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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.