WRDSB - THE BIGGEST SCHOOL YARD BULLY

 

Monday, January 16, 2012

SCHOOLYARD BULLIES

Guess who's the biggest bully in the schoolyard? You may or may 

not be surprised to learn that it's the School Board themselves. 

Specifically that would be the Waterloo Region District School Board. 

This opinion of mine is shared by parents who have come up against

 the system , some very honest and courageous teachers within the 

system and finally I would suggest by Record reporter Luisa D'Amato

 in her Opinion piece in Saturday's Kitchener-Waterloo Record titled

 "Tory M.P.P.'s challenge public school board over child care". Let 

me quote her directly and you the reader decide if I'm overstating the

 case: "I covered education for many years at this paper. Sitting at

 school board meetings, I was routinely infuriated by what I saw as 

the board's culture of hostility to dissent, and it's intransigence."

"...the board's culture of hostility to dissent...". Wow that's pretty 

strong language and it's accurate. This I know from personal 

experience dealing with them when my children were young and in

 their clutches. You can't imagine my relief when both my children

 were out of high school and they and their parents no longer had to

 deal with the cowardly bullies who run our education system. My 

wife and I spent seven years in and out of Court, as a direct result of

 the School Board's refusal to deal honestly and properly with issues 

that they bore responsibility for. Although our case was thank god 

significantly less horrific than the Ron Archer case, that case is one 

that this School Board should all wear to their graves. Indeed if there

 was one iota of justice in the local education system, there would 

have been a housecleaning at the Waterloo Region District School 

Board over their grotesque and I believe criminal failure to stop that 

pedophile in his tracks. Instead the Board enabled his criminal 

activities with a well known policy of transferring teachers which

 became known as "passing the trash". As far as bullying goes, it 

is our Judicial system which enables the school Board to bully 

parents. At that time the Waterloo Region District School Board had

 an annual budget of $350 million, just slightly higher than mine (HA!).

 They used their financial superiority to beat up on dissenting parents

 via the ridiculously costly judicial system. Whether civil suits, 

provincial offences such as Trespass or whatever their gutless little 

minds could dream up, nothing was too petty or malicious for them. 

The last thing however they would do is honestly discuss, debate,

 compromise or even acknowledge when they had a problem much 

less admit a mistake. "...the board's culture of hostility to dissent 

and their intransigence.". Thankyou for this and other writings 

over the years Luisa D'Amato.

There are two reasons that I am resurrecting this decade old post of mine namely once again the Board's behaviour. Board as in the controlling mind(s) of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB). Not the Trustees. Now one and two decades ago I knew the specific names of the as..oles who were the controlling minds of the WRDSB. Often short males with an outsize ego, minimal ethics and a penchant for abusing power. Oh also cowardly and I don't think fraudulent is too inaccurate although there may well be a better word that escapes me at the moment. What I mean regarding “fraudulent” is the use of taxpayer funds for improper purposes namely paying lawyers to harass and intimidate parents or others with legitimate educational concerns and criticisms.

   Teacher Carolyn Burjowski and I believe trustee Michael Ramsay currently are on the receiving end of the WRDSB's viciousness or as reporter Luisa D”Amato calls it “...the board's culture of hostility to dissent...”. When will gutless, self-serving politicians of all stripes and levels (municipal, regional, provincial, federal) get off their butts and actually advocate for their constituents? Is the WRDSB so powerful that they are totally unaccountable? I don't think so. What an opportunity for the provincial Conservative government to step in and take a serious round out of our local board. While they're at it they might also examine why the Teachers' Union are missing in action. It is their duty and responsibility to defend unwarranted assaults upon their members which Ms. Burjowski certainly was when this started.

MORE DETAILS ON MECP CRITICIM OF LANXESS/STANTEC DRAFT RISK ASSESSMENT (RA)

 As per page 2 the Ministry of Environment (MECP) are not amused that Stantec unilaterally and without justification dismissed the MECP's suggestion that all past relevant comments and reports from the MECP be included in the Draft RA  Also as the Ministry has previously raised they would like to see post-remediation confirmatory sampling in areas of the Creek on the Lanxess site that were either capped or excavated nearly twenty years ago. 

The MECP state that   "...the exclusion of groundwater as a complete pathway for the Farmer/Resident (Table 5-2) is not supported." Apparently the Region of Waterloo had requested "... that groundwater samples from the deep-water aquifer should be assessed based on potable water limits." Furthermore certain risk management strategies by both the Region and the Township and an understanding of the risk associated with groundwater needs to be clearly communicated in the HHERA (RA)."

The MECP are unhappy with the qualitative analysis versus a quantitative analysis requested by them. This is for exposure pathways including incidental ingestion, dermal contact and also trespasser scenarios. The MECP have also made clear that they expect more sampling and delineation of the extent of contaminant impacts in the areas of higher concentrations ("hot spots"). Also exposure point concentrations are a problem for the MECP. They feel that Stantec's methodology "...is understood to be a conservative mean estimate that is representative of a central tendency estimate, however it would not be representative of a reasonable maximum estimate." Doing this would provide an indication of potential issues from the elevated concentration areas or "hotspots". 

Interestingly the MECP state that there is insufficient justification for toxicity reference values (TRV) used in the HHERA (Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment). They then advise that using the MECP's TRV values is NOT sufficient justification of TRV selection. Wow?

The Ministry (MECP) are not happy with the qualitative versus quantitative assessment of the risks associated with consumption of fish. There are concerns that there are problems with the assumptions used that may not account for the developmental and reproductive effects of dioxins/furans and hence these assumptions may not be applicable to this risk assessment. Further problematic assumptions include a lack of addressing soil-to-plant uptake. This potential pathway of  exposure through plants needs much more work. There are also issues with the consumption of free range chicken eggs and that the analysis is not adequately protective of human consumption of possibly contaminated eggs.

Lastly the MECP actually give Stantec a blast for their use of the term "acceptable" risk. They state that it is not appropriate as a risk communication language "as acceptability can be subjective to an indiviual's perspective of risk."                                                                                                                     

Between today and Tuesday's posting here we can see that the MECP are politely albeit highly critical of the Draft RA. My experience is that these criticisms and comments will be easily addressed, brushed aside, ignored or token efforts made to reduce them. Rarely does the MECP advise a polluter or his consultants that the errors and omissions are such that they should throw out their report and start over. That is unfortunate because self-serving, client driven technical reports are the norm not the exception. 

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS B/S FROM WRDSB:

SCOOL BOARD'S "DISINGENUOUSNESS" KNOWS NO BOUNDS 

Oh my did Scot Piatkowski, Katherine Woodcock and other trustees get publicly spanked or what? Check out the Youtube video of Dr. Peter Woolstencroft's Delegation to the Waterloo Region District School Board on January 24, 2022.  Please check the link below or Google: peter woolstencroft Delegation to the WRDSB 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6vy8uayog0     

I have also allegedly seen the video of Carolyn Burjowski's Delegation to the WRDSB on January 17, 2022. I neither saw nor heard any disrespect, discrimination, hatred or anything else even barely inappropriate regarding the subject of transgender people or for that matter anybody. She was however taking aim at what she, I and many others view as age inappropriate books concerning gender identity and more that is in the school library of her Kindergarten to Grade six school.  

I am truly appalled and now most certainly have my answer to the question I have had for years namely: Is the Waterloo Region District School Board as inherently corrupt now as I understood them to be twenty-five years ago? Keep in mind that my definition of corrupt may be different than yours.

Legitimate questions from the two WRDSB meetings of January 17 and January 24, 2022:

Are many of the trustees stupid or corrupt?

Do they believe everything that they are told by the WRDSB administration especially the legal advice?

Based upon the evidence I see no reason for this to go to the courts. The Board have screwed up whether out of naivete, fear, inherent stupidity or plain dishonesty or malice. It most certainly appears as if the WRDSB have a department labelled MLLAFSSP (MisLeading Legal Advice For Self-Serving Purposes). Wow the Board's arrogance has not diminished over the decades.

So who am I specifically referring to when I say the WRDSB or just the Board? Darned if I know. I keep hearing the Board of Trustees referred to as the Board and also the Waterloo Region District School Board as the Board. It's clear as mud. However there is a mind behind the Board's bullsh.t. Whatever the title I have to believe that it is the most senior fulltime staff at the Board making the decisions including the decisions to lie to trustees, the public and to parents. Now the question may be is there belief in the Board's bullsh.t versus blind, uncaring, say what I'm told to say obedience? Upon likely pain of legal action and worse. 

Four remaining questions:  

What the hell is the Agenda of the Board's controlling mind?                                                                

What is their motivation?                                                                                                                    

Where the hell is the teachers' union in all this crap?                                                                                    

 Do we as taxpayers mind our money being spent either to defend the                                                        guilty, senior employees of the WRDSB or to legally harass the innocent?

MECP COMMENTS ON DRAFT RISK ASSESSMENT (RA)

   Well the July TAG meeting was pushed back to August in order for the members to be sure to have time to read the Min. of Environment comments prior to the meeting. Well they've been available since a day or two after the last TAG meeting on June 23/22. I've actually read the report three times to date as well as high lighting many of the most important statements and the fact is I'm still unsure as to how significant the Ministry's (MECP) comments actually are. The reason is because I've been reading the Ministry's comments on technical reports from Lanxess/Uniroyal and their consultants for over three decades now and I've learned that no matter how much "concern", "criticism", "anger" is expressed by the MECP it rarely changes anything. Somehow magically all the serious flaws in Lanxess/Uniroyal reports are "addressed" when in fact they rarely are. I no longer will be surprised if at some future time we learn that Uniroyal and corporate friends have been extorting compromises from the Ministry of Environment for decades.   

   There is a two page attachment on the front of the nine page unsigned MECP report titled "Review  Comments on the draft report entitled Risk Assessment-Canagagigue Creek, Elmira, Ontario (Stantec) dated February 16,2022" . The two page attachment is signed by Jason Rice Regional Engineer MECP. It has a brief summary not of requirements but of requests hence again why I am skeptical. These requests are for a revised draft report (RA) and allegedly are "...to undertake additional human health evaluation...". These requests include:                                                                                                                                   

"* further evaluation of areas of sediment in the creek and creek bank soil where elevated levels of contaminants were found ('hot spots');                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        * further assessment of the potential risk to human health from consuming farm animals (i.e. chicken, eggs, cattle, dairy products) that may graze on the creek flood plain and could be exposed to contaminants;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      * additional evaluation of potential exposures through the consumption of fish from the creek; and,                                                                                                                                                                                  *provide additional information and assessment of groundwater" 

    The nine page report is of course more detailed and it raises some interesting questions for me including why is this RA voluntary and NOT being conducted under the regulatory requirements of Ontario Regulation 153/04. This statement is on page 1 of the nine page review and also states "For example, there are several requirements within the regulation that this risk assessment would not be fulfilling." Of course as I and other informed citizens have been discriminated against via being refused either membership in TAG OR the right to ask questions/demand answers of Lanxess/MECP/GHD/Stantec etc. then most likely these questions and others will go unanswered. 

 

WOOLWICH BIO-EN TO DOUBLE IN SIZE & TRUCK MOVEMENTS

    This is not good news for nearby Elmira residents on George St., Charles St. and Spruce Lane. Currently they are already facing more truck traffic, noise, diesel fumes and more courtesy of the recent announcement of a proposed truck parking lot on top of the former Bolender Landfill by 39A Holdings who presumably bought from the former owner who recycled auto parts (i.e. a wrecking yard). Now according to Chuck Martin, speaking on behalf of SEB Limited Partnership who purchased Woolwich Bio-En last year,  the facility had been running since 2014 "largely without the feared impacts" that local citizens (including me) had expressed back then. Off the top of my head I have heard very little concerns over the last five years with the operation although I am not a very nearby neighbour as others are.         

   As I read the article written by Steve Kannon of the Woolwich Observer titled "Increased demand has biogas facility looking to double in size", I and presumably others can not but feel somewhat betrayed. Is this just more of the bullsh.t perpetrated by our planning department, zoning legislation and politicians in general? Years ago Winterbourne residents were assured that the proposed Jigs Hollow gravel pit would be strictly an above water table gravel pit. Residents objected including pointing out how high the water table was and that there wasn't the volume of gravel available above the water table that the proponent suggested. Sure enough a couple of years after the door was opened and they were excavating if the proponent didn't go back asking for and receiving the right to excavate gravel below the water table right beside the Grand River. Once again death by a thousand cuts to our Heritage River and to local citizens quality of life.                                    

   Also according to Chuck Martin Woolwich Bio-En are not asking Council for any change in the current trucking agreement presumably with Woolwich Township. Mr. Martin feels that the current agreement will more than cover the increase in truck traffic that they would expect after expansion. Again this seems somewhat odd to me. Allegedly the initial citizen disputed agreement they received years ago for truck traffic was much higher than they have actually needed for years. Why and was this expansion forseen back then? Also the story indicates that SEB Limited Partnership will need approval via odour and noise studies from the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MECP). So does Woolwich Township have any say in this major proposed expansion or not?  

FURTHER OBSERVER PUBLISHED INFO REGARDING LANXESS'S SHAM CLEANUP & RISK ASSESSMENT

    I did not in yesterday's post include the title of Thursday's Woolwich Observer story written by Leah Gerber . It is "Community experts say Lanxess is not doing enough to address contaminated hotspots in Canagagigue Creek". That long overdue title should take some of the wind out of Lanxess's sails. It has been far too easy for them, GHD, Stantec and the MECP to sell their crap/version of events to the public.  I was  pleased  with a number of comments made by TAG members at the last virtual, public meeting on June 23/22. Not with all but certainly some by TAG Chair Tiffany Svensson and others. The fact that some (not all) of these comments made our local newspaper (Observer) is nothing short of wonderful. Please let it continue even if there are sometimes occasional and unavoidable errors. 

   The other piece of information for my readers who haven't seen and read the Observer story is the picture included. Hallelujah! Oh boy but somebody at the Observer really put it to Lanxess and the Ministry of Environment with that! It is a picture of the warning signs erected by Woolwich Township along the downstream Canagagigue Creek. They state : "CAUTION Consuming Fish Caught Here May Be Hazardous To Your Health" and the picture included shows a fish and a knife and fork inside a circle with a line running through them indicating prohibited. These signs can be found at the three roads that cross the creek downstream (east) of Lanxess/Elmira namely at the New Jerusalem Rd., Northfield Dr. and Jigs Hollow Rd. just outside West Montrose.     

   The back story to these signs is also interesting. They were erected after the Ontario Ministry of Environment refused to do it themselves. Back around late 2015 or early 2016 TAG and Dr. Richard Jackson asked the Ministry to put these signs up due to the numbers of both out of town and local people fishing in the Creek.  The MECP flatly refused with no logical reasons given. In my opinion the reasons are obvious. All they want to do is get this scandal/mess off their plate and they knew in advance that a Risk Assessment (RA) run by Lanxess and friends would do the job for them. Just like the entire environmental disaster caused by Uniroyal Chemical and enabled by gutless bureaucrats and politicians it was never about cleaning up the environment even partially, it was about giving the appearance of so doing. Hence a Risk Assessment (RA) with the veneer of scientific professionalism done by somebody other than Lanxess/GHD was just the ticket. Hence Lanxess hired Stantec and their reputation for the job.           

   So what's the problem now? The problem is that this Draft RA has clearly stated that there are no unacceptable health risks to human beings well past (downstream) the Uniroyal/Lanxess plant. Really? Meanwhile for years the public have been told otherwise by these signs (i.e. No Eating the Fish) not to mention the awkward problem that persistent and bioaccumulative toxins have been detected above health criteria for miles downstream. DDT and dioxin/furan concentrations in sediment and creekbank soils are incredibly high still even half a century after the daily dumping has ended. The Observer's TITLE, PICTURE and TEXT put the lie to Lanxess and fellow travellors who continue to deceive and endanger the public.                                                                                               

   

Community experts say Lanxess is not doing enough to address contaminated hotspots in Canagagigue Creek

BYLEAH GERBER

JUNE 30, 2022

55 VIEWS

2 MINUTE READ

WOW! THE WOOLWICH OBSERVER ARE DRAGGING LANXESS CLEANUP CORRUPTION INTO THE LIGHT

      It's been a very long wait. Literally years have gone by without that newspaper covering the games going on that pass for public consultation, community input and allegedly professional reports dealing with groundwater cleanup, DNAPLS, migrating dioxins/furans and the removal of toxic sediments and creekbank soils from the downstream Canagagigue Creek. Well better later than never although I suspect that the damage to a proper cleanup which we were promised more than three decades ago is irrevocable. As both Wilson Lau and Tiffany Svensson said at last week's  virtual TAG meeting, the Risk Assessment process will not clean up the already known "hotspots" in the Creek. They both suggested that "community concerns and acceptance" of the HHERA (Risk Assessment) might sway Lanxess Canada to do better. Concerned community members may be able to push hard enough but for that to happen those concerned community members need to be informed. That is starting to happen with the renewed interest in the issue by the Observer and with Leah Gerber's excellent reporting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     One week ago I quoted here in the Elmira Advocate the first sentence from Susan Bryant expressing her disappointment with Stantec's response to TAG's Risk Assessment concerns and comments. Reporter Leah Gerber has done the same only she included several more sentences from Susan. In its' entirety Susan said "I believe that TAG has asked for the very most meagre, doable remediation. Not dredge the creek, not stop possible sources that we may know about on the site. But simply the removal of a limited number of hotspots, all of limited extent. That's it. I had expected the risk assessment to delineate these areas for cleanup but this response to TAG's comments suggests that nothing need be done about these deposits, which science tells us are there, of persistent bioaccumulative toxins measuring orders of magnitude above acceptable levels. To me that is just not acceptable."                                                                                             

      I have not been in the habit of quoting Susan or applauding her actions since late 2007 however these comments of hers are accurate and correct including TAG asking for "...the very most meagre, doable remediation...".  Even if Lanxess does what TAG has requested it will be no more than a token "cleanup" of the creek. TAG has tacitly confirmed that during past public (virtual) discussions when they agreed to ask for remediation of ALL hotspots in the Creek not just the currently known ones.