CPoSD76 update

Category Archive CPoSD76 update

Find out where the candidates stand on Parental Involvement and Family!

Concerned Parents will be updating shortly with an election guide. If you would like to see a Parent focused all candidates forum we need YOUR help. Please Contact Us.

Tags, ,

PCE Candidate Survey

Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) has released a survey asking key question of candidates for school board in October 2017’s Municipal Elections. How the candidates answer those questions will provide key information to electorate on where all candidates stand on the education issues that are at the forefront of the coming election.

PCE_Survey Direct Download

The CPoSD76 will be doing profiles on all candidates who put their names forward on Sept 18th, and giving an A to F grade on if the CPoSD76 endorse that candidate for the position of Trustee in the Medicine Hat Public School District. In order for a Candidate to have a passing grade, they must at a minimum have completed and returned the PCE survey.

The CPoSD76 are of the position that if any candidate can not fill out the survey, and provide direct and honest answers to the questions most concerning to electorate in Medicine hat, then they will receive an ‘F’ on their profile.

The CPoSD76 would also like to thank PCE for providing electorate all across Alberta with the tools they need to make informed decisions on who they will put in Fiduciary charge of their children.

Our children are the future, and giving them the best possible education and the most prosperous future are the most important goals for parents.

Tags, , , , ,

[RESULTS Update] To Court, or not to Court

UPDATE


39% In Favor of returning to court.
61% Wish to focus on elections.

I respect the will of the people, and I too believe that the most important thing to focus on right now, is getting people on the school board who respect the authority and rights of parents to be involved with their children’s education. As one parent put it, “the lines of communication are down.” Just like I told the Secretary last September, my role is and always has been to restoring communication with parents. From my attempts to record proceedings, to my speaking up to the board, and to my taking the petition to appeal.

Given that the Secretary and Board had clear instructions to accept a copy of amended signatures from the Justice, and they have chosen not do so, it is evident to me and a majority of voters who signed the petition, that returning to court will not repair the lines of communication. I do understand the reasons why so many voted to go back to court. The Board, through allies in the media, have essentially maligned the electorate on the petition. They have portrayed the signatories as if they could not get the support for their position, and that they were unable to file a correct petition, when that is clearly not the case.

Should any of those signatories who voted in favor of returning to court wish to pick up the banner, and pursue an appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench again, I will provide all necessary documents and evidence needed to do so. I support their right to do so, and I understand why they may want to. I will however point my focus on rebuilding the lines of communication, through the election of candidates that support parental authority, educational choice, and quality curriculum.


(For consistency and ease of understanding in this post I will be using the numbers that the Secretary used when discussing the number of signatures on the petition. There is some disparity between the numbers that I hold to and what the Secretary holds to, but in the grand scheme of things, those small differences would have no affect on the final outcome.)

On August 14, 2017, Secretary Jerry Lebossiere of SD#76 rejected an amendment to the petition I submitted in September, 2016. His excuse for rejecting it was that he could not accept any of the 121 signatures that had had their addresses corrected. In his rejection letter the secretary stated that “These addresses are not set out opposite to an original signature but are simply written in over the photocopied signatures,” and that “as Secretary Treasurer I have no discretion to permit the inclusion of names on a petition that do not comply with the requirements.” Additionally when the Secretary rejected the initial amendment of the petition on July 7th, he set out a an expiry for the petition of July 21, 2017.

When I took the petition to appeal on March 10, 2017, I did so seeking clarification on the act, as well as I contested the rejection of 259 signatures that had listed only a Postal Code, and did not include  the street address. Through the proceedings on March 10th, Justice Tilleman made it clear that a copy was sufficient for the amendment. From The Court Transcript: “Okay, so her[secretary’s legal council] last words were the secretary is absolutely willing to evaluate fairly any petition that is re-filed or resubmitted, so, I mean, I take that to mean for example if you used a photocopy of the previous that someone, in an affidavit, certifies is the true copy, and the secretary says no, I’m not going to accept that, you’ll be back in court and I wouldn’t be very happy. It’s going to be accepted.” The Justice earlier in the conversation stating “…then you would need addresses on the 259 so you’re 100 [this is rounded] short, sounds to me like you’ve collected other names, assuming you want to go the (b) route,…” To top it all off, the Secretary’s legal council said, in her own words, “There’s no time limit on the petition names, there’s nothing that says that their name is on the petition for only a set period of time

Taking the rest of the transcript into context, it is clear to me that the Justice gave the Secretary clear latitude to accept amended address on a copy, and also expected him to accept it, and the district freely told the Justice that we had no deadline/expiry on signatures. I will admit that I did not give a sworn copy of the petition sheets. I did however use the copy that was given to me by his legal council during the appeal proceedings, and red ink was used to indicate clearly which lines had been amended. The secretary did not contest that the pages were not a true copy, he contested that he had no way of knowing if the addressed were true. In affect insinuating that I or others had committed fraud, and made up the addresses. I might add, he provided no proof for his accusation.

In an effort to calm the Secretary’s concerns, on the 21 of August, 2017, I e-mailed the secretary outlining my objection to his rejection of the 121 corrected address. I offered to provide him with sworn affidavits from the individuals who had collected the address information on the 121 addresses. I requested that he inform me by the 23rd of August whether he would accept that, and there by accept the petition. As of the 25 he has not. And so, just like in October of 2016, he refused to provide clarifications in a timely fashion.

That brings me to the point of this post. I am ready to go back to court. I am ready to swear under oath, and before the God of heaven and earth that my statements are true to the best of my knowledge. I stand by the petition, and I stand by the amendment and that it fulfilled all the requirements necessary to be accepted by the Secretary. I am ready to defend that position before a Justice once again. I however will do what the people would prefer. The accusations against me mean nothing, as I and those who know me, know they have no truth to them, so I don’t need to clear my name in court. (Although I would be ok if it were officially cleared. I’m good either way.)

I’m posting to put it to a vote. To you the people. On Monday, if the vote is in favour, I will file at the Court of Queens Bench once again. If I file, a ‘speak to’ date will be set by the Clerk. At which a justice will weigh the merrits of the appeal, and will determine if I have sufficient grounds to appeal. So, by filing on Monday, it does not confirm that it will go to appeal. It may get thrown out. (Looking through the transcript, I find that highly unlikely.) If it isn’t thrown out, I believe we have a very strong case.

Given that the election is mere weeks away, and we might have a different Board after October 16, I want to give everyone the opportunity to state if they think court would be a worth while endeavor. As I’ve done from the beginning, I will do what the people wish for me to do.

In summary:

  • The submission on July 7th was sufficient.
  • The submission on July 21 was a correction asked for by the Secretary, and it brought the submission an additional 71 signatures further over the minimum.
  • The Secretary says a copy is not acceptable.
  • The Secretary gave a deadline, and says the signatures have expired.
  • The Justice said a copy WAS acceptable.
  • The Justice said he would not be happy if a copy wasn’t accepted.
  • The Secretary’s Legal council told the Justice that the signatures did not expire.

Votes will be closed 8pm Sunday August 27th, 2017.


The voting is closed. Results will be posted tomorrow.

Tags, , , , , ,

Media Release Regarding SD76’s second rejection of the CPoSD76 petition.

 

On July 21, the CPoSD76 submitted additional information to the Secretary of SD76 at his request. Our previous submission on July 7th was in compliance with the proceedings of the court appeal on March 10th, 2017.

Our submission on July 21st was an attempt to work with the Board to have it meet new requirements set out by the Secretary, that were not in fact discussed during the appeal proceedings.

In regards to the response by the Secretary for our July 21 Submission:

  1. We did not receive back from the Secretary the original of the petition from September 2016, and a copy of that original is all we had to work with. The “penciling in” as CHAT news put it was in fact at the request of the Superintendent and Chair of the Board on July 7th. The addresses were those of the signatures that had previously only had a postal code, and they were filled in with RED INK so as to not mistake them as being originally on the petition. This of course could have been told to CHAT had they made any real effort to get a response from the CPoSD76 prior to releasing their one sided story.
  2. The insinuation by the Secretary that we had ‘made up’ or ‘falsified’ signatures or address is a slanderous accusation with no truth to it. Everything we have done has been above reproach, and again, Justice Tilleman specifically asked the Legal council if the Board or Secretary had concerns with the witnesses or integrity of the signatures, and the Legal council stated that they did not. The CPoSD76 take exception to the suggestion, and are considering appropriate responses.
  3. The Secretary rejected all the effort that the CPoSD76 went to get the information for the postal code signatures, and the CPoSD76 believe that they were deliberately mislead during the appeal process. The CPoSD76 do not believe that the Board and Secretary have honoured the statements made to the Justice during the March 10th appeal proceedings.
  4. The CPoSD76 have seen continued obstruction from the Board and Secretary in regards to the petition, and do not believe that any petition would be accepted at any time. This is evident through the changing requirements, and the acceptance and then rejection of signatures, the continued miss characterization of facts and numbers, and repeated misrepresentations of the intentions and concerns of the CPoSD76.

Despite chairman Massini’s assertions that the matter is closed, and that we must “start over,” the CPoSD76 do not hold that same position. During the March 10th appeal Justice Tilleman invited the petitioners to return to his court room, should the district reject the petition a second time. The CPoSD76 are considering all options.

Tags, , , ,

Press release regarding amended petition deadline.

Media Release

2017 July 21

Concerned Parents of SD76

Re: Amended Petition

 

We have resubmitted the Amended Petition which now meets the extra conditions requested by SD76.

 

We have gone the extra mile as requested by the School Board.  The Amended Petition submitted June met all the criteria outlined by the judge in our appeal, but the Board requested we reformat a few things to technically fit their interpretation.  We have now done that.

 

They testified in court that 30 names on the original were valid, but subsequently went back to challenge them.  Although we don’t believe we were required to do so, we have collected 75 replacement names as an act of good faith.

 

As directed by the judge, we have submitted additional information to complete the addresses on 118 of the original submissions that only had a postal code.  The School Board requested that rather than submit that information as a summary list, that we add it directly to the original lines of the petition, which we have now done.

 

The amended petition is now complete.  The petition meets all the criteria established by the School Act as clarified by the Judge in our prior appeal.  We look forward to working with the Board to complete this petition process and to be able to provide them with our concerns on policies 621 and 622.

 

Since the petition, we have done a lot of work with the Board, and have forged a lot of common understanding, but the Board is in a tough place.  The Minister has given them direction on these issues, and they feel bound to follow that direction.  As parents however, we disagree with the direction the Minister is heading.  The petition, as established by the School Act, is the means to officially voice opposition to what the Board decided.  This then allows them to convey that official opposition to the Minister.

 

We believe that further rejection of a legitimate petition by the Secretary or the Board can only be seen as defiance of the Judges ruling and obstructionist behaviour to avoid listening to Concerned Parents.

 

 

Tags, , , ,

Update! Update! Update!

Thanks to the threats against me recently, last night the CPoSD76 website crossed over 100,000 hits after only 3 months of operation. Several thousands since the news broke. Based on projections, 100,000 was a feat I wasn’t expecting the site to achieve for another week and a half. Over the last couple of days I and the CPoSD76 have received numerous e-mails and phone calls of support, and asking me to keep up the good fight. In fact, all of them, who had never signed the petition, asked where they could sign. This was a problem, as it became time consuming to write back each person asking.

So thanks to the generosity of local churches, this Sunday is going to be a petition Signing day.

If you:

  • Are a Canadian Citizen over 18
  • Live within the boundaries of School District #76
  • Have not declared support for the Catholic School Board
  • And have not signed the petition before

Sunday July 16th

From 11:00 to 11:30 AM at
Victory Lutheran Church 2793 Southview Drive SE, Medicine Hat, AB T1B 2H1
T: 403-527-5617 E: contact@victorylutheran.ca

OR

From 11:00am – 12:00pm at
Medicine Hat Christian Reformed Church, 300 Primrose Drive SE, Medicine Hat, AB  T1B 3S9
403 529 5650
ALSO
If you are unable to make the petition signing events, you can contact us, and will be do our best to have a volunteers arrange a meet up to sign the petition.
We got 1500 signatures in a weekend before. Based on the support throughout the community, 138 should be a cake walk.
With 138 signatures, parents will finally be heard by their elected representatives.

Tags, , , ,

More Journalistic failure, and the petition amendment.

tl;dr – Why did the amendment fail? The Secretary changed the understood expectations for the 111 amended postal code signatures, and decided that there were more signatures in the original that didn’t qualify. Parents now know they are playing Calvinball.

Accurate Report on the Petition Amendment Rejection:

On June 20th, the CPoSD76 amended their petition. I received notice that a decision of the sufficiency of the petition had been made on or about 3:30pm Thursday July 6th. It was requested that I come and meet with the superintendent at 8:30AM July 7th. Despite the short notice, I informed the superintendent’s office that I would make the meeting.

I was informed that they had decided that the amendment was insufficient because they had rejected all 111 amended postal code signatures on the grounds that they we not re-signed each in their entirety, even though that was not a requirement discussed during the March 10, 2017 appeal. Even though the Justice said that even a photocopy would have been good enough, as the point of their rejection was that the secretary would have had to have exerted extra effort to ascertain the electoral status of the signature.

In addition to the 111 corrected postal signatures, I submitted 286 new signatures with the amendment. The secretary claims that 3 of those signatures have addresses outside the boundaries, and 1 was missing a character on the postal code. He further claims that 19 of the signatures are duplicates of signatures on the original petition. A claim that is currently being verified. Put simply,

Original Petition:

  • 1629 signatures were determined to be acceptable and uncontested through the proceedings by Court of Queen’s Bench.
  • 2000 are required to have a petition accepted.
  • 371 was the shortfall.

The Amendment:

  • 397 Total
  • 4 allegedly erroneous signatures
  • 19 claimed to be duplicates
  • 374 Remaining.
  • 374 > 371.

The Secretary claims to have done not the first, or the second, but the THIRD review of the Original petition, AFTER it was stated to the Justice that 1629 signatures on the original were not contested. In his third exemplary review of the original petition he claims to have found 30 duplicated signatures that had previously not been noticed by himself, his staff, or his legal council. 374 – 30 = 344.  344 < 371.

  • 111 – again rejected postal code signatures
  • 27 – Needed new signatures
  • 138 – What the board is asking us to get by July 21 (Which is the deadline for appealing to the Court of Queen’s Bench again, not entirely the boards deadline.)

The Grossly inadequate Articles in both Medicine Hat News & CHATNews:

I will not go into details on all of the errors in the two articles at this time, however I will state that neither of the news agencies attempted contact myself or the CPoSD76 prior to publishing their articles. An e-mail from MHN was sent to my personal account at 1:19PM, AFTER they published their article, and stating that they were “looking for a short, written comment to use”, to have it to them “before 4 p.m,” and criteria given by which the CPoSD76 comment must be framed. I did not know of the e-mail until 8pm. Both articles portrayed the numbers of the amendment inaccurately, and in a negative light.

Questions for your consideration:

Why didn’t they want to get a comment before publishing?

Why didn’t they ask the board why they needed to review the petition so many times if they had already done a thorough evaluation in Oct, 2016?

Why didn’t they ask the board why they would lead parents and the Justice to believe that all they needed to do to correct the postal code signatures was get the addresses, if that is not what they wanted/required?

Why didn’t they ask ANY questions of the CPoSD76, but simply want a statement?

Why  didn’t they report that board and admin question the legality of Justice Tilleman’s decision to allow an amendment, but choose not to pursue a challenge of it?

A reporter wanting to get the truth, and facts would have asked questions. None were asked.

Tags, , , , ,

Petition Status Report

It has been 2 weeks since the CPoSD76 submitted their amendment to the Petition. Considering that an amendment to a petition had not been done before, upon giving the amendment package to the Secretary, I requested a timeline on it’s evaluation. Witnessed by the Chairman of the Board, and other concerned parents, I inquired whether we could expect the timeline outlined in the School Act. Both the Secretary and the Chairman stated that we could.

Section 269 of the School Act States – “269(1) When a board of a district situated wholly or partly within the boundaries of a city receives a petition calling for a public meeting that is signed
(a) by 25% of the parents, who are also electors, of the students in a school, or
(b) by the lesser of
(i) 2000 electors, and
(ii) 25% of the electors,
the board shall within 21 days from the date that it receives the
petition (in this case, the amendment) publish notice of the public meeting to be held under this
section in accordance with section 270.”

At this point, we have only to wait. Since the Legal Council for the District informed the Justice during the appeal that the district was not contesting any other aspect of the petition, other than what was addressed in the amendment, we need have only to wait for the evaluation. With only 400 signatures to evaluate, I expect we should hear from the Secretary soon.

A post will be made as soon as a response from the District has been received. Thank you for your patience.

Tags, , , ,

Policy 622 endorses child abuse.

(Image of Cari Stella, a de-transitioned person.)

A response to Chairman Rick Massini’s response.

Procedure K from policy 622 makes it an offense for any staff to share the information in the above articles with any child that is struggling with gender identity, or comes to them expressing trans identity. An offense that could cost that staff member their livelihood, and the enforcing of could cost the child their life.
“Policy 622 Procedure: k. ensure staff will not refer students to programs or services that attempt to change or repair a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity; and”

Procedure J encourages gender confusion, and pushes children to accept transitioning from known biological gender to the detriment of their health and continued will being, as the only ‘evidence’ based supports that will be provided to the child must be in the affirmative. Discouraging critical thinking, a fundamental tenant of educational development.

Policy 622 Procedure: j. work collaboratively with school staff and build capacity to identify and implement evidence-based supports for students;

Procedure L is a direct and flagrant violation of the law (Family Law Act) and grants rights and privileges to both staff and students, to which they are not entitled. No law or act of parliament grants this privilege. The procedure grants wholly inappropriate levels of relationship between staff and students, removes checks and balances that have been in place for decades to protect children from sexual abuse, strips parents of their rights, and creates destructive rifts in the parent child relationship.

Policy 622 Procedure: l. ensure all staff recognize the confidentiality of the sexual orientation and gender identity of all students and protect them from unwanted disclosure of such information.

Policy 622, the Guidelines to Best Practices, and Alberta Education under the direction of Minister David Eggen endorse, support, and attempt to enforce the abuse of children through negligent practice, policy, and procedure. For 16 months the Board of Medicine Hat School District #76 have refused to provide evidence or justification for their actions in implementing the Policies as written. No organization or scientific entity has provided the public with hard data on the measurable benefit gender identity politics have for the education or development of children.

By contrast, month over month medical professionals, psychologists, and parents have been able to gather and collect data, and warn this board and Alberta Education of the harms and ill effects that gender identity have on children and society. Real measurable examples of individuals irreparably harmed by the push to make ‘trans’ acceptable. Real examples of abuse of the policies to push explicit material at children.

As elected representatives of the people of Medicine Hat it is the duty of the Board of Trustees to represent the interests of their electorate first and foremost, and not that of any particular ideology or political party. Their first duty is to Medicine Hat. It is their duty to protect the children with whom parents have granted them temporary guardianship. It is not the Duty of the board to instill any particular ideology, ethics, or morality in those children.

Over the last 16 months, parents have been frustrated by the actions of the Board to belittle their concerns as fringe and ‘offensive.’ It is no small thing that this issue is the first time in SD76’s history that parents have rallied together to protect their children from vile and abusive policy. Make no mistake, parents see the practical ‘procedural’ implementation of these policies as vile. Setting aside the duty as a Trustee, it is the duty of every parent, grand parent and citizen to stall or prevent any group or ideology that seeks to use and abuse society’s children. There is no mistaking the fact that these policies were enforced outside the district for the purposes of using or abusing children for political or sexual ends.

Parents are not, and will never be satisfied by the answer that the Board was “following orders.” Following orders has not been adequate justification for committing any crime against another human being since at least the Nuremberg Trials. It is the fact that the Board has continued to refuse to answer the public that have led to this situation. Parents and the public are calling the Board to account to justify their actions over the past 16 months. It is for this reason that we are submitting the amendment to our petition today.

We, the electorate of Medicine Hat, have been left with no other option. Continued and repeated opportunities have been given to the board to appropriately address parental concerns. If an elected body is not representative of those that elected them, than that elected body serves no representative purpose, and appropriate actions must be taken to correct the situation.

 

For the Board’s Consideration:

Tags, , , , , , , , ,

Vote Results!

I have tabulated the vote results.

68.2% in Favour of Amending

13.6% in Favour of Compiling Concerns

18.2% Spoiled Votes

Due to an unknown circumstance the voting got locked out late Thursday evening, and I was unaware of the problem until 9pm Friday. This led to a number of corrupt votes. However, even if all the votes that had been corrupt had been in favour of Compiling Concerns, the “Amend” Votes would still be the lead. The e-mail addresses of those votes DID come through, so I will attempt to ascertain how they voted, for clarity of record. If there was anyone else who attempted to vote, but got an error message, please ‘contact us.’

With the information as it stands now, I will be submitting the amended petition to the Secretary of the Board ASAP. Details on that will be posted later.

On a separate note, the final public school board meeting for the 2016/2017 year will be held at 6pm tomorrow the 20th of June at the central board office. I’ve gone over the agenda, and there are no policy changes on the agenda. Highlights include ASBA Zone 6 meeting overview, PSBA General Assembly Overview, and a discussion on the “Classroom Improvement Fund” (CIF)

Tags, , , , , ,