Calgary Catholic Board Undemocratic

geoffrey · June 23, 2006

Here in Calgary, recently, we've had one of the trustee's from the Calgary Catholic board removed mostly due to his criticism of the operation of the school district. The board claims that he was in conflict of interest because he sued the board while sitting on it. This is true. But it's sad that the lawsuit was to remove his censorship and be allowed to attend board meetings.

As well, the board decided to not hold a by-election, reasoning that few would vote, to replace him. So we now have unrepresented people in this system, after their representative was removed because he didn't agree with the operation of the school board.

We have a situation that if you don't agree with the school board, you are removed from it, even as an elected person that is supposed to hold the body to account. I am disturbed and frightened. This is equvilent to the CPC banning NDP members for being disruptive to their policies. O'Malley never broke the law, but was simply not agreeing with the board.

O'Malley is also banned from running in the next election. Why can't his riding decide if he is representing them? Since when are free people in Canada banned from running in elections?

Story: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...508919d&k=45540

Thoughts? I know I'm outraged.

sharkman · June 24, 2006

Sounds like a nasty disagreement gotten out of hand. To start throwing lawsuits around kind of tarnishes his image as clean in this matter.

Maybe the church is not a democracy, I know mine ain't.

theloniusfleabag · July 4, 2006

Dear geoffrey,

I followed the O'Malley/school board imbroglio for some time, and could not get over the fact that he was an unmitigated ass. I had spent several years in a volunteer organization, and 1 year on the 'board of directors', so I have an inkling as to how a disruptive member can sow ill will very easily. It was my understanding that O'Malley craved disruption, and attention, to the detriment of the entire board. Further, as I understood it, he did not do what was required of him, and he mostly went to board meetings to sow discord. He attacked the people, not their policies, and wasn't known for presenting 'better ideas', but rather showing up where he wasn't supposed to, simply for press coverage for his own personal crusade. I don't know if anyone can actually say what he was trying to accomplish, except 'reform', which is a bit dubious if he was the only one in the entire city that so vehemently felt it was even needed.

There was another woman that was similar, a few years before, I believe her name was Theresa Woo-Pah. I could be wrong, but I recall her trying to be a 'one-person show' on the school board as well.

geoffrey · July 4, 2006

But does that give a right to the board to remove him, just because he's being a nusience only out for personal gain. I view Jack Layton in the same regard...

On top of that, is there any right for the board and the justice system to ban him from seeking office again? Are they afraid that his constituants will elect him back because they support him? If so, isn't that the whole point of democracy?

Barring people from running for political office is inexcusible.

Canuck E Stan · July 4, 2006

Barring people from running for political office is inexcusible.

When put on the board as a trustee, the number one function is to work for the betterment of the constituents you represent,not to fight the board on which you are a member.

Time was wasted on pettiness.

O'Malley deserved to get booted.

He forgott the reason why he was there and turned it into his personal agenda against the board.

The judge was right.

Charles Anthony · July 4, 2006

The only thing that I see wrong with tossing out Michael O'Malley is that he is still required to pay taxes to the same school board -- he can NOT opt out.

Now, to start the devil's advocacy....

Maybe the church is not a democracy,

It is not. However, in this case, it is the school board that has an issue not the Church. What is to stop the same thing from happening in a public school system?

On top of that, is there any right for the board and the justice system to ban him from seeking office again?

From the article, it really sounds like he is just being penalized: "Williams said McMahon ruled that O'Malley cannot run in the next civic election in 2007, but that he would be free to seek the seat again in 2010." He is being permitted to run again.

Are they afraid that his constituants will elect him back because they support him?

It sounds like at least one parent is on former-trustee Michael O'Malley's side. From the same article: "But parent Eric Coyle called O'Malley's ouster "a crying shame."" Who gets to speak for this parent? Nobody.

If so, isn't that the whole point of democracy?
Barring people from running for political office is inexcusible.

The whole point of democracy???? Hmm... that sounds like the topic for a different thread.... Hmmm.... maybe democracy is just the most strategic and stable tool with which to acquire power?

There was another woman that was similar, a few years before, I believe her name was Theresa Woo-Pah. I could be wrong, but I recall her trying to be a 'one-person show' on the school board as well.

Maybe she spoke for the same parent who misses O'Malley?

Time was wasted on pettiness.
O'Malley deserved to get booted.

Maybe O'Malley should count his blessings. Maybe the board should have sued HIM instead and asked for his salary back because of breaching his duties.

FTA Lawyer · July 4, 2006

As a lawyer who challenges procedures, policies and legislation for their constitutional validity, I am constantly keeping an eye out for what is usually referred to as a "test case". That is, if you want to get the courts to give you a favourable ruling on a particular issue, you want to put the best possible fact scenario forward.

Challenging the democratic validity of the Catholic School Board using O'Malley as your test case client would be foolish. Sure, maybe there were a few times that the Board was somewhat abrupt in cutting him off or unduly married to proper procedure in ruling his requests for debate as being out of order, but in the overall scheme, given his apparently virulent approach to every issue, any court in the land will rule in favour of the Board on this one...they were literally ground to a halt by his shenanigans and the only people left to suffer would have been the kids teachers, parents etc. in the system.

Due process is not absolute...you are only entitled to its full protections if you seek to participate in good faith...your bad behaviour can legally result in your loss of due process (for example, if you disrupt a courtroom...or fail to appear...your criminal trial can be conducted in your absence), and in my view (albeit as an outsider watching the news) that is what happened to O'Malley.

FTA