Sunday 14th April
Ramblings
This week the emphasis will be on the problems at Thomas Gillbard School because I have been observing closely and also many people do not read the local papers and they may not be aware of the situation.     But to put this problem in context for my international readers the situation of a school closing is nothing new what is different for us in Cobourg is that this is the first one and we are upset and angry, those who decided to get bothered and the rest, as usual, couldn't care less.    The process has been long and confusing so far. The school was placed on a list, by the School Board last year, of schools that the Board wanted to close. Then a local committee was established to look at the possibility of closing the school. This committee held a series of meetings and then they made a decision, this decision was incorporated into a Staff report about the future of the school. This Staff report was reviewed at the Board level at a regular Board meeting by the full Board. The report recommended that a meeting of the Board, acting as a committee of the whole, should investigate the possible closing further and listen to local concerns on-site. We are at that point this week.
In practice the local meetings turned out to be frustrating and considered to be a waste of time by many. In the light of Government funding policy schools are funded upon the number of students that attend measured against the rated capacity for that school. A formula has been setup to give funding based on the physical layout of the school and multiplied by the students. What this means is that in the older schools , which have large classrooms and wide corridors there is a lot of 'wasted space' and non-classroom square footage will not be funded because the government will only fund 'classrooms'. Throw into the mix the enrolment of a school that has empty spaces and the Board can say that schools are under capacity and therefore should be closed because the Government does not provide enough funding to keep them open. In addition the funding formula dictates that the type of teacher that a school will get is based on student capacity, so a school with fewer students than 350 will not be fully staffed. For instance next year the staff at TGS will be: .51% of a Principal, .68% of a secretary and .24% of a Teacher/Librarian. Totally ludicrous! The Board seizes upon these bean counter's formulas and then say we have to do this (close schools) because the Government will fine us $10,000 a day if we don't balance the budget. "We can't balance the budget if we have to fund inefficient schools" is the current mantra of the Trustees.    Given that background the Trustees debated the issue of closing three schools in the Board area last Thursday evening. What really happened is that the Board debated whether to accept the reports filed by the staff that recommends the next step in the closing process. The Friends of Gillbard had organized a bus (paid for by the Town) and invited the public to go to Peterborough (a 45 minute ride) and watch the proceedings.    Arriving at the school at 5.50pm I met the the other 19 people that had taken the time to jump on the bus. We milled around and asked each other why we were going and there was a good mix of parents and citizens who did not seem to have any connection with the school - just very concerned people. Before getting on some put on the soccer strip they had borrowed from the school. A good idea it showed that TGS was represented in the crowd, it also gave Ted Amsden a good shot for the next day's news. The bus ride was as good as a ride on a yellow bus could be. I sat next to Bob Spooner and we shot the poop about things political, we were interrupted at one point by a parent who wanted to know if we should be vocal. "What can we expect when you get there?"
Arriving at the Board offices the first thing we noticed was the lineup of people trying to get into the office. Pulling into the full parking lot the sight in front of us was one of happy demonstration. A gathering of kids (from Confederation School) was singing protest songs, good choir practice, and many of the parents had signs. About 100 people all told. The CHEX TV cameras loved every minute of it. What surprised many people was that the Trustees took this time to assemble with the crowd and gladhand. Our Trustee - the wee one, Gordon Gilchrist, was one. Spotting the Trustee from Alderville, Jackie Gouvette, I took the opportunity to ask her about the process that the Board was following to close schools. Faced with the supposition that the process is rigged (see Manfred's letter of last week) I asked her why the process was still around, she answered "nobody has challenged the process at the Board level" - perhaps they should now! Anyway they could only do so much with a hostile crowd and then the lineup gathered to get into the Board room and the games began. With only 38 seats and no standing in the room allowed most of the crowd was moved into the overflow rooms where video conferencing was setup. Many local people had joined with the bus riders and there were about 45 people from Cobourg now including the fartcatcher from Galt's office - Wade Brennan. Feeding off the public trough sure has made this formerly fearless journalist a fine figure of a fellow. Those 250 lbs he carries sure look good on his 5' 8'' frame!!    After being made aware of the process for selecting the 'unannounced' delegations "Both sides have to listen and no interruptions or displays of emotion will be tolerated" we than settled down to about ten minutes of bureaucrap and the meeting moved to hear delegations. There were three: one from each of the schools that were being closed.
First up was Steven McCahon the Friends of Gillbard guy. Making the case that the Board had done very well in their efforts (awardwinning even) to alleviate poverty with school programmes and it didn't make much sense shutting down one of the most successful schools in that area. "All students needs must be considered and none to be sacrificed" Steve stated in reference to the possibility of disadvantaged students being more vulnerable to dropping out. Talking about the lack of public input being reflected in the staff report he asked the Board to consider something that the restrictive mandate of the committee failed to discuss - the boundary changes which would cure the low enrolment at TGS. And then he raised the sleeping issue that has the potential to become explosive. "CR Gummow is a French Immersion school with only 100 english pupils the 150 TGS pupils will overwhelm and change the culture of the school!" I wonder what the CR Gummow Parents's Council think about that fact? In concluding he noted that despite what the Board may think "Passion has a place in this discussion"
Then the guy talking about King Edward started. He wanted to talk about the process - it stinks and he told the Board that. He was dead on about the 'donut effect' that occurs when inner-city schools are removed from the neighbourhoods, and then he came back to the process. "This process was started by Superintendents, driven by the supers, written by the supers and all the recommendations came from the supers. In fact you can actually make up your mind in advance and tailor the report to the decisions. The thing that bothers me is that all the reports are generic, just change the name and some figures and any school can be closed by this report." He then moved on to a fact that was more obvious to all the listeners the more they listened. "Low enrolment is not a reason for closure, your data is faulty. The City is planning to build in this area (the City is applying infrastructure money to affordable housing in this area -note) and yet we will close schools. King Edward is not closing because of a lack of a gym, besides we can't control that. We have asked for a gym for many years and you haven't given us one and now to use the lack of a gym when you control that is not on!" And to a sound of roaring applause, which drew the immediate wrath of the gavel-man )"I won't tell you again displays of emotion are banned") he suggested, "One year's salary of one superintendent will keep this school open!"
The Low enrolment figures cited for closing schools became an issue with the delegation from Confederation school. Bruce Kindle suggested that the real reason for closing two schools that are not underenrolled is because the local High School is. Citing figures and records from the school he demonstrated that Confederation school is overperforming with its test scores and has more programmes and volunteers than schools slated to be kept open. "These are things that happen when schools are close to home. The problem is not Confederation and closing Confederation will not solve the problem, stop the process now"
After the delegations spoke another eleven people stood to speak for three minutes apiece. The subjects of attention were many and varied from Peter Goreski, a TGS parent, who spoke about kids having to walk nine blocks and cross three busy City streets to a woman called Gail Blatchford who complained about the Trustees lack of local knowledge. Mary Rylance from TGS got in a good point that seemed to interest progressive Trustees when she spoke about the 56 kids who access the daily breakfast programme and will be moved to a school with a non-exitent b'fast programme. That ended the session for the public to participate in and a break was taken. As usual the trustees turned to gladhanding and conversing with friendly faces and the rest of us just shook our heads and wondered just how much of an impact the public presentations actually made. During this break I collared Elizabeth Parken, a former and well respected Trustee of the Board, one of the interested public who rode the bus who told me when I asked her what she would do if she was still sitting at the big table, "I would keep it open, that's the best thing for these kids (referring to the higher than normal population of disadvantaged and higher needs kids in the school)" She fears that moving them to other schools they would be overwhelmed and be prone to dropping out. In an aside I did wonder what Gordon Gilchrist had been doing during all the presentations because as he passed me, on his way back to his seat, he muttered, "good presentation" when I hadn't made one. I put it down to nerves and the need to say something as he recognised me.
Then we encountered more bureaucrap. The reports from the superintendents were presented. Gillbard first but the rest of them would be the same. Using the overheads that we, in Cobourg, have all seen before Ron McKelvey laid out a case to close the school: better programmes exist in other schools, the resources next year will be less than this year, we can save $3.2 million over five years, the playground is too small, there is a better quality learning environment elsewhere, ad nauseum, blah blah blah. The trustees listened patiently (only they know if it was attentively) and then started to ask questions. "how accurate are the staff projections for future enrolment?" A="Within .5% over 101 schools. "How can busing costs be so low?" A="Because the bus goes past the kids now" Gilchrist still trying to gets his licks in asked, "How helpful was the Town of Cobourg in the planning process?" A="The potential new students have already been taken into consideration by the use of existing data and although Cobourg is projected to grow by 6% that is adult growth, no kids" "There were two recommendations from the committee: leave the school open and to close the school, what does this mean?" A="There was no consensus on the committee and the final decision was left to the Board" and on and on and on.
The motion was read out. Moved by the Lloyd twins (Angela and Diane - no relation except this one) It is moved to have a committee of the whole meeting in Cobourg on 24th April. This is code for "Let's vote to close the place but we have to play by the rules first" The tenor of the debate was set by the first speaker - Angela Lloyd, "What are the financial consequences of keeping the school open?" This prompted a lecture in school financing by Slick - Ron Hubbard. "We have more schools than students!" Then the real reason became apparent when Trudy Lum spoke, "The funding to Principal's and Vice Principal's envelope has decreased by $400,000 - six full time principals, how do we stay in the funding envelope if we have to fund more teaching administrators?" The Treasurer of the Board reinforced that message, "Too many small schools!" Even the new Director of the Board got in on the act by espousing her philosophy of education. "The Principal determines the school. Teaching Principals are not good, if you want to focus on student achievement support the Principals" So there you have it folks put the money into administration not the schools!!
Discussion moved on when the Trustees decided to speak. Chris Nelson (Brighton) took the first opposite opinion when he opened with, "The investigations have been based on the Funding Formula and this will be changed. I also   challenge the arbitrary nature of the mandate of the committees" he was interrupted by applause for that and the crowd was rebuked by the gavelman again. With "We need to broaden the investigation!" he concluded. Some Trustee called Mathews read out  the motion and said that he was going to support it because he wanted to hear more of the people's concerns. Then our own Trustee GG spoke. Hidebound by his version of procedure (which was painfully obvious during the committee process he said, "I provided all Trustees with a list of pros and cons. I support the motion to have a meeting, I do not support the closing of Thomas Gillbard. Problems exist in Cobourg and this does not address major problems. It will be necessary to do a review of the Town. All schools must be reviewed." A wise statement, all he has to do is convince the rest of the Board about that. In the end only three Trustees voted against the acceptance of the motion and the report. Nelson from Brighton, Gouvette from Alderville and Wilfong from Peterborough (supporting KE and Confed.) The Cobourg crowd left and we travelled back in animated discussion as all were encouraged by the prospect of yet another chance to make the case. This time determined to refute the facts as presented and with more time to do it. In an ironic comment the attitude of the evening was summed up as we came into Cobourg down Burnham St., "On your left is Terry Fox School (the school that has precipitated these problems, in the minds of some, and could be the solution if the Board wanted one and also one of the schools that TGS kids would be going to) for those who don't know!"
So what comes next? There two weeks to prepare for the Cobourg meeting, there is also a meeting of the Parents' Council Monday 15th and more after that to plot strategy and prepare statements for the public meeting. Linda Scott, Exec Asst to the Director (1-877-577-7048 ext 2006) tells me that the deadline that potential  speakers to get on the list to speak on the 24th has been extended to the 23rd instead of the usual nine days prior. This will be the last time for anybody to say something and attempt to sway the Board. The Board will be meeting as a committee of the whole and as such cannot make a formal vote but a vote to recommend action will taken that night and the confirming vote will take place at the Board on May 9th.
So is that final? Will there be further action after the 9th of May? Possibly. Some opponents are taking the local MPP and Premier Ernie Eves at their words when they say the Funding Formula will be changed. If that is the case if it is possible to move the Board away from the closing date of June then another year may be possible. So talk of injunctive action is coming from more than one source.

and another from Johanne, she must have had time on her hands this week!
Thomas Gillbard was not just emptied out overnight: all these portables at the other schools  needed building permits...what type of questions did the Spooner know it alls of the world ask???? The Town's role in accommodating these portables should also be questioned. I certainly wrote the schoolboard,and the Town (at the time of the Development Charges Act) that the Terry Fox school was built on wrong population projections. Never had an answer. They erred THEN...they are certainly erring NOW...the damage will be far greater NOW if the school is taken out of circulation. How long are building permits for??? Surely there's a time limit on temporary structures...surely the Board must have shown NEED-in the present Cobourg case, the need is no longer there.the kids can go to Gillbard-surely the Town could be playing a ROLE here...it cannot  just be put at the doorstep of the Province-The Municipality has the power to be a major player here-and it takes more than Spoonie arranging for a bus!!! When there are numbers to be played dear old Spoonie is always there.Could we ask him to play some other role,as deputy mayor? The loss of outdoor recreational space at Terry Fox is enough reason to transfer out the portables students to Gillbard-glad to see that Gilchrist's role is scrutinized......keep up the good work.

Sunday April 7th 2002, the day the clocks went forward and we all lost an hour!

Ramblings
Another public meeting this week John Clark, the OCAP guy (click here for their website), came to Town on Wednesday evening. Speaking to about 35 people, a mixture of interested social activists and a large number of the members of "Up from the ashes" a county based antipoverty group, John laid out just what OCAP has been up to these past few months for a printout of his remarks, or at least the basis of his remarks click here.    Candidly admitting that links between OCAP and organised labour have been ruptured by a difference in philosophy he has soldiered on using tactics he called "direct action casework" This method employs mass picketing and assembly at places where citizens have failed to gain access to the system. In fact OCAP has been so successful over the years that its reputation is often enough to secure a remedy with the bureaucracy. He plainly stated that "mobilisation is a serious weapon!" When he told the tale of OCAP invading an abandoned apartment building to draw attention to the fact that it should be social housing the audience applauded. The ironical fact about this tale is that some months after the event the City of Toronto bought the building for social housing! John also told of an occupation of the Doctors' Hospital for the same reason and click here for an account of the event written by one who was arrested.    For those who think that untidy and violent ends to demonstrations lead to a drop in support John countered that with evidence of increasing offers of support after each and every demo, "The more they throw at us the more we get stronger!".    All in all a very provocative meeting and one I thoroughly enjoyed.

Sunday March 31 2002. a lovely day for a resurrection!!
Ramblings

Where we left off last week,  the Thomas Gillbard School closing. This week saw two meetings, one I could get to and one I couldn't. The public meeting on Tuesday was to hear the final submissions of the public and for the committee to make a decision about the school and that was also the day that the 'flu' decided to lay me low for 36 hours. It was a good thing too for I would have been very angry and non-objective for that meeting. You see I had been 'bumped' from the speakers' list. When I queried the reason why, even though I had fulfilled all of the requirements to get on the list and having been given a time to speak (9:50pm), the bureaucrat involved just shrugged her shoulders and said, "Oh we had a request for that time from a pupil!", "I'm sorry". So goes the whole affair; driven by bureaucrats in their way in their time and at their direction. That attitude obviously spilled over into the crowd of over 100 people crammed into the library of the school, who resented it. 22 speakers all stood to explain their positions, some louder than others but all were, in the mind of the wee trustee (Gordon Gilchrist) 'confused and not aware of the facts.' "We wish to discuss the facts not emotions" said he the next day. Not even the Mayor got through to this guy, despite a bit of a shouting match that endeared him to his constituents. So not willing to prolong a long meeting in front of a very hostile audience the committee adjourned until the next day where they met again to make the decision about a recommendation to the Board. One that would be a decision Yes or No.    The next day, in the same place the same committee met to discuss the previous evening's business. This time Slick was present. Slick being Ron Hubbard a Superintentendent of something (Finance?) at the KPR Board. The first order of business according to the agenda, run by Gilchrist, was to be rational. Calling the meeting ot order Gilchrist ordered Hubbard to review the 'Facts', "I want to discuss the facts not emotions" and true to form the first fact up was how much money could be saved by shutting the place down, thus confirming in the audiences minds' that he is on a different plane than the rest of the room who wanted to still talk about humans and the impact on the community.     So Hubbard proceeds to launch into 'eduspeak' boring people with 'total envelope spending', 'base allocations', 'benchmarks, 'interdependencies' and being 'aggressively proactive'. Gilchrist then calls for a vote by all 'on the facts as presented'. Dennis Donnelly, the chair of the parents' council had the temerity to vote against the motion whereupon Gilchrist leaped forward, leaving some people in the audience to complain about intimidation, demanding that he explain "What facts do you not understand!" He complied with a well thought out response concerning comparative custodians costs and gets another lecture in board budgeting procedures from Slick. Dennis caves and we move on. After droning on for a long time about the mandate and process Gilchrist explains that a vote will be taken and only one motion is in order - the motion to close the school. "You don't need a motion to change the status-quo (the option to keep the school open) only to close it and that is what we are going to vote on" he lectured.    The two parents' council reps are stunned they had been prepared to move on a motion submitted in absentia by the community rep, Cath Oberholzer which asked that before anything gets done a study should be performed by the Board into the Cobourg area problems not just close a school. Mary Rylance, the parents rep moves that an ad-hoc committee be struck to look at Cobourg's problems. "That has nothing to do with the the mandate" snarled G ruling it out of order. Slick moves in and suggests that Mr McKelvey (another Superintendent) the writer of the report that that the Board will see, include it in his report. G calls for a vote on that and it gets accepted. By now the Principal of the school decides that she wants to talk about the 'flawed process' of the shutdown mechanism, Slick suggests that McKelvey write about that too.     Dennis Donnelly not giving in to anyone moves, "we remain open until KPR finalises local level problems" Again G strikes it out, "not germane to the motion", which by now he is waving around (a piece of paper with the motion typed on it) crying, "Anybody want to second the motion, do you want to vote or Mr McKelvey to take back both motions and a no-board report to the Board?" An obviously reluctant committee sat for a very long time in silence. Not giving up G holds up the motion and asks, "Anyone going to move this motion, for the third time!." "Mr McKelvey you have a no-board report"    Now Slick moves in to explain just what happened and to say that Cobourg's elementary school situation will be contained in McKelvey's report. When Mary Rylance tries to seize the moment and suggests making a motion to keep the school open Slick pounces, "You do that and you run the risk of sending the main motion (to close) to the Board by default. Your motion loses and the other one wins!" he announces in his own interpretation of procedure. The parents not schooled in Robert's Rules didn't know what to do and amid cries of "Take a vote!" and "we want to see you vote - have some guts!" coming from the audience, they decided not to take the risk and the afternoon's activities came to a halt as G adjourned the meeting.
However the wrinkle in this story has been set up by our local MPP, Doug Galt. At the Tuesday evening meeting he sent along his fartcatcher Wade Brennan who delivered a letter from DG to G. No-one was aware of the contents as G intended to read the letter at the end of the meeting. Halfway through the meeting, when it came to Steve McCahon's turn to speak he demanded that G read the letter. Steve even allowed his speaking time to be used. Put on the spot G had no alternative but to disclose the contents.. Well what a sleeping landmine.! The gist of the letter is that DG believes that Ernie Eves is going to change the funding formula in the near future and therefore it is possible to postpone a decision for a while. Some have postulated that Doug would not be going out on a limb on this one and has obviously got permission from the central office to say these things so therefore official endorsement of such a position is not out of line. One person in the education industry told me the next day that, "Doug Galt has told Gilchrist to back off!" We hope that is the case and to make sure that all Trustees at the Board know about the letter we should be emailing them and telling them to hold off, just as Doug Galt has suggested.

and another The Ad Hoc committee has avoided making a decision and moved that responsibility to the School Board which could have accepted the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee or gone its own way. Having members of the administration on the committee is highly unusual and was a basic mistake considering every member should be able to vote anyway his conscience or the information takes him. I would like to know who engineered that. Possibly it was Gilchrist thinking that administration members would not vote against the obvious intention of the Board.  (I think Gilchrist is the most vulnerable he has been since I arrived on the scene and that this should be taken advantage of.) So now the focus has shifted to the School Board and we should thank the Ad Hoc Committee for this since that's where the final decision will be made. Accepting this what we should do is demand that the Board hold a public meeting before it makes a decision, since it has now taken the place of the Ad Hoc Committee. There is time to do this if we all move together and do so after organizing over the weekend. If the Board does not agree to do this, we should hold a public meeting outside the Board offices at the same time as the Board is holding its own meeting on April 11 to consider the fate of Gillbard. We can prefab a stage, rig up lights, rent an amplifier, and I can make banners up to 65 ft long. Would be a great media event, I'm sure Delanty would eat it up, and the event could cover every aspect of the problem including the failure of the Harris education policies (Ben, are you listening?) "It ain't over 'till it's over."

and one about the PeeCee voting procedure Your report on the PC leadership might have mentioned one good thing about the PC voting system: the 100 votes per riding. This prevents what happened in the Alliance leadership vote, where Alberta and BC chose the leader again: 59.2% of the voting members were in those two provinces.  Under the PC system those members would only have had 19.9% of the votes. In the Ontario race, the 851 Tories in Nipissing who voted 86% for Ernie Eves on the first ballot had no more weight than the 109 Tories in Hamilton East who voted 53% for Tony Clement.  If the Tories have abandoned working-class ridings like Hamilton East to a few Alliance Party ideologues, that's the result they deserve.

What a weekend for political junkies, The voting for the Tories (replacing you know who with who knows what!) took place at the Keeler Centre in Colborne early Saturday morning. Boy are those guys (local tories) keen there were 200 lined up to cast the first ballot at 8am. Either this event was such a big thing in their lives or they wanted to eat breakfast out (the menu was a witticism: full breakfast called the Premier, middle size called Trueblue and the coffee and toast was called the Real Conservative) . Anyway there they were ballots in hand waiting to vote for their favourite candidate. A total of 463 people out of 797 registered voters put their ballots through the electronic counting machines ( I was really impressed with this technology - the true marriage of old and new and it works!).  First ballot results: Ernie Eves   230 Tony Clement   15 Jim Flaherty   144 Chris Stockwell   18 Elizabeth Witmer   46 but ten people couldn't even make marks in the right spot and spoiled their ballots. The first ballot was over by 1125 (they had to count the paper sheets again as the machine showed that two more ballots were in the box than names on the sheets. But they found the missing two people and faxed in the results. They waited and waited and waited for the official results to be faxed back to the Keeler Centre, because they weren't allowed to announce the local results until party central released all the votes. So at 2pm, one hour late, 373 people voted again. Second Ballot results: Ernie Eves   218 Tony Clement   2 Jim Flaherty   143 Elizabeth Witmer   4 This time only 6 people couldn't get it right    True to the prediction of Rick Norlock, he was scrutineering for Jim Flaherty, "I think that Jim Flaherty will surprise people here today!" the assembled Alliance members, and there were a lot of them, plumped for Flaherty. But the leadership of Doug Galt ensured that Ernie Eves carried the day. Note; the figures were supplied by Nancy Allanson, the Chief Recording Officer for the day, thanks Nancy.
Meanwhile over to the Liberals, A successful fundraiser took place at the Best Western Cobourg Motor Inn last night. The place was packed, all the candidates for the nomination spoke and much money was raised by a silent auction, and Doug Mann acquitted himself well as the MC. While we are talking about the local Liberals, I spoke to Carolyn Campbell (the ex-officio candidate) and asked about rumoured changes in her campaign team. She confirmed that she hasn't changed her style of issuing those biting press releases criticising the sitting member but the focus will change. So folks if you don't hear as much of her as you did don't blame the team just remember the focus has changed. When asked when she will change her status from ex-officio candidate to real candidate she told me that it depends on the local nominating committee. They have to file a 'nomination plan' to receive permission to have a nomination meeting, geez whatever happened to a few folks sitting down and declaring, "Let's have one next week" She also tells me that she is ready for such a meeting. In rewriting this edition later in the day I have since spoken to the President of the Northumberland Liberal Association, Denise Dudley,  who tells me that the local nomination committee will meet this week to decide on dates to be recommended to the executive. The Executive are going to meet on April 8th to approve the nomination plan and send it to Toronto. So the three candidates will have some idea of the preferred local nomination date in three weeks time. The wheels of democracy work slowly!
It should be noted that the New Democrats watched on, remember the fable of the Hare and the tortoise folks!!

Tuesday is the day! This Tuesday coming is the day that the public get to tell the wee trustee and his colleague from Port Hope (Erin Brown) what we think about the closing of the Thomas Gillbard School. In order to speak for 10 minutes one has to register with the KPR Board, if you don't you will only be allowed to speak for 3 minutes. Not wanting to speak for 10 but having more to say than 3 I phoned the KPR office and asked to be put on the list. I was given the time slot of 9.50pm, boy is that going to be a long meeting or what? The cynics who think that the fix is in just nodded when an interview with the Board chair revealed that he thinks the Town, who is opposing the closure, is blowing smoke because he thinks the school is going to close. Well thanks a lot Bob Willsher you are supposed to have an open mind, at least have the courtesy to listen to what concerned parents and residents have to say before you open your trap. Just can't wait for Cobourg's dollars to be shipped down to your burg (Clarington) to build your fancy new school can you?

Sunday March 10th
Column 41

Ooops I forgot,  I have been reminded that I didn't print a couple of letters that I have received over the last few weeks, well here they are. Click on the red and go to the Dear-Ed page.

The problem is that this release lost some of its sting when Galt apologised for his remarks the next day. He should have known that "Central" would have stomped on him when even his bumbuddy John O'Toole distanced himself from the remarks.

INTERROGATION AT US BORDER   My name is (removed for fairness) and I am an Organizer (removed for fairness). In the early afternoon of February 19th, 2002, I crossed the international bridge between Sarnia, Ontario and Port Huron,  Michigan. I was on my way to a speaking engagement that had been set up by students at Michigan State University.

  When I pulled up my car at the customs booth, the officer asked where I was bound and I told him. He wanted to know on what basis I was asked to speak and whether I would be paid. I replied that I was with (removed for fairness). and that I had been told by the organizers of the meeting that an honourarium would be provided as was normal. The officer was concerned that this meant I was coming into the US to work. Of course, people on both sides of the border accept speaking invitations all the time on this basis and the issue of a work permit is never raised. At this point, the matter was nothing that could not have been rapidly cleared up if I had been on my way to address a business seminar or deliver a lecture on self awareness.

  As instructed by the officer, I parked my car and made my way into the  offices shared by customs and US Immigration. As soon as my ID was run through the computer, there was a marked change in the situation. An officer asked me more questions about my intentions in the US, what anti globalization protests I had attended and whether I opposed the 'ideology of the United States'. My car was  searched and I was taken into a room and thoroughly (though not roughly) frisked. I was then told that I would be denied entry to the US and that  the FBI and State Department wanted to speak to me. Agents were on their way from Detroit I was told.

  After about an hour and a half, a man entered the 'controlled reception' area that I was being kept in and passed by me into the inner offices. He was carrying a big folder and a pile of files. It struck me that he carried them the way a highly skilled worker might carry his or her precision tools. He spent some time in discussion with the local officers and then I was brought into an interrogation room to deal with him. He introduced himself and gave me his card. His name was Edward J. Seitz of the State Department of the United States Diplomatic Security Service and his rank was Special Agent. I found him to be an impressive and fascinating character.

  Seitz, with the backing of another local officer, interrogated me for some considerable time. It was not a situation like an arrest by Canadian police where silence is the best option. Had I refused to talk to him, I did not doubt that he would order me detained and that it would be some time before the Canadian consular authorities came into the picture. If I was to avoid at least several days in detention, I determined that I had no option but to answer his questions. It was immediately obvious to me that I was dealing with a specialist in interrogation methods. He told the admiring locals at one point that he had been stationed in Yemen and I avoided speculating on how he had employed his talents there.

  Seitz's basic strategy, apart from general intelligence gathering, was  to try and set me up to tell him something false that would place me in the situation of violating US law. He began with some very basic questions on my personal background, extremely affable in his manner and striking a pose of mild confusion that was designed to make me underestimate him. He then asked about (removed for fairness).. He told me it sounded like we were good people but he had heard something about an organization that a year or so before had been involved in a confrontation with the police at the Ontario Legislature. That wasn't us  was it? The trap was clear and I told him that we were indeed that organization. His affable manner then vanished and his difficulties in focusing his thoughts ended. He gradually moved his chair over so we were right up against each other and fired questions at me. He wanted to know about the June 15, 2000 March on the Ontario Legislature where the Toronto police attacked a march against homelessness that we had organized.  He wanted to know about charges that the police have laid against me. He wanted to know how (removed for fairness). is structured and who are the members of its elected executive committee (which I refused to tell him).

  Seitz then took up the question of (removed for fairness) friends and allies in the US. Are we involved in anti globalization work. Isn't this a cover for anarchism? Was I personally an anarchist or a socialist? (In the interests of anti capitalist unity, I won't say which one of these I acknowledged I was). Seitz had a huge file on (removed for fairness). with him that included leaflets from public speaking events I had been at in the US. He knew the name of the man I stayed with the last time I was in Chicago. He wanted to know who I spoke to in the Chicago Direct  Action Network. He claimed that I was an advocate of violence and that my association with DAN showed this but (in a rare stumble) could find nothing in their literature that proved that they call for violence.

  This phase of the questioning went on for a long time. He covered a great deal of ground and had at his disposal voluminous information on us. He, obviously, had been in contact with the Canadian police but was most interested on our US allies. The exception was an enormous interest in Canadian anti capitalist activist, Jaggi Singh. He knew that he and I had spoken at the same meetings and was most anxious to find out if he was also in the US. He showed me a picture of Jaggi and wanted to know where he was at that moment.    Suddenly, the mask of affability went back on. I was a 'gentleman' and he didn't want to lock me up. I was ok but he couldn't understand how I worked with a 'violent man like Mr. Singh'. Then he told me he would have to ban me from the US but I could go to the US Consulate in Toronto and apply for a waiver. I could just take a seat in the waiting room while they prepared  some paper work but I would soon be on my way. I had not been sitting out there long, however, before the Special Agent came out to try a new tack that I had heard of in the past. Essentially, his plan was to make me think he was utterly mad and, thereby, rattle me to the point where I lost my judgement. I assume the method works better if it is used after serious sleep deprivation.  He came over and sat next to me right there in the waiting area with other people around. He had a few (removed for fairness) cheques that he asserted showed I was bringing  with me the means to live illegally in the US. I was going to jail, he asserted. I explained that the cheques were in my bag because I always kept a few with me to cover the cost of office supplies and suchlike and that I had seen no reason to take them out just because I was going to spend a few hours in Michigan.

  Then came the most astounding part of the whole interrogation. Out of the blue, Seitz demanded to know where Osama Bin Laden was hiding. I knew were he was, he insisted. If I grew a beard I would look like Bin Laden. I was holding back on telling him why I was going to the university and who I was going to meet there. If I didn't want to go to jail, it was time to tell him the real story. I replied that I had been quite open with him about my intentions and that sending me to jail was now up to him. He laughed, told me there were no problems. I could go home after all. Did I drink tea of coffee? Would I have a coffee with him if he came up to Toronto. I told him I would, which was the only lie I told that day, and he gathered up his files and left.

  Shortly after this, the local officials gave me the free ticket for the bridge which is the only perk that comes along with being denied entry to the US and, a little over five hours after coming over, I headed back to the Canadian side.

I censored that report because knowing attitudes the way I do most people wouldn't have read past the fellow's name without blaming him for who he is instead of saying that all citizens are entitled to the same treatment. I just hope that you all read this with an open mind and were as outraged as I was when I first read it.

previous editions are contained here (the archive)