Edmonton Journal article "Teacher contract demands will force layoffs, premier says"
Calgary Herald article "Layoffs due to contract: Premier"
CBC News article "Hancock has different take on teacher talks"
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Letter to MLA from a concerned parent
To MLA
From Parent
It is with a sense of despair that I have been learning how the Provincial government's education budget for 2011-12 will impact virtually every school board in Alberta. I am a parent of 2 children in the public education system, and I attended the Rally in Support of Education Funding on May 7th in Calgary. There were several speakers who had travelled from other parts of the province to inform us that every Board was facing deep staff cuts. It is clear these claims from the Boards are universal and cannot be blamed on individual Board mismanagement.
The education system has made such progress since the implementation of the Learning Commission's recommendations to reduce class sizes, but now the government seems to be willing to destroy all the gains that have been made. These are my deep concerns:-
1. We will lose many fine teachers from the province forever and some may leave the teaching profession altogether.
2. The money the government saves now will need to be spent many times over in the future educating new teachers to replace the ones we will lose.
3. We will lose many students from the public sector to the private sector. I know personally several students who made this move in order to get the smaller class sizes that private schools offer. We need to be adding teachers not losing them.
4. We will lose extra-curricular activities including sports. These sports and clubs enrich our children's education in many ways, and are an important part of teaching them to be caring, engaged, global citizens. We cannot expect our teachers to be able to absorb increases in class sizes and teach more curricula without something else giving.
5. We will discourage bright students from entering the teaching profession.
I believe that education is like a basic foodstuff and funding should remain stable. It should not be treated as discretionary spending to be cut back when funds are tight. I am appalled that $340 million is to be spent on a new museum in Edmonton, whilst education funding is inadequate. This museum project should be delayed again until the province's economy recovers and the money spent to maintain and improve our education system. It's like buying a new home theatre system when there is no food on the table!
Finally I looked at the government's Education Business Plan for 2011-2014 signed by The Hon Dave Hancock QC on February 2, 2011. Its Goal 2a is for satisfaction with the quality of basic education to improve 2% by 2011-12. Goal 2d is for the perception that Alberta's education system has improved in the last 3 years to improve 2% between 2009-10 and 2013-14. How, I ask, can this be possible when the government will not fund the teachers’ salary increases that it negotiated back in 2007 and how can it be asking fewer teachers to do more?
I live in abc community, in your riding. I understand that you believe in sustainability of education funding and I implore you to fight on our behalf for education funding to be restored for the next school year.
Thank you and I look forward to reading your response.
From Parent
It is with a sense of despair that I have been learning how the Provincial government's education budget for 2011-12 will impact virtually every school board in Alberta. I am a parent of 2 children in the public education system, and I attended the Rally in Support of Education Funding on May 7th in Calgary. There were several speakers who had travelled from other parts of the province to inform us that every Board was facing deep staff cuts. It is clear these claims from the Boards are universal and cannot be blamed on individual Board mismanagement.
The education system has made such progress since the implementation of the Learning Commission's recommendations to reduce class sizes, but now the government seems to be willing to destroy all the gains that have been made. These are my deep concerns:-
1. We will lose many fine teachers from the province forever and some may leave the teaching profession altogether.
2. The money the government saves now will need to be spent many times over in the future educating new teachers to replace the ones we will lose.
3. We will lose many students from the public sector to the private sector. I know personally several students who made this move in order to get the smaller class sizes that private schools offer. We need to be adding teachers not losing them.
4. We will lose extra-curricular activities including sports. These sports and clubs enrich our children's education in many ways, and are an important part of teaching them to be caring, engaged, global citizens. We cannot expect our teachers to be able to absorb increases in class sizes and teach more curricula without something else giving.
5. We will discourage bright students from entering the teaching profession.
I believe that education is like a basic foodstuff and funding should remain stable. It should not be treated as discretionary spending to be cut back when funds are tight. I am appalled that $340 million is to be spent on a new museum in Edmonton, whilst education funding is inadequate. This museum project should be delayed again until the province's economy recovers and the money spent to maintain and improve our education system. It's like buying a new home theatre system when there is no food on the table!
Finally I looked at the government's Education Business Plan for 2011-2014 signed by The Hon Dave Hancock QC on February 2, 2011. Its Goal 2a is for satisfaction with the quality of basic education to improve 2% by 2011-12. Goal 2d is for the perception that Alberta's education system has improved in the last 3 years to improve 2% between 2009-10 and 2013-14. How, I ask, can this be possible when the government will not fund the teachers’ salary increases that it negotiated back in 2007 and how can it be asking fewer teachers to do more?
I live in abc community, in your riding. I understand that you believe in sustainability of education funding and I implore you to fight on our behalf for education funding to be restored for the next school year.
Thank you and I look forward to reading your response.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Join Together Alberta: Calgary Town Hall
Join Together Alberta
Calgary Town Hall
Wed, Jun 15, 2011 7:00PM - 9:00PM
Location:
Parkdale United Church, Conference Room, 2919 8th Avenue NW, Calgary
Join together for this important community discussion.
Help create the Alberta you want!
Public services are essential to the health and well-being of our families and our communities. Yet, in a province as wealthy as Alberta, we are seeing growing class sizes, teacher and staff layoffs, a health care crisis, and under-funded public services. We must join together to build a better Alberta, one that empowers and supports our children, our families and our communities.
Join Together Alberta is an exciting campaign to protect Alberta’s vital public services. We’re reaching out across the province with a telephone town hall meeting (May 31) as well as 7 town hall meetings in cities around Alberta to foster dialogue and action towards a better Alberta for all.
Speakers to be announced soon.
Free and open to the public.
Please click here and register in advance.
Calgary Town Hall
Wed, Jun 15, 2011 7:00PM - 9:00PM
Location:
Parkdale United Church, Conference Room, 2919 8th Avenue NW, Calgary
Join together for this important community discussion.
Help create the Alberta you want!
Public services are essential to the health and well-being of our families and our communities. Yet, in a province as wealthy as Alberta, we are seeing growing class sizes, teacher and staff layoffs, a health care crisis, and under-funded public services. We must join together to build a better Alberta, one that empowers and supports our children, our families and our communities.
Join Together Alberta is an exciting campaign to protect Alberta’s vital public services. We’re reaching out across the province with a telephone town hall meeting (May 31) as well as 7 town hall meetings in cities around Alberta to foster dialogue and action towards a better Alberta for all.
Speakers to be announced soon.
Free and open to the public.
Please click here and register in advance.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
"Don't Drop the Ball" Rally Attracts Hundreds in Edmonton
The Edmonton Journal article, "Hundreds rally against education cuts," reports that the school council that organized the event did so in response to the news that Edmonton public could be eliminating 229 teaching positions and 86 full time positions that assist special needs students. The school council chair shared that, "If the cuts go forward as planned, the school will stand to lose two teaching positions, along with one of two “strategies classes,” designed to help students falling behind in reading, writing or math. Instead, all of the Grade 4, 5 and 6 students who need the extra help will now be in the same class."Photo courtesy Corina Dootjes, Canmore
Education Minister blogs about, "Money Matters: Let's focus on what improves student outcomes"
Education Minister Dave Hancock has a new blog posting that discusses the budget, class size, and student outcomes.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Alberta Primetime: Education Funding
Carol Henderson, President of the Alberta Teachers' Association, and Jacquie Hansen, President of the Alberta School Boards' Association, join Alberta Primetime to discuss the need for long-term planning around education supported by sustainable and predictable funding. Both organizations are concerned that while there will be 6,000 new students in our education system next year, approximately 1,200 teachers are being laid off. Alberta Education is projecting 100,000 new students by the end of the decade.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Letter from a School Council: A call to action
The budget shortfall the Alberta Government has created will affect your child at ABC School.
You need to speak out to protect your child's education.
Here's why: The 2011-12 budget announced by the Provincial government on February 24 creates a shortfall for the CBE of $61.7 million. The government has given $28.3 million to cover some increases in wage costs but has cut $25.3 million of program costs. Combined with other increased costs of $50.3 million and an existing deficit of $16.4 million, the shortfall of $61.7 million can only be dealt with by cutting jobs.
As a result, your child’s education at ABC School is directly impacted:
• ABC School will be losing 2 teachers and 3 support staff.
• 2 more of our teachers at ABC School will be replaced by “surplus” teachers who have more seniority. “Surplus” teachers are created because of the large reduction in numbers of teachers at head office and other schools. Neither the principal nor the surplus teachers have control over these matters.
• All the remaining teachers will have to add to their teaching load, so there will be cutbacks in extra-curricular activities like sports teams.
• The principal will have to make difficult choices in allocating scarce funds and staffing, therefore field trips and optional trips may be affected.
Is it OK with you that your child’s education program is being cut back, yet the government is spending $340 million on a new museum in Edmonton?
• ABC school is not alone in this, indeed every Public School Board in Alberta is facing similar shortfalls and layoffs. As parents, we need to tell the government that education is a priority and should not be treated as discretionary spending to be cut back in tough economic times.
Is it OK with you that we will lose wonderful teachers and programs at ABC School?
Please send the message to the government that cutting back programs and losing teachers is not acceptable. We need long term, fully funded education and we need to demand that full funding for education be restored for the coming school year.
If we do nothing the government will assume our tacit agreement to their actions.
Please write, phone or fax, or all three, to the Premier, the Education Minister, your MLA, and the opposition leader. The numbers and addresses and a sample letter are all on the reverse.
Your School Council Executive
CAPSC would like to thank the school council for sharing this letter with us, allowing us to share with you, and supporting advocacy efforts system wide. Their letter was sent to government officials including the Premier.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal weigh in on provincial education funding
In case you missed these, they make for an interesting read and will perhaps provide material for your advocacy letters...
Calgary Herald editorial "New schools are good, but what about teachers?"
Calgary Herald opinion piece by Paula Arab "Choice is great, but school is about basics"
The Edmonton Journal article "Schools need stable funding from province"
Calgary Herald editorial "New schools are good, but what about teachers?"
Calgary Herald opinion piece by Paula Arab "Choice is great, but school is about basics"
The Edmonton Journal article "Schools need stable funding from province"
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
"Don't Drop the Ball" Stop Cuts to Education
A rally is being held in Edmonton on Sunday, May 29 at 12 noon at the Alberta Legislature. More details are available on the facebook page - "Don't Drop the Ball" Stop Cuts to Education.
Alberta Government announces infrastructure dollars for Calgary Schools
In a press release today, the Alberta Government announced infrastructure dollars for two local schools, Chinook Learning Services and Notre Dame High School.
Chinook Learning Services offers High School Upgrading, Adult ESL, continuing education courses for children, youth and adults and summer school. According to the press release, this funding "will allow Calgary Board of Education to renovate vacant or under-utilized schools in various areas of Calgary to provide regional programming." MLA Teresa Woo-Paw, who was in attendance for this morning's announcement in Calgary along with the Hon. Dave Hancock and Infrastructure Minister Ray Danyluk, stated that, '"This is a sound investment in our children's future and responds to concerns we've been hearing for some time."'
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Government of Alberta announces funding for new school construction and renovation projects in order to address "soaring student numbers"
The Alberta Government, in a news release today, announced funding for 22 new P3 schools and 13 older schools needing renovations at an estimated cost of $550M. The Calgary Board of Education is on the list for some modernization funding for high schools.
Minister Hancock states that Alberta's student population is expected to grow by 100,000 by decades end. Premier Stelmach is quoted in the news release adding that,'“Our students are the future leaders of our province and deserve positive learning environments.”'
Minister Hancock states that Alberta's student population is expected to grow by 100,000 by decades end. Premier Stelmach is quoted in the news release adding that,'“Our students are the future leaders of our province and deserve positive learning environments.”'
Edmonton Public announces proposed staff cuts
In today's press release, Edmonton Public announced the cuts that Administration is proposing to their board of trustees. Chair Dave Colburn, states in the release that '"Our Board is quite concerned about the negative impact the budget will have - the reality is you can't cut over 200 teaching positions without impacting students."'
-Approximately 229 teaching positions and 115 non-teaching positions would be eliminated
-Significant cuts to school spending and even deeper cuts to central departments.
-Central spending would be reduced more than five times as much as school spending.
The final budget will come before the board in June.
-Approximately 229 teaching positions and 115 non-teaching positions would be eliminated
-Significant cuts to school spending and even deeper cuts to central departments.
-Central spending would be reduced more than five times as much as school spending.
The final budget will come before the board in June.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Another Hard Hit School Board in Alberta
An interesting article in the Medicine Hat News, "Schools hang on budget reprieve," talks about the particularly hard hit Prairie Rose School Division. Prairie Rose serves a geographically dispersed population that is mostly rural. They serve 3 380 students in 17 public schools, 1 Outreach School and 15 Hutterite Colony Schools. Their board has 8 trustees.
They are expecting a $2.7M shortfall as a result of the government's decision to eliminate a grant targeted to rural school divisions. Their MLA, Len Mitzel, comments in the article that the formula that was used does not work for districts like Prairie Rose.
The School Division is looking at cutting administration, teaching positions (up to 10%), and charging bussing fees for the first time.
They are expecting a $2.7M shortfall as a result of the government's decision to eliminate a grant targeted to rural school divisions. Their MLA, Len Mitzel, comments in the article that the formula that was used does not work for districts like Prairie Rose.
The School Division is looking at cutting administration, teaching positions (up to 10%), and charging bussing fees for the first time.
Collaborative Community Consultation Hosting Alberta Education Presentation
ALBERTA EDUCATION IS CHANGING!!
Everyone who has an interest in Education in Alberta is invited to a Special Presentation by the Collaborative Community Consultation (CCC)
Guest Speakers: Alberta Education
Topics: Action on Inclusion
New Alberta Education Act
JUNE 15th, 2011
@7pm
Pre-register
Email: presentationalbertaeducation@gmail.com
Call: Janet @(403)301-3372
Where:
Renfrew Educational Services
Janice Mc Tighe Centre
2050 21st Street, NE
Calgary, AB, T2E 6S5
Follow us on:
Facebook: Collaborative Community Consultation
Twitter@CCommunityC
Everyone who has an interest in Education in Alberta is invited to a Special Presentation by the Collaborative Community Consultation (CCC)
Guest Speakers: Alberta Education
Topics: Action on Inclusion
New Alberta Education Act
JUNE 15th, 2011
@7pm
Pre-register
Email: presentationalbertaeducation@gmail.com
Call: Janet @(403)301-3372
Where:
Renfrew Educational Services
Janice Mc Tighe Centre
2050 21st Street, NE
Calgary, AB, T2E 6S5
Follow us on:
Facebook: Collaborative Community Consultation
Twitter@CCommunityC
Friday, May 20, 2011
SOFA: Questionnaire for Provincial Leadership Candidates and Party Leaders
Save Our Fine Arts (SOFA) has sent a questionnaire out to all provincial leadership candidates and Party Leaders. Responses are now posted. They are also encouraging the public to join multiple parties and vote in leadership races for candidates who view public education and the fine arts as provincial priorities.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Transportation Funding for Metro Urban School Districts
Metro Urban Transportation Funding 2011/2012
(Calgary Public, Calgary Catholic, Edmonton Public, Edmonton Catholic)
Regular (per expected eligible passenger): $538
Parent-provided ECS. Transportation (per child with a disability/delay): $538
ECS Special (per round trip/child with a disability/delay -max. of 185 trips): $15.44
Special Transportation (per funded student based on severe profile): $2,857
*Source: Alberta Education Funding Manual 2011/2012
(Calgary Public, Calgary Catholic, Edmonton Public, Edmonton Catholic)
Regular (per expected eligible passenger): $538
Parent-provided ECS. Transportation (per child with a disability/delay): $538
ECS Special (per round trip/child with a disability/delay -max. of 185 trips): $15.44
Special Transportation (per funded student based on severe profile): $2,857
*Source: Alberta Education Funding Manual 2011/2012
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Petition
The petition, that parent and CAPSC member Sandy Smith worked so hard to get out, was presented in the legislature yesterday by Kent Hehr. We will post the link to the “Hansard” report ASAP.
We estimate about 3665 signatures! Wow, good job getting the word out. Thank you to Sandy Smith for all of her hard work and commitment to this. A huge thank you to MLA Kent Hehr! There are still more petitions coming in. The late petitions may be read today.
We estimate about 3665 signatures! Wow, good job getting the word out. Thank you to Sandy Smith for all of her hard work and commitment to this. A huge thank you to MLA Kent Hehr! There are still more petitions coming in. The late petitions may be read today.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Resources for graduating students
For those of you with kids graduating from high school this year or next, here are some resources for you as they transition to the next phase of their education;
- Career Planning, Post-Secondary Options and Student Funding information in Alberta here
- More Scholarship Information here
- School Finder here
- Federal Links here
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Education Rally Speech, May 7th, 2011
The late Lois E. Hole, former Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta - memorably said,
The staggering truth is, almost everything that we’ve accomplished in the 20th century can be attributed to our public education system …. I firmly believe that the historians of the future will look back and consider the concept of public education the most important instrument of social progress the human race has yet produced.”
Our present dilemma asks me to question whether we understand what this perceptive leader pointed out so many years ago. When we don’t focus appropriate resources and attention to the preparation of our children in a public education system- we may be risking not adequately preparing them for the kind of world they are inheriting. A world that is very complex, faced with many challenges, extremely competitive and has a great need for citizens who can think critically, systemically and who are able to make wise decisions.
A mentor and a wise friend defines education as, “Everything that a society does to prepare its members to face the challenges of its time and place in history.”
We, as parents, teachers, siblings and members of the community all play a very significant role in our children's education. Teachers in particular play a significant role as the primary educators in our school systems.
As parents we hope that we have made the BEST choice that we can when we send our little ones off to school; whether it’s to our community school or an alternative program, we hope that we have found a good match for our children. We hope that they head off every day able to keep their sense of wonder and with some enthusiasm and creativity gain the necessary academic proficiencies needed to be global citizens.
Parents want to know that we have sent our children to school in an education system that is adequately resourced and has the supports in place to help them reach their full potential. We want choices for our kids as we know that they all learn in different ways and benefit from different experiences and teaching styles. We expect that our choice is not dependent upon whether we can afford transportation fees or other costs.
I am dedicated to public education through my own children. I am inspired to do more by the passion and devotion of parents - parents who see the challenges ahead, who see education as the only way of securing a safe and prosperous future for their children. Parents like many of you.
The recent Inspiring Education dialogue identifies the wishes and desires of people across Alberta for an education system that prepares our youth for today’s world. It advocates innovative educational environments-and the type of education that truly prepares the next generation for the problems and opportunities of their time and place in history. We look to a future that presents a more competitive world and global challenges like we have never faced before. Emerging economies are threatening to pass over the western world, but Alberta can be an island, even on its own,
To do this we need sustainable and predictable funding to be in place so that we can continue the journey that we are on in public education...moving forwards and embracing the opportunities and challenges that are ahead.
We understand that governments work with limited resources and must meet competing demands and that it is not an easy task. But Education MUST be a priority and we need to allocate our resources to reflect that reality. We all know that every dollar invested in education yields a substantial return not only for the individual but for society as a whole.
Haim G. Ginott said, “Teachers are expected to reach unattainable goals with inadequate tools. The miracle is that at times they accomplish this impossible task”.
Lets make sure they have more than ‘adequate’ tools so that they can reach attainable goals like high school completion. We need a commitment to funding for education.
Organizations can never be better than the people we have in them, and we want to continue to have the best people with the appropriate resources.
We MUST start with long-term funding commitments and from that foundation we must establish the cornerstones of solid board decision-making and resource allocation as well as teaching excellence, program & curriculum development, and caring/engaged parents who are here to prepare and support their children. We must approach this always thinking, “what can I do to improve Public Education” . We need to work together to make Alberta and our children's' future all that it can be.
~Eryn Kelly~
Friday, May 6, 2011
Transportation Framework Review: Update
CAPSC has been informed that the Urban Metro Transportation Framework Review was suspended last school year. Former Trustee, Gordon Dirks sat on the provincial committee. Provincial monies were spent on software to track bussing in our system. Data was to be collected and action was promised for September 2010 - but no word as yet. Rural Transportation Framework was reviewed a couple of years ago and the necessary adjustments were made.
Funding Public Education
Interesting background information on education funding in the province can be found in the article, "Funding Public Education: An excerpt from the Association's submission to Alberta's Commission on Learning," which currently appears on the ATA Web Extras' page. The following sheds some light on the challenges of large urban metro boards like Calgary's that have a higher proportion of ESL and Special Needs students (several years of no funding increases, some ESL targeted funding eliminated):
Neu, Taylor and Ocampo (“School District Deficits and Program Spending in Alberta,” Canadian Journal of Education Administration and Policy, June 2002) have observed that the funding formula contains a number of structural biases that produces disparities in the fiscal positions of boards. For example, inadequate funding for special education, English as a second language (ESL) and technology has forced boards to subsidize these programs by taking money from other areas of the budget. Because demands for special education and ESL are not uniform, boards serving populations having a high proportion of students requiring these programs are consistently disadvantaged.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Transportation Fee Increases
An interesting study by the Alberta School Boards Association, "At the breaking point: Alberta's student transportation system," dating back to 2008 discusses in detail the transportation funding challenges of urban metro boards such as Calgary. In the study's conclusion, the ASBA had this to say:
It should be noted that the Metro Urban Funding Framework is still under review by the province. This is the second year that funding for transporation has not increased. Another impact will be the reduction of the Relative Cost of Purchasing Goods and Services Adjustment (RCPA)for the 2011/2012 school year and then its elimination for the 2012/2013 school year. And finally, the impact of school board reserve depletion.
The ASBA studies to date as well as the September 2007 board transportation survey all point to overall funding shortfall pressures faced by the majority of school boards in the province as they attempt to deliver service acceptable to their communities. In response, boards have raised transportation fees by approximately 60%in the last three years and/or have borrowed from other areas of board operation to fund their transportation system. These pressures, if left unresolved, will push Alberta’s student transportation system past its breaking point.
It should be noted that the Metro Urban Funding Framework is still under review by the province. This is the second year that funding for transporation has not increased. Another impact will be the reduction of the Relative Cost of Purchasing Goods and Services Adjustment (RCPA)for the 2011/2012 school year and then its elimination for the 2012/2013 school year. And finally, the impact of school board reserve depletion.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Education Act: Cyberbullying
In light of a recent report from the OECD, "The Protection of Children Online," it is reassuring to know that the recently introduced Bill 18: Education Act addresses the issue of cyberbullying. As stated in the recently released Education Act brochure, there will be a greater focus on "caring, respectful and safe schools" and the proposals in the Act will better equip school boards and staff to respond to situations that impact students and their school environment.
Specifically, the issue is addressed on pages 40 and 41 of the Education Act under Student Discipline. In essence, a principal may suspend or expel a student if, in their opinion, "the student's conduct, whether or not the conduct occurs within the school building or during the school day, is injurious to the physical or mental well-being of others in the school."
To discuss this issue further or find out more about other provisions of the Act, you can engage with Alberta Education directly. CAPSC is also tentatively planning a meeting around the issue of cyberbullying/bullying at a meeting this fall.
Specifically, the issue is addressed on pages 40 and 41 of the Education Act under Student Discipline. In essence, a principal may suspend or expel a student if, in their opinion, "the student's conduct, whether or not the conduct occurs within the school building or during the school day, is injurious to the physical or mental well-being of others in the school."
To discuss this issue further or find out more about other provisions of the Act, you can engage with Alberta Education directly. CAPSC is also tentatively planning a meeting around the issue of cyberbullying/bullying at a meeting this fall.
Monday, May 2, 2011
CAPSC is Celebrating Education Week in Alberta May 2 to 6
CAPSC heartily supports the sentiments expressed by the Honourable Dave Hancock, Minister of Education, in an excerpt from his message commemorating Education Week:
Recognizing the importance of community engagement has been an important part of the ongoing transformation of Alberta’s education system and, with that in mind, I look forward to celebrating Alberta Education Week, this week, May 2nd to 6th. Our theme for 2011 is Education: The Heart of our Communities. Education goes beyond our classroom walls and I think it is only fitting that we take this special week to celebrate the wonders of learning with a focus on community.
Check out the Alberta Education Education Week webpage to read the rest of the Minister's message and find out more.
Recognizing the importance of community engagement has been an important part of the ongoing transformation of Alberta’s education system and, with that in mind, I look forward to celebrating Alberta Education Week, this week, May 2nd to 6th. Our theme for 2011 is Education: The Heart of our Communities. Education goes beyond our classroom walls and I think it is only fitting that we take this special week to celebrate the wonders of learning with a focus on community.
Check out the Alberta Education Education Week webpage to read the rest of the Minister's message and find out more.
CBE Response to CAPSC Queries Regarding Trustee Pecuniary Interest Issue
On April 26th, CAPSC Executive, sent separate letters to Pat Cochrane, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Trustee Carol Bazinet and Trustee Sheila Taylor. These letters asked for clarification around events that occurred at the public board meeting on April 19th. CAPSC has included the text of the letters sent and the responses received.
Dear Chair Cochrane,
We had hoped that the April 19th, CBE budget/board meeting would bring some valuable debate amongst our elected Trustees regarding the budget. We were concerned to hear both Trustee Bazinet and Trustee Taylor invoke pecuniary conflict claims and as a result remove themselves from the entire budget debate.
We are anticipating that you can provide some clarification for our members as to the reasons that their elected representatives chose not to take part in the debate about the budget. The media is reporting conflicting messages from Trustee Taylor and from your office as it seems by some that Trustee Taylor was told by a CBE lawyer that she COULD not vote due to pecuniary issues. Others seem to imply that she was advised it was her choice and was only informed as to what the pecuniary issues were.
Our members are unclear on what Trustee’s are advised (after they are elected) as to what a ‘pecuniary conflict of interest’ is and what guidelines (policy and/or legal) they are provided with to inform themselves as to when this may arise in their public work. Members are asking why Trustee Taylor's request for pecuniary interest clarification was not added to the agenda?
We are very concerned to hear Trustee’s claim that they were provided specific legal advice from CBE lawyers that having a child attend a CBE school or having a spouse who works for the CBE precluded them from engaging in ANY of the budget discussion. This is especially puzzling given we are aware that Trustees with a spouse working for the CBE or having a child in a CBE school have engaged in past budget debates and votes. Our members are inquiring as to what information/advice the Trustees were provided during this last Board meeting. Exactly how stringent are the pecuniary interest rules....in the School Act; in Board policies/procedures?
We would expect that ALL Trustees understand pecuniary interests and that the Chair is confident that they have an adequate explanation of the consequences and risks involved.
We appreciate your time and efforts to clarify this for our members.
Sincerely,
Eryn Kelly and Leslie Newton
Dear Ms. Kelly and Ms. Newton:
Thank you for your April 26, 2011 letter requesting clarification for your membership regarding pecuniary interest. I understand that you have also written directly to Trustee Bazinet and Trustee Taylor and they have responded to you directly.
Following each municipal election, the newly elected Board of Trustees undergoes various orientation sessions. Trustees are provided with an orientation to the Calgary Board of Education by the Chief Superintendent. Trustees are also oriented to matters including board governance, board meeting procedures, administrative and communications support, and the legal duties and liabilities of trustees.
On October 22, 2010, all trustees participated in the orientation on the legal duties and liabilities of trustees. Successive Boards of Trustees have agreed that this orientation is a core part of the overall trustee orientation. This particular orientation is conducted by CBE Legal Affairs and includes the provision of information on the School Act, Governance Policies and Administrative Regulations, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, other applicable legislation (e.g.: Local Authorities Election Act, Teaching Profession Act, Alberta Human Rights Act, etc.) This orientation also covers topics such as the role of the school board, delegation of authority, trustee liability, code of ethics, and conflict of interest with specific information regarding pecuniary interest. Individual trustees are provided with a binder of background readings, for their personal reference, that includes detailed information on items such as Trustee Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest.
Individual trustees are encouraged to contact CBE Legal Affairs at any time should they require further information or clarification. Individual trustees can, of course, at any time connect with their own independent legal counsel to seek advice.
The concept of pecuniary interest, commonly referred to as conflict of interest, is broadly applied throughout the private and public sectors in Canada and is intended to enhance public confidence by prohibiting personal financial gain or losses from affecting decisions. It is expected that anyone who serves on a governing board will scan his or her conscience when faced with voting on a matter where the outcome might have some positive or negative impact on their personal finances. That level of personal assessment is particularly important in the public sector where protection of the public purse is required. Section 80(1) of the School Act defines pecuniary interest as an interest in a matter that could monetarily affect the trustee and those individuals to whom the trustee has a deemed pecuniary interest (the trustee’s spouse or adult interdependent partner).
Section 83 of the School act sets out how a trustee shall manage a pecuniary interest in a matter before the board, any committee of the board or any commission, committee or agency to which a trustee is appointed as a representative of the board.
The decision of whether or not to objectively determine and perhaps declare a conflict of interest is purely a personal trustee decision. No one does and no one can direct that decision for a trustee.
Should a conflict of interest arise, boards are able to maximize trustee participation provided trustees alert the Board Chair to the existence of the conflict sufficiently ahead of time so that administration can take steps to present matters or budgets in a way that isolates conflict issues, thereby enabling trustees to participate in all other ways. The School Act specifically contemplates that these limited situations may arise and has specific provisions allowing a board to take votes even when quorum is lost because one or more trustees have declared a conflict of interest.
As you may appreciate, there is much work that occurs prior to public board meetings. Trustees are made aware of agenda items for meetings three to four months in advance so all trustees are well aware of items and therefore, individual trustees have the time to explore, determine and declare pecuniary interest. The determination of pecuniary interest should be made as soon as possible after receiving the agenda and meeting package. The individual trustee can then approach the Chair in advance with this declaration. Advance notice permits the Board Chair to work with administration to develop a plan for dealing with relevant agenda matters, as well as any potential quorum issues prior to the meeting. Again, if individual trustees require assistance with making a determination about whether he or she has a pecuniary interest, the individual trustee should consult with CBE Legal Affairs, or his or her own independent legal counsel.
Without waiving the privilege associated with the advice provided to the Board, I wish to offer the following background pertaining to the specific instance where Trustee Bazinet and Trustee Taylor each declared a pecuniary interest, for different reasons, at the April 19 public board meeting.
On April 15, 2011, all trustees were provided with further legal guidance which was consistent with earlier advice. I have come to learn that advisors generally suggest that if an individual, after careful study and consideration, has any doubt, the individual might want to choose a conservative course of action – especially, as in the case of the School Act, where ignoring a conflict of interest can result in disqualification.
In addition to the legal advice offered, all trustees were afforded the opportunity to discuss the matter further, with both internal and external legal counsel present, to clarify any personal questions and, in particular, to discuss the procedure for ‘dividing the question’ so that a trustee might vote on the part of an issue where there is no conflict, but abstain on the part where he/she has declared a conflict of interest. Trustee Taylor and Bazinet declined to participate in this information meeting. No person or persons stopped either trustee from discussing or voting on the Resource Allocations to Schools – Early Spring Staffing report. Both Trustee Taylor and Trustee Bazinet declared a conflict of interest and the School Act, therefore, states that they shall abstain from voting.
Informed by administration, other sources and their own experience, individual trustees are expected to make decisions for themselves and to be exclusively accountable and responsible for taking those decisions.
I am confident that individual trustees received clear and accurate information about their duties and responsibilities concerning conflict of interest matters. It is each trustee’s personal responsibility, following review of his or her own particular circumstances as to whether he or she has a pecuniary interest in any and all matters that come before the Board.
Yours truly,
Pat Cochrane, Chair
Board of Trustees
Dear Trustee Taylor,
At the public meeting of the Board of Trustees on Tuesday, April 19th,you recused yourself from the entire budget debate based on legal advice indicating that you had a pecuniary interest related to this issue. On behalf of our membership, we are asking you what precipitated your decision to recuse yourself from a vitally important public discussion? Is it the case, that you were advised that being a parent to a CBE student precluded you from discussing the CBE’s budget? The entire budget?
Is it your understanding that you received specific legal advice from CBE legal counsel that this was the case? Parents want to understand how their elected school board officials can be induced to recuse themselves from an entire budget debate solely on the basis that he/she has a child attending a CBE school. The public is aware that in prior budget debates trustees who were also parents of children in the CBE participated. Where is the pecuniary conflict and how did it translate into the whole budget debate becoming verboten to your participating?
The reasons for your decision are extremely important to parents. We have had many inquiries. There seems to be some conflicting messages in the media, some indicating that you were told you could not vote on the budget due to the conflict and other comments seems to indicate that you were advised there ‘could’ be a pecuniary issue?
It may be that further discussions are needed with the Government to amend/clarify the School Act as well as the Board regarding its policies so that this does not occur again. We feel that it is vitally important that all Trustees participate in the budget debates.
Your prompt attention to clarifying these questions would be greatly appreciated by our membership. We look forward to posting a response on our blog as soon as possible and also invite you to speak to our members at our next CAPSC meeting on May 18th.
Sincerely,
Eryn Kelly and Leslie Newton
Co-Presidents of CAPSC
Dear Eryn and Leslie,
Thank you for your email regarding pecuniary interest and your questions. I understand that your members are expressing interest in this issue and I am happy to comment.
As noted in a recent CBE news release:
"The decision to declare a conflict of interest falls to individual trustees. It is a personal decision and a personal declaration related to specific matters before a board. No one else can make that declaration for a trustee."
The board received legal advice which prompted me to declare a pecuniary conflict of interest with respect to the budget at the public board meeting on April 19th, 2011. My decision was based on the fact that I have a child attending a CBE school and I am eligible to pay school fees as a parent.
This issue and the CBE advice related to pecuniary interest falls under the heading of "legal". At the public board meeting on April 19th, I brought forward a motion to discuss the legal advice related to pecuniary interest as it applied to the RAM and budget during the public meeting. This motion was defeated and as a result the legal advice was not discussed in public. Therefore, because this issue falls under "legal" and since my request was defeated, I am not permitted to share any detailed information with you or other members of the public.
Please encourage any CAPSC members who reside in Wards 11 and 13 to contact me if they have input they would like to give on the budget and I will let them know how their views can be represented.
I will be in attendance at the next CAPSC meeting but since I cannot discuss legal advice the board received in detail, it does not seem necessary to put pecuniary interest on your agenda for that night.
Thanks again for your email.
Regards,
Sheila Taylor
Trustee, Wards 11&13
Dear Trustee Bazinet,
At the public meeting of the Board of Trustees on Tuesday, April 19th,you recused yourself from the entire budget debate based on legal advice indicating that you had a pecuniary interest related to this issue. On behalf of our membership, we are asking you what precipitated your decision to recuse yourself from a vitally important public discussion? Is it the case, that you were advised that being married to a CBE staff member precluded you from discussing the CBE’s budget? The entire budget?
Is it your understanding that you received specific legal advice from CBE legal counsel that this was the case? Parents want to understand how their elected school board officials can be induced to recuse themselves from an entire budget debate solely on the basis that he/she has a spouse working in a CBE school. The public is aware that in prior budget debates trustees who had spouse’s working in the CBE still participated. Where is the pecuniary conflict and how did it translate into the whole budget debate becoming verboten to your participating?
The reasons for your decision are extremely important to parents. We have had many inquiries.
It may be that further discussions are needed with the Government to amend/clarify the School Act as well as the Board regarding its policies so that this does not occur again. We feel that it is vitally important that all Trustees participate in the budget debates.
Your prompt attention to clarifying these questions would be greatly appreciated by our membership. We look forward to posting a response on our blog as soon as possible and also invite you to speak to our members at our next CAPSC meeting on May 18th.
Sincerely,
Eryn Kelly and Leslie Newton
Co-Presidents of CAPSC
Dear Eryn
Thank you for your email regarding pecuniary interest. As noted in a recent CBE news release
"The decision to declare a conflict of interest falls to individual trustees. It is a personal decision and a personal declaration related to specific matters before a board. No one else can make that declaration for a trustee."
The Board did receive legal advice which lead me to declare a pecuniary conflict of interest with respect to the budget.
Please encourage any CAPSC members who reside in Wards 12 and 14 to contact me if they have input they would like to give on the budget and I will let them know how their views can be represented.
Thank you for your offer to address the upcoming CAPSC meeting. Unfortunately I have another event that evening and will not be able to attend.
Thanks again for your email.
Carol Bazinet
CBE Trustee, Wards 12 and 14
Dear Chair Cochrane,
We had hoped that the April 19th, CBE budget/board meeting would bring some valuable debate amongst our elected Trustees regarding the budget. We were concerned to hear both Trustee Bazinet and Trustee Taylor invoke pecuniary conflict claims and as a result remove themselves from the entire budget debate.
We are anticipating that you can provide some clarification for our members as to the reasons that their elected representatives chose not to take part in the debate about the budget. The media is reporting conflicting messages from Trustee Taylor and from your office as it seems by some that Trustee Taylor was told by a CBE lawyer that she COULD not vote due to pecuniary issues. Others seem to imply that she was advised it was her choice and was only informed as to what the pecuniary issues were.
Our members are unclear on what Trustee’s are advised (after they are elected) as to what a ‘pecuniary conflict of interest’ is and what guidelines (policy and/or legal) they are provided with to inform themselves as to when this may arise in their public work. Members are asking why Trustee Taylor's request for pecuniary interest clarification was not added to the agenda?
We are very concerned to hear Trustee’s claim that they were provided specific legal advice from CBE lawyers that having a child attend a CBE school or having a spouse who works for the CBE precluded them from engaging in ANY of the budget discussion. This is especially puzzling given we are aware that Trustees with a spouse working for the CBE or having a child in a CBE school have engaged in past budget debates and votes. Our members are inquiring as to what information/advice the Trustees were provided during this last Board meeting. Exactly how stringent are the pecuniary interest rules....in the School Act; in Board policies/procedures?
We would expect that ALL Trustees understand pecuniary interests and that the Chair is confident that they have an adequate explanation of the consequences and risks involved.
We appreciate your time and efforts to clarify this for our members.
Sincerely,
Eryn Kelly and Leslie Newton
Dear Ms. Kelly and Ms. Newton:
Thank you for your April 26, 2011 letter requesting clarification for your membership regarding pecuniary interest. I understand that you have also written directly to Trustee Bazinet and Trustee Taylor and they have responded to you directly.
Following each municipal election, the newly elected Board of Trustees undergoes various orientation sessions. Trustees are provided with an orientation to the Calgary Board of Education by the Chief Superintendent. Trustees are also oriented to matters including board governance, board meeting procedures, administrative and communications support, and the legal duties and liabilities of trustees.
On October 22, 2010, all trustees participated in the orientation on the legal duties and liabilities of trustees. Successive Boards of Trustees have agreed that this orientation is a core part of the overall trustee orientation. This particular orientation is conducted by CBE Legal Affairs and includes the provision of information on the School Act, Governance Policies and Administrative Regulations, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, other applicable legislation (e.g.: Local Authorities Election Act, Teaching Profession Act, Alberta Human Rights Act, etc.) This orientation also covers topics such as the role of the school board, delegation of authority, trustee liability, code of ethics, and conflict of interest with specific information regarding pecuniary interest. Individual trustees are provided with a binder of background readings, for their personal reference, that includes detailed information on items such as Trustee Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest.
Individual trustees are encouraged to contact CBE Legal Affairs at any time should they require further information or clarification. Individual trustees can, of course, at any time connect with their own independent legal counsel to seek advice.
The concept of pecuniary interest, commonly referred to as conflict of interest, is broadly applied throughout the private and public sectors in Canada and is intended to enhance public confidence by prohibiting personal financial gain or losses from affecting decisions. It is expected that anyone who serves on a governing board will scan his or her conscience when faced with voting on a matter where the outcome might have some positive or negative impact on their personal finances. That level of personal assessment is particularly important in the public sector where protection of the public purse is required. Section 80(1) of the School Act defines pecuniary interest as an interest in a matter that could monetarily affect the trustee and those individuals to whom the trustee has a deemed pecuniary interest (the trustee’s spouse or adult interdependent partner).
Section 83 of the School act sets out how a trustee shall manage a pecuniary interest in a matter before the board, any committee of the board or any commission, committee or agency to which a trustee is appointed as a representative of the board.
The decision of whether or not to objectively determine and perhaps declare a conflict of interest is purely a personal trustee decision. No one does and no one can direct that decision for a trustee.
Should a conflict of interest arise, boards are able to maximize trustee participation provided trustees alert the Board Chair to the existence of the conflict sufficiently ahead of time so that administration can take steps to present matters or budgets in a way that isolates conflict issues, thereby enabling trustees to participate in all other ways. The School Act specifically contemplates that these limited situations may arise and has specific provisions allowing a board to take votes even when quorum is lost because one or more trustees have declared a conflict of interest.
As you may appreciate, there is much work that occurs prior to public board meetings. Trustees are made aware of agenda items for meetings three to four months in advance so all trustees are well aware of items and therefore, individual trustees have the time to explore, determine and declare pecuniary interest. The determination of pecuniary interest should be made as soon as possible after receiving the agenda and meeting package. The individual trustee can then approach the Chair in advance with this declaration. Advance notice permits the Board Chair to work with administration to develop a plan for dealing with relevant agenda matters, as well as any potential quorum issues prior to the meeting. Again, if individual trustees require assistance with making a determination about whether he or she has a pecuniary interest, the individual trustee should consult with CBE Legal Affairs, or his or her own independent legal counsel.
Without waiving the privilege associated with the advice provided to the Board, I wish to offer the following background pertaining to the specific instance where Trustee Bazinet and Trustee Taylor each declared a pecuniary interest, for different reasons, at the April 19 public board meeting.
On April 15, 2011, all trustees were provided with further legal guidance which was consistent with earlier advice. I have come to learn that advisors generally suggest that if an individual, after careful study and consideration, has any doubt, the individual might want to choose a conservative course of action – especially, as in the case of the School Act, where ignoring a conflict of interest can result in disqualification.
In addition to the legal advice offered, all trustees were afforded the opportunity to discuss the matter further, with both internal and external legal counsel present, to clarify any personal questions and, in particular, to discuss the procedure for ‘dividing the question’ so that a trustee might vote on the part of an issue where there is no conflict, but abstain on the part where he/she has declared a conflict of interest. Trustee Taylor and Bazinet declined to participate in this information meeting. No person or persons stopped either trustee from discussing or voting on the Resource Allocations to Schools – Early Spring Staffing report. Both Trustee Taylor and Trustee Bazinet declared a conflict of interest and the School Act, therefore, states that they shall abstain from voting.
Informed by administration, other sources and their own experience, individual trustees are expected to make decisions for themselves and to be exclusively accountable and responsible for taking those decisions.
I am confident that individual trustees received clear and accurate information about their duties and responsibilities concerning conflict of interest matters. It is each trustee’s personal responsibility, following review of his or her own particular circumstances as to whether he or she has a pecuniary interest in any and all matters that come before the Board.
Yours truly,
Pat Cochrane, Chair
Board of Trustees
Dear Trustee Taylor,
At the public meeting of the Board of Trustees on Tuesday, April 19th,you recused yourself from the entire budget debate based on legal advice indicating that you had a pecuniary interest related to this issue. On behalf of our membership, we are asking you what precipitated your decision to recuse yourself from a vitally important public discussion? Is it the case, that you were advised that being a parent to a CBE student precluded you from discussing the CBE’s budget? The entire budget?
Is it your understanding that you received specific legal advice from CBE legal counsel that this was the case? Parents want to understand how their elected school board officials can be induced to recuse themselves from an entire budget debate solely on the basis that he/she has a child attending a CBE school. The public is aware that in prior budget debates trustees who were also parents of children in the CBE participated. Where is the pecuniary conflict and how did it translate into the whole budget debate becoming verboten to your participating?
The reasons for your decision are extremely important to parents. We have had many inquiries. There seems to be some conflicting messages in the media, some indicating that you were told you could not vote on the budget due to the conflict and other comments seems to indicate that you were advised there ‘could’ be a pecuniary issue?
It may be that further discussions are needed with the Government to amend/clarify the School Act as well as the Board regarding its policies so that this does not occur again. We feel that it is vitally important that all Trustees participate in the budget debates.
Your prompt attention to clarifying these questions would be greatly appreciated by our membership. We look forward to posting a response on our blog as soon as possible and also invite you to speak to our members at our next CAPSC meeting on May 18th.
Sincerely,
Eryn Kelly and Leslie Newton
Co-Presidents of CAPSC
Dear Eryn and Leslie,
Thank you for your email regarding pecuniary interest and your questions. I understand that your members are expressing interest in this issue and I am happy to comment.
As noted in a recent CBE news release:
"The decision to declare a conflict of interest falls to individual trustees. It is a personal decision and a personal declaration related to specific matters before a board. No one else can make that declaration for a trustee."
The board received legal advice which prompted me to declare a pecuniary conflict of interest with respect to the budget at the public board meeting on April 19th, 2011. My decision was based on the fact that I have a child attending a CBE school and I am eligible to pay school fees as a parent.
This issue and the CBE advice related to pecuniary interest falls under the heading of "legal". At the public board meeting on April 19th, I brought forward a motion to discuss the legal advice related to pecuniary interest as it applied to the RAM and budget during the public meeting. This motion was defeated and as a result the legal advice was not discussed in public. Therefore, because this issue falls under "legal" and since my request was defeated, I am not permitted to share any detailed information with you or other members of the public.
Please encourage any CAPSC members who reside in Wards 11 and 13 to contact me if they have input they would like to give on the budget and I will let them know how their views can be represented.
I will be in attendance at the next CAPSC meeting but since I cannot discuss legal advice the board received in detail, it does not seem necessary to put pecuniary interest on your agenda for that night.
Thanks again for your email.
Regards,
Sheila Taylor
Trustee, Wards 11&13
Dear Trustee Bazinet,
At the public meeting of the Board of Trustees on Tuesday, April 19th,you recused yourself from the entire budget debate based on legal advice indicating that you had a pecuniary interest related to this issue. On behalf of our membership, we are asking you what precipitated your decision to recuse yourself from a vitally important public discussion? Is it the case, that you were advised that being married to a CBE staff member precluded you from discussing the CBE’s budget? The entire budget?
Is it your understanding that you received specific legal advice from CBE legal counsel that this was the case? Parents want to understand how their elected school board officials can be induced to recuse themselves from an entire budget debate solely on the basis that he/she has a spouse working in a CBE school. The public is aware that in prior budget debates trustees who had spouse’s working in the CBE still participated. Where is the pecuniary conflict and how did it translate into the whole budget debate becoming verboten to your participating?
The reasons for your decision are extremely important to parents. We have had many inquiries.
It may be that further discussions are needed with the Government to amend/clarify the School Act as well as the Board regarding its policies so that this does not occur again. We feel that it is vitally important that all Trustees participate in the budget debates.
Your prompt attention to clarifying these questions would be greatly appreciated by our membership. We look forward to posting a response on our blog as soon as possible and also invite you to speak to our members at our next CAPSC meeting on May 18th.
Sincerely,
Eryn Kelly and Leslie Newton
Co-Presidents of CAPSC
Dear Eryn
Thank you for your email regarding pecuniary interest. As noted in a recent CBE news release
"The decision to declare a conflict of interest falls to individual trustees. It is a personal decision and a personal declaration related to specific matters before a board. No one else can make that declaration for a trustee."
The Board did receive legal advice which lead me to declare a pecuniary conflict of interest with respect to the budget.
Please encourage any CAPSC members who reside in Wards 12 and 14 to contact me if they have input they would like to give on the budget and I will let them know how their views can be represented.
Thank you for your offer to address the upcoming CAPSC meeting. Unfortunately I have another event that evening and will not be able to attend.
Thanks again for your email.
Carol Bazinet
CBE Trustee, Wards 12 and 14
CBE Trusteeship: Pecuniary Interest
Trusteeship: Pecuniary Interest
When a trustee is elected to the board, newly or as an incumbent, they are provided with an orientation that covers their roles and responsibilities informed by the legal context in which their board operates. For example, the Calgary Board of Education, operates within the parameters of the School Act, FOIP, and their own Governance Policies. Trustees, as part of this process, are made aware of the legal resources that are available to them including legal advice, case law and legal decisions pertaining to their particular needs. A very important part of this process would include conflict of interest and pecuniary interest issues. Our board of trustees received their orientation in October, shortly after taking their oath of office and being sworn in.
In addition, the Alberta School Boards Association, which the Calgary Board of Trustees is a member, provides an array of resources for trustees including a legal issues newsletter for educators. Recent editions have addressed pecuniary issues and the court cases that resulted when trustees failed to disclose.
Specific mention is made in the School Act regarding pecuniary interest and the disclosure process:
In section 80(1), the Act defines a pecuniary interest as an “interest in a matter that could monetarily affect “ the individual or the spouse of an individual. There are other instances detailed but these two may be pertinent to the particular situation that is being addressed in our board. The Act is clear – the trustee alone declares the pecuniary interest.
In section 83(1), the Act clearly states that if a trustee has a pecuniary interest in a matter before the board, including any committees, they must disclose and follow a prescribed procedure. A trustee who is found to have contravened this section of the Act would be disqualified as a trustee of the board.
It should be noted that as part of the Governance policies of the board, Board Procedures related to pecuniary interest are also clearly stated.
However, if sufficient notice and information regarding the pecuniary interest is provided to the Chair of the Board prior to the meeting, there may be ways to deal with the situation in order to provide the trustee with the maximum opportunity to participate. The Chair cannot take action in advance prior of the trustee declaring a pecuniary interest. For example, if the budget is made up of many subsections and only one or two are related to the pecuniary interest, those parts could be dealt with separately. These solutions appear in related case law. Another example might be if several trustees were not able to make a board meeting and an important vote was on the agenda, given adequate notice to the chair, the situation could be dealt with by approaching the Minister and giving the board the authority to make the decision even if quorum was not met.
Trustees have numerous options to understand the legal component of their role, make personal decisions and advise the board so it can respond. As stated at the Wednesday, April 27th CBE Parent System Meeting, no one told a trustee that she could not vote on the budget because she had a child in the school system (Q & A should be posted shortly from this meeting). CAPSC is aware of many trustees, past and present, who are parents and actively engage in the discussions and decisions of their boards around budgets.
Other relevant links:
Board of Trustees' Policy - Executive Limitations EL-3: Information, Counsel and Support to the Board of Trustees
When a trustee is elected to the board, newly or as an incumbent, they are provided with an orientation that covers their roles and responsibilities informed by the legal context in which their board operates. For example, the Calgary Board of Education, operates within the parameters of the School Act, FOIP, and their own Governance Policies. Trustees, as part of this process, are made aware of the legal resources that are available to them including legal advice, case law and legal decisions pertaining to their particular needs. A very important part of this process would include conflict of interest and pecuniary interest issues. Our board of trustees received their orientation in October, shortly after taking their oath of office and being sworn in.
In addition, the Alberta School Boards Association, which the Calgary Board of Trustees is a member, provides an array of resources for trustees including a legal issues newsletter for educators. Recent editions have addressed pecuniary issues and the court cases that resulted when trustees failed to disclose.
Specific mention is made in the School Act regarding pecuniary interest and the disclosure process:
In section 80(1), the Act defines a pecuniary interest as an “interest in a matter that could monetarily affect “ the individual or the spouse of an individual. There are other instances detailed but these two may be pertinent to the particular situation that is being addressed in our board. The Act is clear – the trustee alone declares the pecuniary interest.
In section 83(1), the Act clearly states that if a trustee has a pecuniary interest in a matter before the board, including any committees, they must disclose and follow a prescribed procedure. A trustee who is found to have contravened this section of the Act would be disqualified as a trustee of the board.
It should be noted that as part of the Governance policies of the board, Board Procedures related to pecuniary interest are also clearly stated.
However, if sufficient notice and information regarding the pecuniary interest is provided to the Chair of the Board prior to the meeting, there may be ways to deal with the situation in order to provide the trustee with the maximum opportunity to participate. The Chair cannot take action in advance prior of the trustee declaring a pecuniary interest. For example, if the budget is made up of many subsections and only one or two are related to the pecuniary interest, those parts could be dealt with separately. These solutions appear in related case law. Another example might be if several trustees were not able to make a board meeting and an important vote was on the agenda, given adequate notice to the chair, the situation could be dealt with by approaching the Minister and giving the board the authority to make the decision even if quorum was not met.
Trustees have numerous options to understand the legal component of their role, make personal decisions and advise the board so it can respond. As stated at the Wednesday, April 27th CBE Parent System Meeting, no one told a trustee that she could not vote on the budget because she had a child in the school system (Q & A should be posted shortly from this meeting). CAPSC is aware of many trustees, past and present, who are parents and actively engage in the discussions and decisions of their boards around budgets.
Other relevant links:
Board of Trustees' Policy - Executive Limitations EL-3: Information, Counsel and Support to the Board of Trustees
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
