I will reserve my comments on Mr. Steven Droz’s full report until the moment I am provided with it. Steven Droz from Steven Droz & Associates was hired by Ms. Marlene Jennings (EMSB Trustee) to investigate a harassment complaint that I made against some high ranking members of the administration and the EMSB governance.

For the reasons set forth in this declaration, I have no other choice but to comment on the ill-advised half-baked theories Mr. Droz formulates in his summary,

First, Mr. Droz interviewed only myself, the plaintiff, and the two perpetrators of psychological harassment. His conclusions are based entirely on the perpetrators’ denials.

By analogy, if a person complains of physical abuse, and the aggressor denies such abuse, wouldn’t it be totally unacceptable to the investigative process to simply rely solely on the number of alleged victim(s) and aggressor(s) in order to determine, pro rata, who’s wrong and who’s right?

Mr. Droz consistently refused to consider the abundant evidence by witnesses and the material facts that I pleaded he should consider.

Mr. Droz chose to accept and conclude with the opinion of my virulent political opponents on my functions, as Chairman of the EMSB, as if he were mandated to that end and as if their opinion on my performance has any bearing on the simple question of whether or not they harassed me.

Did the political rival insult and belittle me before the entire Board and the public? Did he do it repeatedly? Even if one accepts that I am a terrible Chairman, it is the summary conclusions on these questions of harassment, not my political evaluation, that ought to permeate Mr. Droz’s summary.

Turning to Mr Droz’s recommendations to the government no less, that I and my supporters be banned from future elections, it is clear to me that his summary is more of a political vendetta and not a simple summary on harassment.

1. First, he had no mandate to that end;

2. Second, no one under the authority of any law, has the authority to curtail fundamental democratic rights.

3. Third, Mr. Droz pushes his unlawful bewilderment to third parties! (i.e. any of my supporters), without ever having heard from them and with no mandate to this end, he would have these persons denied of their democratic rights.

The only public comment reported by the CBC that I’ve heard of is that of Mr. Joe Ortona, a commissioner at the EMSB, reported that he stated that he is satisfied with the thorough investigation and that he hopes the provincial government should review and consider the recommendations.

To make such a statement contrary to fundamental democratic and constitutionally protected rights, one can only conclude that Mr. Ortona, a member of the Quebec Bar, has placed his personal political ambitions above the law.

I can only determine from Mr. Droz’s summary report and the lack of a proper investigation that politics are at play, once again. I deposited a harassment complaint in good faith. Expecting a fair process, which I never got.

Instead, what I got, was an investigator not wanting to meet witnesses because it “was not necessary”, stating he knew what they would say. Imagine an investigator not meeting witnesses because he is so good, he knows what they will say, before speaking to them.

Worst yet, he judged my supporters without justification. According to him, they should not even be allowed to stand for election because they are on “my side”? Take a moment to think of the absurdity of this conclusion.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.