ahead. But be a critical thinker and realize that these issues are irrelevant in the current case.
The only things that bother me about this case is 1) If the VICTIM’S history can be considered relevant in determining the outcome, why is it that the jury is often prevented from learning about the PERPETRATOR’S history, even when this history is directly relevant to the case?! “It’s prejudicial” is the answer. Bullshit. If it’s RELEVANT and helps show a certain pattern that can help people understand the current case, it should be included. And 2) Justice was served because the proper resources were allocated to their fullest extent–likely because of who Mr. Bryant is. Why can’t more effort be put into investigating and prosecuting other cases so that maybe “normal people” can feel that justice has been served far more than it really is? Fucking messed up system…
As for the next story, I’ll comment on it more later. But for now, one of my “heroes,” Andre Marin, is in trouble because he and his managers are reportedly bullying anyone in their staff who is “non-white, overweight or older than 40.” Read the Star article in the COMMENTS section. Maybe Marin is over-zealous in his management style; if so, I hope he is held accountable. However, reading between the lines, it seems that his staff are used to being paid for doing a bad job, and now they are entitled and take umbrage at the fact that they are being asked to improve on their poor work skills.
I really hope that my initial inferences are correct, since Mr. Marin should be considered by all of us in Ontario to be a true hero. Since 2005, he has been holding a bunch of incompetent, apathetic, unethical, entitled asshole MPPs and their lackeys accountable for the first time in the history of Ontario. People don’t like him because he is blunt. Boo hoo. Maybe he’s power-tripping, which I don’t respect. But if he’s not acting inappropriately, he has all my support. Again, if he’s actually ABUSIVE, then I will revise my stance. For now, this looks like more of a smear campaign by those who do not like to be told they are NOT omnipotent…
Ontario ombudsman Andre Marin. (Adrian Wyld/THE CANADIAN PRESS)
The dramatic death that transfixed Toronto last fall — pitting a bicycle courier against a former cabinet minister — has reached an unexpected denouement. The surprise yesterday was not so much that charges were dropped against former attorney-general Michael Bryant as in the factual findings of the special prosecutor.
The victim turned out to be the aggressor in this fatal encounter, the Crown concluded. Bicycle courier Darcy Allan Sheppard had been caught up in an escalating cycle of confrontations against motorists in previous months, according to Richard Peck, who was brought in from Vancouver to prosecute the case. In one episode, Sheppard smashed a car window; in another, he tried to snatch the car keys. In this case, evidence showed he attacked Bryant, who was driving home with his wife in an open convertible, giving him every legal justification to take evasive action.
Sheppard does not deserve to be demonized; his death was a tragedy. But in leaving no stone unturned, the legal system worked as it should. The Attorney General’s department rightly hired a special prosecutor from out of province to avoid any appearance of preferential treatment for a former Ontario attorney-general.
Peck explained in court yesterday that, with no reasonable prospect of conviction, the charge had to be withdrawn. He gave a public accounting that should reassure the public, although not all will be convinced, notably those who prefer to see this case as a morality tale between cyclists and motorists.
Bryant need no longer defend himself in a court of law, though he clearly felt the need to explain himself in the court of public opinion, for he held a news conference Tuesday. On the evidence, he deserves public understanding. What happened to him could happen to anyone. What happened to Darcy Allan Sheppard was a haunting tragedy. What happened in its aftermath speaks well of the legal system.
Staff say Ombudsman André Marin’s office plagued by ‘culture of fear’ (Moira Welsh and David Bruser Staff Reporters)
The provincial official whose job it is to protect the little guy from abuses of government is himself the target of harassment allegations from his staff.
Three former employees and one current staffer say Ombudsman André Marin and his trusted managers are petty tyrants with bizarre and strict rules on office etiquette. In letters to government officials and in two complaints to the Human Rights Tribunal, workers allege racial discrimination by the Ombudsman’s Office, which has denied discrimination against employees.
Marin has been dubbed “Napoleon” by the fearful employees. Nevertheless they put their names to the allegations.
But in an 25-minute interview Thursday, Marin told the Star the allegations are “absurd” while acknowledging he is a taskmaster who expects the best out of employees charged with the important job of serving the public.
“When I started in 2005 (the office) was slated to be abolished because it was considered ineffective by the provincial government,” Marin told the Star. “We as a staff are expected to investigate complex systemic issues. It is not easy to make it to the team as a permanent staff. Many aspire and few attain. It’s a tough system and I am proud of it.
“The proof is in the pudding. Of all the recommendations (the Ombudsman’s office has made to various government offices), virtually every single one has been adopted.”
Marin, who has served as Ombudsman — he renamed the office “Ontario’s Watchdog” — since 2005, has recently become the object of scrutiny with allegations of improper expenses and staff complaints. Marin has said his expenses are legitimate. Workers claim that 70 people have left the Ombudsman’s Office since Marin took over. The office typically employs 85 to 90 at a given time.
But now, after Premier Dalton McGuinty faced criticism that his own party was smearing Marin, the government is considering reappointing him.
One former employee, Jennifer Lam, wept in an interview while recounting how her managers belittled, then fired her. Another current employee, Esla Hutchinson, says she is on stress leave.
A third, Jackie Correia, resigned a few days ago. All three have complaints before the Human Rights Tribunal.
The Star sought comment from four other Ombudsman managers but none responded.
Hutchinson, a 20-year veteran of the office who fears losing her job for speaking out, said that after Marin became Ombudsman, for the first time in her career she was seated near a manager who critiqued how she spoke on the phone and handled callers’ complaints.
She said she was subjected to what is known as “performance management” — a sort of probation status that required Hutchinson to attend weekly meetings where managers repeatedly and strongly criticized her letter writing and other skills.
Hutchinson and three former employees all say those workers subjected to “performance management” were predominantly non-white, overweight or older than 40. Hutchinson, originally from Trinidad, is black.
“He created a culture of fear,” Hutchinson said. “You can’t ask any questions for fear of reprisals. You can’t do that in the court of André Marin.”
Marin said the claim that performance management targets minorities is “absurd.”
“It’s a program from where I have seen people emerge as new people. It’s meant to enhance their skills, to coach them or counsel them,” he said. “It really gets people to excel at their jobs. It’s what competent, diligent employers are supposed to do. We treat people fairly and we give them an opportunity to meet the standard we expect of them.”
Lam said that for the three months before she was fired, she was placed under the dreaded “performance management.” Managers met with her up to three times a week to critique her work, after examining transcripts of calls she fielded from citizens asking for the Ombudsman’s help.
“I was reprimanded for consulting with a colleague. (Also), when I successfully resolved a complaint, I felt really good and wanted to share it with a colleague. I was berated for being too happy. I was told my voice was too loud, I was too aggressive and rude. I had never heard this said about me before.”
Lam said she tried to stay quiet, isolating herself from colleagues. She left the office crying and felt so beaten down that by the time she was fired, she wrote an email to her manager, begging for her job back, promising to address every tiny complaint and become the perfect employee. “I look at that now,” Lam said, “and I see how pathetic I had become.”
She said she saw a counsellor, tried to regain her self-esteem and now wonders how the office that was supposed to stand for a just society was allowed to treat its own employees so badly.
Lam said she played a central role in getting a deadbeat dad to repay a needy child’s mother — a case featured in the 2007-08 Ombudsman’s annual report.
“That is the irony of it — the very office that stands for fairness and justice fails to recognize how unjust it is being to its own employees. Whether they be ethnic minorities or white women who are approaching retirement, and they feel they are no longer of use.”
Star sources say Marin presides over an office where former employees were not allowed to:
Keep family photos on their desks. Hutchinson said she was told by a manager to put away a photo of her son. Marin said no such policy exists.
Walk the hallway that runs in front of his office, though it is a convenient shortcut between two oft-used areas of the office. The three former employees say managers told them not to use this hallway. Marin said this is “absurd.”
Have a dedicated sick room, so one day a nauseated colleague was forced to take a trash bin to the kitchen and vomit where others were eating. Marin said with so many hospitals near the downtown office, “I don’t think we need to have a hospital facility in our office.”
Speak to Marin unless spoken to. One former employee said he was issued this order by a manager. And Hutchinson said that on two occasions she said “good morning” to Marin, and both times he only stared at her without saying a word.
Marin said: “I’m the happiest guy in the morning. I love to connect with staff. I like to know what’s on their mind.”
Organize potluck meals and silent auctions to support charity drives like the United Way. Both activities were allowed under the previous Ombudsman, sources say. Marin said potlucks are not prohibited but “our focus is on productivity.”
Wear casual clothes appropriate for the job description. Longtime records clerk Jackie Correia, 49, whose job involved handling dusty boxes, was told she could not wear blue jeans. To show what she thought of the rule, Correia wore the same purple skirt every day for five years. Meanwhile, according to Correia and two other former employees, Marin — when not wearing a suit for a news conference or meeting with senior government officials — often wears a tie-dyed T-shirt and jeans to work.
“If he is the head of the organization, shouldn’t he lead by example?”
The Ombudsman’s office recommended the Star speak to Fran Cappe, a current investigator. Cappe said she is 61, overweight and hearing-impaired, has been on the job for 16 months, and said Ombudsman Ontario is an “incredible” and “respectful” workplace. She said that when she sees Marin, he is approachable and in business attire. “He doesn’t wrinkle. He is always so immaculate. Crisp shirts. You see him in the media. I think he should be able to present himself to the public. He’s just impeccable.”
Marin said, “I will take the compliment” from Cappe but wouldn’t comment on other characterizations of his attire.
Correia also has a complaint against her former employer before the Human Rights Tribunal. The complaint stems from a time several years ago when Correia says she was not allowed to use an ergonomic desk she needed to ease severe neck pain caused by a repetitive strain injury. In its response, the Ombudsman’s Office says Correia’s claims are “unfounded” and “baseless.” Her hearing is set for summer.
Three days ago, after having had enough of work in the Ombudsman’s Office, Correia walked in to the office and handed in her resignation, wearing her jeans.
In his keynote address six weeks ago to the International Ombudsman Association conference in New Orleans, Marin said he overhauled the office when he was appointed in 2005, creating an in-government’s-face agency with a bold new motto: “Ontario’s Watchdog.”
“We streamlined our complaint processes, concentrated on an issue-based response to complaints, and increased the skill level of our staff. We literally tore down walls to encourage collaborative teamwork,” Marin said. “We stepped forward as an office, and now people are paying attention. I have no doubt that our office would never have achieved the success it did if we hadn’t changed our course so radically in 2005.”
The former employees told the Star the “poisoned workplace” led to the formation of two worker support groups. One met just once when 12 workers gathered to commiserate during lunch hour in the Church of the Holy Trinity near the office. Another, dubbed CADOO (Coalition Against Discrimination at Ombudsman Ontario) meets as often as once a month and includes up to 35 current and former workers, according to two members.
Two former workers said about 10 former employees have been “bought out” and “gagged” from speaking ill of the office after reaching separation settlements with Ombudsman Ontario. Marin declined to comment on “personnel issues” involving people’s privacy.
The Star also heard from former employees that their union hired an investigator to look into complaints, and the investigator, Marion Perrin, met with 25 workers and issued a report. When reached on the phone, Perrin would neither confirm nor deny that she conducted an investigation. The union said it could not comment, and the Star could not get a copy of the report.