 By Pepper Parr
May 26th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
 Town Crier David Vollick gets the announcement meeting off to a good start. For $4.5 million – he really rang that bell. The cheque was just short of $4.5 million but the happy faces at the Joseph Brant Museum this morning were not quibbling.
 Barbara Teatero, Executive Director Museums of Burlington A project that started 22 years ago when the first report was produced and became the life work of Barbara Teatero was made real with the federal government announcement that the renovation – rebuild of the Museum is now funded.
It is going to cost considerably more than $4,479,000 to do all the work that is planned but without the federal money the project was never going to break ground.
 John Doyle  Larry Waldren John Doyle and Larry Waldron wore smiles that came close to lighting up the room that had 40+ people crammed into it while Town Crier Dave Vollick rang his bell and proclaimed the way only Vollick can proclaim that the museum was going to go through a significant change.
Construction schedules are being worked out – tenders will have to be let and scheduling completed.
Allan Magi had to tell city council a number of months ago that he was faced with a very challenging problem – organizing the construction without knowing for certain that the money was in the bank.
The Capital Works department will now be able assemble the internal team and begin with a project that will add another cultural destination for people who choose to visit Burlington.
 Architect’s rendering of what the new Joseph Brant Museum could look like when it opens. The new museum will have triple the space of the existing facility; the hope is that the space will be able to attract top tier travelling exhibits to the city.
While the politicians were doing what they do with words Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven cast a glance toward Doyle and raised an eyebrow and tipped his head – they had pulled it off.
 Those waters were the view that Joseph Brant had each morning when he stepped out of his house that was on what he described as Burlington Bay. That path in the middle of the picture was once a two track railway line into the town. It was a big day – it will take a couple of years to get to the Opening Day – and a fitting one for Joseph Brant who made Burlington his home for the last years of his life.
What will he think when the new Museum is opened?
 By Pepper Parr
May 24th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Steve Armstrong is an engineer by training working in the field of software development.
He hasn’t gotten much of his day job work done recently – he has become consumed by the machinations and the flow of information that has taken place during the public discussion of whether or not high schools in Burlington should be closed and if so, which schools and for what reasons.
 Steve Armstrong Last week Armstrong and Denise Davy met with “policy advisors at the Ministry of Education and had a good discussion with a few people. Afterwards we also met up with couple of NDP MPPs, Monique Taylor (Critic, Accessibility and Persons with Disabilities and Critic, Children and Youth Services) and Peggy Sattler (education critic).
Monique and Peggy both suggested keeping the heat up on our MPP, Eleanor McMahon.
Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon and Minister of Education Mitzie Hunter have been closely following this process and apparently have had meetings with a number of Board people.
Armstrong said he was told “the province won’t intervene at this time because a decision hasn’t been made, and they want to respect the process”, BUT they do agree it’s better for everyone involved if the correct decision gets made in the first place. Since that lies with the Trustees at this point we need to keep informing them of facts in play.
“What I would like to see is Eleanor and Mitzie facilitating a meeting with the Trustees to allow some reasoned voices to talk to gaps in the process. Perhaps this could be the PARC members in direct dialogue with the Trustees but either way the Ministry resonated with my concern about a lack of meaningful engagement.”
Armstrong reflects the widely held public view that the first Public meeting in December did not fulfill its goal but rather made things worse….”it was a live survey with poor questions and allowed no dialogue with attendees.”
The PARC meetings went from a focus on decisions about what options to remove early on to finally talking about creative ideas at the last meeting…completely backwards.
 Steve Armstrong with Cheryl DeLught Armstrong maintains that Director of Education Stuart Miller had told students that PARC members would be engaging with them. But that morphed into a survey which PARC members were denied participation in setting up questions that we might want.”
Armstrong adds that “staff were left out of this important process, and although apparently a heavily redacted set of comments have been made available to Trustees that was done after the PARC was disbanded so there was no chance of building on their input.
Armstrong said there has been no meaningful engagement with the city.
He adds that the second and third Public meetings were constructed differently than what the PAR committee had been told would happen.
 Functional breakouts (Finance, Building services etc) in which all Options where present didn’t meet the needs of the parents. “We were told it would be a short presentation up front followed by stations focused on individual options to be interactively discussed with the public.
“Instead they skipped the presentation and went with functional breakouts (Finance, Building services etc) in which all options where present. Overall it lead to a lack of cohesion.”
Armstrong reports that the Ministry was also concerned when it learned that not all Trustees have visited the schools in play. “I’m lead to believe” said Armstrong “that there has been discussion with the four Burlington Trustees and the Ministry/MPP but think all 11 need to be reminded of their duties and expectations with regard to engagement.”
It is time for the trustees to step up to the plate and be responsible and accountable to the people that elected them. At the last Information session of the Board we had a trustee with two schools that are in play, with one threatened with closure asking questions of Board staff about a school that wasn’t even in her ward.
Another trustee was in the que for asking questions and when it came to her turn she had forgotten what her question was.
 Amy Collard eye-balling Stuart Miller This is irresponsible behavior from people who are desperately needed to act on behalf of their constituents and not be so cozy with the Director of Education. He is accountable to them, something that Stuart Miller fully understands and will respond to – the trustees have to set the bar – they have yet to do so.
The exception is Ward 5 trustee Amy Collard – she has been relentless with not only Miller but every other staff member she has put questions to.
The other trustees can learn about what it means to hold staff accountable.
The Board will continue the meeting that was recessed last week on Wednesday (tomorrow) at 6:00 pm. The meeting will be live webcast. Steve Armstrong thinks he just might drop in.
 By Pepper Parr
May 23rd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
We published a statement about meetings Director of Education Stuart Miller was said to have had with Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon.
No such meetings took place.
Miller did have conversations with McMahon, by telephone and they lasted a five or so minutes. McMahon had questions about the process.
We have already apologized to Director Miller and will make our apologies to MPP Eleanor McMahon. There were extenuating circumstances – it was a long holiday weekend and people were not available. That doesn’t excuse the error we made.
The information we were given was false, and known to be false by people working to keep Bateman open. One, a former journalist, knows better than to make comments that she knew or should have known were false.
The other person the information came from was described in the article as a less than reliable source.
Stuart Miller said he and his staff changed their recommendation when they learned the full Central high school story and that their information came from the information that came out during the PARC process and documentation the Central parents made available to the board.
The Central enrollment, while not as high as the Board would like it to be, is understood to be stable.
“To close Central and have 600 students on buses every day would seriously jeopardize the educational experience these students would have and add close to $500,000 a year to transportation costs that they board already knows are going to increase” said Miller
“Closing central would not have done anything to enhance the educational experience.”
The projected Central enrollment was seen as stable. “And we did not make any allowance for whatever intensification might do for either Central or Aldershot: said Miller.
“We changed the recommendation when we learned the full Central high school story.”
By Pepper Parr
May 23th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
There were errors in an earlier version of this article. Corrections have been made. A link to the circumstances that led to the errors appears at the end of this article. The Gazette regrets its mistakes.
Some of the back channel meetings that are reported to have taken place are beginning to come to the surface.
Ontario’s Minister of Education Mitzi Hunter has managed to make time for two lengthy meetings with delegations from Burlington.
 Denise Davy Denise Davy and Steve Armstrong met with the Ministry officials last including two policy advisors last week and a representative from the office of Burlington MP Eleanor McMahon. That meeting lasted about an hour.
Cheryl deLught and Steve Armstrong Davy works with the Bateman parents, Armstrong was a member of the Program Accommodation Review (PAR) Committee representing Pearson high school.
Closing both schools is part of the revised recommendation Director of Education Stuart Miller sent to the trustees.
More than 50 people delegated to the trustees earlier in the month. The trustees are now in the “information” stage – the last step before they meet June 7th to make their decision. The information session, a meeting where the trustees get to ask questions of the Director and his staff took place last week; that meeting was recessed until Wednesday of this week. They were not able to complete their questions before 11:30 pm when everyone just wanted to go home.
The final decision is made by the 11 trustees.
Among the issues discussed at the meeting with Davy and Armstrong and the Minister of Education was a reported request for a “cleaner, scandal free process”. Both parents wanted to get the Bateman and Pearson arguments before the Minister of Education and point out to her that they felt the whole PAR process was flawed.
Flawed it may be – but the decision making power is with the elected trustees and that process has to follow its natural course.
It is clear now that the trustees are struggling with the recommendation that was sent to them by the Director of Education.
Where things get interesting is with the meetings that took place in March when Central high school parents trooped to Queen’s Park and demonstrated in front of the Legislature.
 Marianne Meed Ward at a Queen’s Park media event with Leader of the Opposition Patrick Brown Brown. Meed Ward then held a press conference with leader of the Opposition standing beside her while she complained about the flawed PAR process.
Meed Ward then had a lengthy meeting (reported to have lasted two and a half hours) with the Minister of Education and Burlington MP Eleanor McMahon.
Managing to get two Ministers into the room for a lengthy meeting is not easily achieved.
 Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon. When the Director of Education changed his recommendation – he hasn’t given a reason for the recommendation change – the Bateman parents began to mobilize and tell their story.
The obvious argument for closing Bateman is that it is 1.9 km from Nelson. There is much more to the Bateman story than its distance from Nelson.
Many had serious concerns over the appointment of Meed Ward to the PARC. If the expectation was that she would deliver for the Central high school parents, she appears to have done so.
Many Bateman parents refer to a comment from a Central parent who said: “We continue to believe that Central is not the problem; the problem lies in the southeast end of the city where Nelson and Bateman have significantly overlapping catchments, 1.9 kilometres apart on the same street, and Bateman has declining enrolment….”
One of the reasons for the PAR being held was that there were too many empty seats in six of the seven high schools – with the seventh, Hayden high school, operating at 130% + capacity.
Many argue that the building of Hayden is the reason the problem of all those empty seats exist.
The decision to build Hayden was made in 2008 when Peggy Russell, a perennial NDP candidate, was a Halton District school Board trustee.
 Peggy Russell former NDP candidate and a Halton District School Board trustee – she served as vice chair for a period of time. Russell, who says she was never a push over for Staff, said she felt a need to speak out, saying “you know there is a great deal more to this whole picture than meets the eye and staff are not the ones you should be looking at here, nor should they be vilified in this manner, the individuals who set all this in motion should not be allowed to become a Hero in this whole debacle, it is really very simple.”
The Gazette was not able to actually speak to Ms Russel – the communication was via email.
Did Miller meet with MPP McMahon? He did not. As the MPP McMahon would want a briefing from the Director of Education.
 Stuart Miller during a Q&A that took place on-line. Did McMahon influence Miller so much that he changed his recommendation? She did not.
Miller has said in the past that the recommendation to close some of the high schools in Burlington should have been made years ago – today he certainly wishes that had been done.
Has Meed Ward delivered for the central parents? – most certainly. Has that accomplishment hurt her desire to become the Mayor of Burlington? – only time will tell.
The issue right now is ensuring that the 11 trustees have all the information they need and that they have the wisdom to decide what is best for the city of Burlington.
Related article link
Gazette erred.
By Staff
May 22nd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Jeremy Skinner, a Ward 5 resident with three students enrolled at Robert Bateman delegated to the Halton District school Board trustees and set out before them what his view of the issue before them was: “The challenge before us is how to maintain student equity in the delivery of programs and opportunities when student enrollments change.”
 Jeremy Skinner “I believe that the question before us is whether we have sufficient capacity amongst MM Robinson and Dr. Frank J. Hayden to permit the closure of Lester B. Pearson and whether we have sufficient capacity below the QEW to close Robert Bateman?”
Skinner said he felt “obligated to suggest that we “punt” by partitioning some or all remaining Secondary Schools to include students in Grade 7 and 8 like Aldershot and Burlington Central. This will have a positive affect on each Secondary School’s utilization rate which will buy us sufficient time to validate what our ultimate Elementary & Secondary School Network should look like and how best to transition to it.”
The benefits doing this include:
protects capital and staff investments which have already been made at Robert Bateman and Lester B Pearson.
provides flexibility in the board’s capacity response to spikes in future enrollments in Burlington North by enabling three Secondary Schools to respond.
Benefits Grade 7 & 8 students through exposure to a wider range of programs and opportunities such as the technical trades at an earlier grade.
Implications:
Current elementary school catchment boundaries will need to be reassessed and redrawn as required.
Current secondary school catchment boundaries will need to be reassessed and redrawn as required.
Elementary schools may result in underutilization and thus may have to close.
Skinner added that “In the case of Lester B Pearson, I believe that the short-term risk for closure is too high because too much is dependent upon redirecting student enrollments associated with Dr. Frank J. Hayden to other Burlington-North Secondary Schools. I believe that this risk could be mitigated through Trustee led community discussions to seek agreements for student enrollment to Burlington-North Secondary Schools.”
Skinner then enlarged his field of view and said: “We need to consider the City of Burlington’s revised Official Plan, currently in draft, which identifies 8 major areas of intensification. They are:
 The city’s latest approach to directing growth. the Downtown Core and related Downtown Mobility Hub;
Uptown Centre located at Appleby and Upper-Middle Road;
Mobility Hubs which surround the Aldershot, Burlington and Appleby GO stations;
The Fairview St. Corridor, and
Most major plazas
The intent is to provide for mixed-use of residential, retail and commercial development of these lands. This will likely take the form of:
relocating the bulk of ground level parking underground or into multilevel purpose built parking towers;
locating retail and/or commercial on the ground and lower floors which comprise the podium of mid-height and high-height residential buildings; and
integrating townhomes and/or stacked townhomes.
An illustration as to what is envisioned, can be found on the east side of Appleby Line from Corporate Dr. to Iron Stone Drive, just below Upper-Middle Rd. Please note that most of these areas of intensification are in South-Burlington. Regardless as to location, they must be considered in future Long Term Program Accommodation (LTPA) plans.
 Appleby Line from Corporate Dr. to Iron Stone Drive, just below Upper-Middle Rd Given the information above, Skinner “questions as to whether we will have sufficient capacity in South Burlington in the longer term to warrant the closure of Robert Bateman which is best positioned to serve the proposed Appleby GO Mobility Centre.
He suggests “Partitioning Secondary Schools permits us to restore some of the Secondary School catchments back to what they were prior to the erection of Frank J. Hayden which covers North-East Burlington. Then we would adjust each Secondary School catchment to accommodate our best forecast of student enrollments from new residential neighbourhoods.
 Should the Boar of Trustees go along with what the Director of Education has recommended Bateman high school would be closed, demolished and the programs they deliver would be distributed to other high schools. “Regardless as to which, if any, Burlington Secondary Schools are to close, I believe we are dependent upon HDSB to ensure that current students who are most vulnerable to change and those who seek a career based upon Technical Trade Skills.
“Accommodation of these students and their programs will require significant investments to any Secondary School which is to receive them.
 Many of the programs currently offered at Bateman high school would be transferred to Nelson high school. New facilities would have to be built – at a cost of $12 million “I seek clarification for the statement made that “ Nelson will need to add technical shops and special need facilities to accommodate students transitioning from Robert Bateman.”
Skinner concedes that “that we have some uncomfortable decisions to make. The decision to even contemplate the closure of one or more secondary schools has a significant impact to the community fabric.”
By Pepper Parr
May 18th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
With two evenings of delegations behind them the 11 trustees began their own deliberations and Amy Collard headed straight for the recommendations that were put forward by Stuart Miller, Director of Education who was a bit taken aback – he thought he was there to defend his report and here was a trustee wanting to change it before the meeting had hardly started.
 Trustee Amy Collard was not happy – Director of Education Stuart Miller was not all that interested in answering her first barrage of questions – he anted to defend his report. If looks could kill! It was that kind of a night – one that began at 7:00 pm and adjourned at 11:15 after agreeing that it wasn’t going to be an adjournment but rather a recess until May 24th.
Trustee Danielli had had more than enough, Collard said she could go until 6:00 am if she had to.
There was a point in this process where the recommendation the Director put forward to close Bateman and Pearson high schools had momentum; that is no longer the case.
That doesn’t mean what Miller recommended is lost – but these trustees are asking some hard questions and they want answers.
Wednesday evening they did engage the six delegations that were heard and they had a lot of questions.
One point that was made clearer – a decision to close a school does not mean that it gets sold. In order to sell a school there has to be a vote to declare it surplus – then it can be sold. While Miller didn’t spend a lot of time on that point he did say that Boards have been known to keep a school closed but as part of the asset inventory.
That might be the angle the trustees decide they can live with.
Pearson PARC members Cheryl DeLught and Steve Armstrong were not on the demonstration line but they were very much in the public gallery Wednesday night. Armstrong has not given up on saving Pearson. Trustee Danielli asked Planning Manager Dom Renzella about the recently released 2016 Statics Canada numbers and he said that the Board doesn’t pay much attention to that data because it is a look at what has taken place – his concern was what was going to take place.
Later in the evening Renzella used Statistics Canada to support a decision made.
The trustees are finding the going quite heavy but they are clearly in for the long hall and are going to make a decision based on what they heard from the delegations and how the Director and his team of Superintendents answers the questions.
Early in this process – back in October, Bateman was a school that was not being considered for closure. That changed and the public began to see and hear the Bateman story that was unknown to most people except those directly involved.
Their was concern about how any transition might take place if the Bateman high school was closed. The trustees were told that the Board has gotten very good at transitioning students and they would do an even better job if they had to move vulnerable people from Bateman to Nelson.
This decision on school closing is far from a slam dunk – it is still very fluid.
 There was a rally outside the Board offices – bigger this time than anything else before it – maybe it was the warmer weather. This time it was just the Bateman parents; the Central parents won their case and they are staying right off the radar screen.
PARC member Marianne Meed Ward, also city council member for ward 2 put in an appearance.
Much more to report on.
 By Tom Muir
May 17, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom Muir has been a relentless commentator who asked the hard questions and pressed even harder for answers and the information he felt the public was not getting.
Today – he writes the 11 Halton District School Board trustees outlining their role and the obligation they have to the public that elected them. Muir delegated to the Trustees last Thursday
Dear Trustees,
I have been considering the experience I observed on the evening I delegated to you and wondering how you are going to move forward in the delivery of your duties and responsibilities.
 Tom Muir Frankly, there is scarce evidence of your views or intentions in debating this report toward making decisions, and I find this troubling.
This week, May 17, as you know, there is another tabling of the Director’s final report, a formality for final decision on June 7. However, this tabling really only begins your task of, and responsibility for, a transparent and accountable decision-making process. I cannot delegate in person, so please accept this as a written delegation for the record.
This information report tabling allows for your opportunity for deep questions, analysis, and for motions and resolutions for amendments and changes to the Director recommendations.
I have troubling questions about how strong the Trustees are in decision-making in this political context, and if there are any Trustees who will say no to the Director and Board.
I have provided much information, analysis and commentary on this matter, so you should be familiar with this body of evidence, and what it says about the PAR process so far.
The Board and the Director constantly worked at obstructing my efforts to engage the process and investigate the Conditions 1 and 2 that formed the justification for the PAR.
My requests for relevant information were constantly ignored and/or refused. I was forced to go to the Office of Information to request pertinent information, and then I was subjected to more obstruction.
The information I was able to get, which I have provided to you, gives evidence-based proof that the state of utilization that the Board cites as Condition 1 was knowingly and deliberately caused by the Board.
It’s irrefutable that the declines in utilization of those schools are planned declines, the direct result of Board actions.
I’m having problems with how you are portraying the utilization of the schools, like it’s due to natural causes and demographics, and therefore that’s the problem, not the Board’s intention and action. You have been doing this for most of the time since this all started. This misrepresents the situation, and is not truthful.
As I said in my delegation of May 11, utilization in Burlington was planned and directed so as to fill a NE Burlington school (Hayden), and the evidence clearly shows that this was done by choking the life out of 4 of the 6 existing Burlington schools, with premeditation.
 Steve Armstrong graphed data showing that the changing of boundaries and limiting the feeder school is what put the Pearson high school at risk of closing. The current UTZ was planned long ago, and imposed by the Board – it didn’t just happen by itself. I have provided proof of this in the data.
But rather than getting to the bottom of how to fix the underlying causes, the Board focused on stopping release of pertinent information to me and the public, including forcing me to submit an FOI request, and even then further obstructing and refusing the release of information.
The current situation of low utilization was caused by the Board, and only by them. Refusing to be transparent and accountable for this is the big lie of the Board.
Now using this PAR, the same Board is now blaming the victims, and recommending that two of the six victims be sacrificed by closure.This recommendation by the Director came right at the start of the PAR, with no public discussion.
To decide the closures, the victims were pitted against one another, a process still ongoing, but it didn’t matter. After a long process the Director still wants his two victims.
His reasons are not the true context, but as they say, if repeated over and over again, people will eventually believe it.
For truth in your deliberations, you have to note each time that you discuss utilization, that the rates of UTZ are the result of a conscious decision by the Board, and implemented in their planning by building Hayden and putting 1500 students there from the other schools and their feeders, causing the planned declines in UTZ in those schools.
Now, as the result of these known consequences, they want to close schools to make it up, and that’s part of their plan too.
There is no accountability, and I think that’s part of the Trustees job to call out, but it’s not evident.
What I have seen is a general administrative failure of transparency and accountability by all the Board, and a failure to show visible oversight on the part of the Trustees.
Do you plan on doing anything to correct this misrepresenting slant, and the failure of accountability?
 Halton District school Board Director of Education Stuart Miller The Director’s report also speaks of Condition 2 for the PAR. This mentions that the PAR will address questions of equity of opportunity for students, but I see no concrete problem analysis, or details of solutions.
The report also states that “reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities.” Please note that the Condition 2 uses the action words “could enhance”. It does not say “will” and so guarantees and specifies nothing.
There is no transparent and accountable information provided by the Board indicating any details of the delivery of this Condition 2 aspect of the PAR. There are only abstract assumptions, and ideology, that larger enrollments and schools allow for this. This assertion is disputed by education studies, and by parents and students in Burlington.
I repeat the point made about how much the financial operating savings are with closures of empty spaces. The $2 million operating cost savings is the only operating funding that is spent on maintaining empty spaces. Since there is no increase in budgets for instruction, more programming cannot come from there,
The PAR Policy statement says that; “Decisions that are made by the Board of Trustees are in the context of carrying out its primary responsibilities of fostering student achievement and well-being, and ensuring effective stewardship of school board resources.”
I remind the Trustees that you will be closely watched to see how your decisions fulfill these duties and responsibilities, in a transparent and accountable way.
 Bateman I ask you to demonstrate how closing Bateman fosters student achievement and well-being in our most vulnerable, and needing of extra support, children? After seeing some of these kids at the delegations, I don’t know how you could in good conscience close their school for so little savings and so much cost, as the most expensive option.
And show me how removing the possibility of the small school experience of Pearson, with the integrated day-care facility, fosters the same things, while providing a test of the real validity of the large school ideology currently dominating the Board planning and design.
And I look forward to you showing me how you equate the ensuring of effective stewardship of school board resources with the closing and loss of 2 of Burlington’s community schools, and the gain of practically nothing of significance in the financial and fiscal condition of the Board. The ignoring of future growth needs, and social changes, is especially reckless regarding closure induced over-utilization, and risks of pressure for renewed future schools and capital needs.
 Dr. Frank J. Hayden High School Remember again, it was the Board that created this problem in a planned, deliberate way, and this added cost of school closures in this deliberate plan, in building Hayden, must not be swept under the rug in an attempt to forget it. That is what I see happening now.
I argue that based on demonstrated benefits to student achievement, and stewardship of school board resources, now and in the foreseeable future, there is no case to close any schools. There are simply no demonstrated financial gains in closing schools, thereby destroying the community of Burlington schools, to provide any meaningful benefits. This is the truth of the matter.
Indeed, it is always in the best interest to deliver and act on the truth, because there is no telling what harm will come of leaving out these details in the future. That’s really what happened by leaving out the truth of Hayden’s impact, so please, let’s not compound that mistake by closing schools.
At bottom, we are not only dealing with numbers or dollars, but instead with children, and essentially the future of our community. This makes our decisions much more important than just taking care of business.
The trustees have within their authority the means to move boundaries, feeders, and programs in order to undo the skewed enrollment caused by building Hayden without considering the consequences.
Hayden was built and filled with students by transfers from existing schools that can just as easily be undone.
 The Halton District School Board trustees in session In conclusion, the Trustees do not have a pressing need to close schools, and it appears that on planning, financial, fiscal, risk, student benefits from demonstrated significantly enhanced academic offerings as opposed to known negative impacts, the real net economic effects looked at closely, and the impacts on the overall school community, it makes no sense.
If you happen to disagree with this assessment, it is your responsibility to demonstrate your reasons in a transparent and accountable way.
By Pepper Parr
May 16th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Any plans to close Lester B. Pearson high school are complicated. A small school with enrollment at 30% below the expected utilization level happens to be the home of the Pearson Cooperative Nursery school, an operation that has been around for more than 40 years and operated very successfully.
In her delegation last week Fiona Wielhouwer was pretty blunt: “ We are here tonight to ask some important questions that have yet to be answered.”
 Secure secluded playground for the nursery students – with a nice patch of forest yards away. The nursery is funded by the city to some degree and by the fees it charges patents. The building it is in – is owned by the school Board but a lot of the capital costs were paid for by the city and the city provides ongoing financial support.
“Our first concern: said Wielhouwer is the agreement between the City of Burlington and the school board. The community space where the nursery school is located, as well as the third gym (a double gym is typical for a school Pearson’s size), was built cooperatively with capital investments from both the city of Burlington and the Halton School Board. The community had input into the use of the space and the Integrated Community School partnership initiated Pearson Cooperative Nursery school.
“The nursery has had a long standing partnership with the City of Burlington, not the HDSB, for our space. The city paid for part of the community room and the expanded size of the gym, for which the city has an operating agreement with the school board that hasn’t expired – how can that be agreement be broken for the strategic purposes of the school board? Why should the city and taxpayers allow this to happen?
Wielhouwer addressed the issue of rent paid for the space and said “We are not ‘getting away’ with not paying rent. The agreement for the community space that our nursery school occupies gives the city, not the school board, authority to establish the use, policy, regulations and scheduling of the community space.
Despite what some may have been lead to believe, it is not for the Board to charge us rent or a user fee. The city has acknowledged this. The spirit of this agreement was to have a community space that was used by and benefitted the community, which it has for 40 years.
Wielhouwer questions the availability of funding for a potential new space, the timing, and whether the nursery would actually fit the criteria for funding. “This is a major question” she adds. Any funding for a new preschool space would be provided to meet only the minimum requirements from the Ministry…a new classroom would shrink to half our current size and our playground would be diminished by over 50% We also estimate the cost of just the move to be over $22 000.
She adds that: “In addition, over the past 10 years, the nursery has spent $71,000 on capital improvements to the space. Would we be reimbursed for this spending that we would be forced to leave behind?. The financial implications of a move could cripple our non-profit organization.
“This concern has been brushed aside by board staff stating that there would be funding available. Relocation is not a simple solution, and as a small organization run by a board of volunteer parents, we cannot count on an undefined source of funding, nor can we afford moving and remuneration costs. If our worst fears should come to pass…and we are forced out of Pearson and are unable to afford relocation that would result in five people becoming unemployed because of a strategic, unnecessary decision by the board.”
 Forty years of history might go down the drain of the high school the nursery is attached to is closed. “This is not just about us” said Wielhouwer. “The nursery school students and families are not the only beneficiaries from our organization.” Alijcia Gibson, the co-op teacher at Pearson said “Having access that is readily available for students to be able to see the development of children during their fundamental years is something that is not only unique for students at Pearson but instrumental in making the connections between the curriculum and the real world….this practical component has helped the students enjoy and experience success in the classroom.”
There is a key phrase that Wielhouwer uses that points up the problem she is having with the school Board and that is – “a true community school”.
This school board does not appear to have much, if any interest, in community schools. The guiding philosophy at this point seems to be large high schools with enrollment of 1000 + students – 1200 appearing to be the optimum number. The rationale for this approach is that larger high schools allow for a much more inviting academic menu.
Concerns about fiscal prudence don’t seem paramount – the money will be found is what Fiona Wielhouwer seems to be hearing.
 An interesting teaching tool – does it portray the lack of any direction for the future of the nursery. Community is just not something that shows up on the radar screens the bureaucrats use to guide where they are going. School spirit seems to be the point at which the school Board superintendents view what community is all about.
The parents fully understand the importance of school spirit but they, unlike the superintendents, see school spirit as something that is a part of the community.
There is no clear sense as to what the trustees actually hold in the way of a philosophy. It has been very difficult to figure out just what the individual trustees think – they don’t answer questions.
Few of them, in Burlington, have said very much about what for them is the philosophy that drives their thinking.
The Gazette asked each of the trustees to rank community, fiscal prudence and academic services – they were directed not to do so while the PAR was taking place. With the PAR completed one trustee came back with “we don’t want the public to know what we think because they will then delegate and focus on what our philosophy”. So much for an understanding of what the democratic process is all about.
Wielhouwer summed up her delegation telling the trustees that “a nursery school within Pearson is ideal for a true community school. The central location with its big bright windows, looking out on the meticulously maintained playground and forest beyond is a rare find in a city where many young children’s programs are housed in basements or overlooking parking lots and busy streets.”
“Our children need nature and the outdoors, which is a key part of the program at Pearson. Our youngest learners need to be respected with a space that is designed for them (like our nursery school with its tiny toilets and low counters), not gathered like an afterthought in an unused room in a building designed for other purposes.
“Should the nursery school children be collateral damage from this closure? Shouldn’t their needs be considered the same as the high school students?
 Ward 4 school Board Trustee Rachelle Papin – didn’t ask any questions and wasn’t certain she had actually received the report from Wielhouwer. “Choosing to close Lester B Pearson High School would have lasting and irreversible consequences that will impact many families. It will force a financially sound, thriving, non-profit nursery school with deep roots in the community to close its doors after 40 years. A decision to close Pearson would impact students aged 2.5 to 18. Pearson High school needs to remain open so our staff, families and high school students can continue to work together for another 40 years allowing children to grow, play and learn.
The School Board delegation process allowed five minutes for each presentation with another five minutes for questions from the trustees.
Fiona Wielhouwer was not asked one single question.
 By Pepper Parr
May 15th, 2017
BURLINGTON. ON
Steve Armstrong was one of the 14 members of the Burlington community that sat on the PAR – tasked with being the conduit between the Board of education and the community.
It is safe to say that every member of the PARC believes the process was badly flawed and resulted in communities fighting with each other rather than working together to find a solution that worked for everyone.
 PARC committee needed some time to understand the rules they had to work within. They had begun to realize that they were in an impossible situation yet began to come to the conclusion that not closing any schools was perhaps the best option for the immediate future. The PARC leadership was not able to find a route to a solution; the PARC members did begin to coalesce around the option that called for no school closures. What the PARC did do was reject the original recommendation which was to close Central high school and Pearson high school.
The second recommendation recommended closing Bateman high school and Pearson high school; that led to a much closer look at just what Bateman had going for it – a lot more than many people realized.
That realization and the better late than never arousal of the Bateman parents brought some exceptionally valid information the public didn’t have before. We will have more detail on just what Bateman does have going for it; as much if not more than Central.
Steve Armstrong, a Pearson parent said in his delegation that the Board of Education’s utilization (that portion of the capacity of a school that is being used) sits at 75% and, based on the Board’s projections, will hit 80% in 2020.
That 75% is a city wide number – it includes all the schools – some of which are at the Board policy utilization level of 90% while others are at significantly below. Pearson is one of the schools significantly below. Armstrong believes that “If these sorts of numbers (75%) were being seen at each of the schools we wouldn’t be undergoing this process.”
Armstrong prepared a series of graphs, one of which showed that Burlington’s overall actual enrollment bottomed out in 2014, and is presently on the rise. He also shows yearly Long Term Accommodation (LTAP) for as far back as 2006. The curve labeled as 2010 represents the 2010-2011 LTAP data.
 This graph shows what the LTAP boundaries were for each of the years – the actual number is shown in red and indicates that enrollment bottomed out in 2014 “Just focusing on the pattern associated with 2020 enrollments we can see that from the 2010 projections up to the most recent data provided to the PAR Committee there has been a strong increase in the expected numbers. Over 700 students to be exact, and 2020 isn’t very far away.”
 The LTAP numbers for Oakville are shown for comparison Armstrong notes that this pattern is also seen in the Oakville data, but is a little more “bursty”, and makes bigger jumps when it moves. Not surprisingly the accuracy of the projections goes down, in both municipalities, the further out one looks.”
“The Region is growing, the City is growing, high school enrollment is growing, and the pattern has been that the projection errors tend to underestimate the actual numbers. This isn’t to surprising as the Board recognizes the planned housing growth at a different point than the City does.
 Andrea Taylor, Principal at M.M. Robinson in conversation with Steve Armstrong during a PARC meeting. Given the known near term growth, and the lower confidence in the projections beyond 5 years, extreme caution regarding closing schools is merited. Especially if it involves selling real estate assets in return for short term cash benefit.”
“High over utilization (crowding) creates problems, and low enrollment numbers will reduce some opportunities for studnets. Both situations alter the student experience, and we have these conditions present in two close proximity schools located in north Burlington – Hayden and Pearson. As the image below indicates they show a large overlap in “walkability” zones.”
The most recent projections indicate that if nothing changes Hayden will grow in size and be 600+ students over capacity by 2021. And there is no room for additional portables or a permanent addition on that site.
 The symbol indicating the school aligns with the boundary area. Armstrong identified just three relatively small areas where a student would not be expected to walk to school from. Option 19 had proposed to move the French Immersion (FI) program to MM Robinson as a way to deal with this looming issue. The Board had also listed in its Options the idea of capping enrollment, with extra students being redirected to an overflow school.
The PAR Committee also briefly discussed boundary changes, but ultimately the present recommendation stays with moving FI, and monitoring the situation going forward.
Armstrong has great concern and takes “exception to the simple notion of “monitoring”,.
Armstrong argues that the “enrollment numbers for Lester B Pearson as depicted in this graph “we can visualize three sets of data. The upper most curve represents the projected enrollment prior to a boundary change associated with the opening of Hayden. The boundary change purposely reduced the expected enrollment to just below 600 students. Apparently smaller enrollments where Ok back then! The actual enrollment went off the plan quickly, and significantly. Presently that school is sitting 30% below its planned student body, and indeed those 392 students are witnessing the problems of too little enrollment.”
 Armstrong doesn’t have much faith in the Board’s plan to monitor. “If monitoring simply means standing by and watching then that is unacceptable. If 30 % off target isn’t enough to trigger action what is? The Board needs to put a stronger set of actions around tracking and managing, and the Trustees needs to press for frequent reporting back to them” he said.
Armstrong wil tell you that “Hayden definitely has a “vibe” to it, and it’s more than just being a new building. “When I toured the school as a PARC member I couldn’t help but feel that Burlington needs more of this. In reality, feel probably has little to do with the age of the walls.”
Armstrong likes the idea of conjoining Hayden and Pearson as a way of combining the best of both schools. “If Hayden’s Principal was to also oversee Pearson, similar to what happens with some elementary schools, would this not help ensure success? Since the goal is that some of the students presently going to, or about to start at Hayden, would be instead attending Pearson, why not bring some of the teachers over as well he asks.
Pearson has been a vibrant smaller school in the past, and not everyone is seeking out everything that a large school has to offer. Armstrong points out that currently 25% of Pearson’s students do so through optional attendance. A similar percentage also attend Bateman’s English stream program through optional attendance. Apparently there is value in having such environments available both north and south of the QEW.
With a proposal like this both student bodies expand their programming options, in an environment most suited to their preferences.
“The current set of recommendations would move the city’s overall utilization from the present 80% trajectory to 108%. Based on the historical inaccuracies of the projections beyond the 5 year mark this plan greatly increasing the risks of requiring capital intensive construction in the future.
“Hayden’s projections involve it running at 150% of capacity by 2021. Redirecting FI to MM Robinson to relieve overcrowding is too critical to simply leave to “monitoring” the progress.
“Closing Pearson removes close proximity capacity from the North, eliminates an option for smaller school attendance, and takes what by 2020 will be a 88% utilization up to 111% overall for the remaining 2 schools.”
“Change isn’t always easy” acknowledged Armstrong. “Perhaps starting with a smaller project, that would develop better community based problem solving, is in order.”
 Closing no schools was always an option – it just took the PARC members some time to realize it might be the best one. 7 dots  The original option to close Central and Pearson was interesting to those who were not representing either of the schools. 9 dots  This was the same as option 19 with some variation on boundary changes and shifts in the program offerings. 9 dots Armstrong has come to the conclusion that Pearson is necessary to give Hayden some breathing room and to continue the community based approach to problem solving. He was a strong advocate for retaining access to a smaller school in the North.
The PAR committee members were asked to rank the options that were before them. Each of the 14 PRAC members were given two dots to put on which ever option they favoured. The objective was to begin to whittle down the 40 plus options that were on the table. The results made it immediately clear that there wasn’t going to be anything near the consensus the Board would have liked to see. It also meant that the trustees had a very hard job ahead of them.
After his three months of work on the PARC, Armstrong feels the trustees need to vote for the “close none of the schools option” and allow time for the Board, with significant involvement from the community, to fully study the issues and finally get it right.
Like many in the community, Armstrong believes that Hayden should not have been built – but it exists and parents are going to have to live with that decision. That is is a fine school today, even though it is over crowded, should not blur the issues about what is done with the other six high schools.
By Staff
May 15, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
On Saturday June 3rd, you will be able to have your personal sensitive documents shred at the Crime stoppers event. The shredding truck will be at the parking lot on the east side of Brant at Ghent from 9:30 am to 2:30 pm.
How much damage can the theft of your personal identity do?
An Ontario teacher is working to clear her name and her credit score, after someone appears to have used her identity to open credit cards, take out a loan and purchase a luxury SUV.
Tara Douglas arrived home from her teaching job in Bradford, about 65 kilometres north of Toronto, on April 28 to find a bill waiting for her for the Highway 407 toll expressway.
The bill was for trips she never took in a car she never bought.
“I saw the licence plate did not belong to me and the trips that were on this 407 bill I had never taken,” Douglas told CBC Radio’s Metro Morning.
She called the number on the bill and was told she had to deal with the Ministry of Transportation. The next day, Douglas went to a Service Ontario location to figure out what was going on.
After receiving a strange bill, Tara Douglas began digging and discovered that her identity had been stolen.
A staffer there pulled up her information and told Douglas that a 2012 black Range Rover was registered to her driver’s licence, in addition to her own car.
“That’s kind of when I really started to freak out because this obviously isn’t my car,” she said.
The MTO staffer removed the Range Rover from her licence and directed her to police in Barrie. Police listened to the details of her case and launched an investigation. On Tuesday, the force issued a news release with a picture of a suspect standing in front of the SUV.
“The news release says the Range Rover has been registered to Douglas since March 31 after being purchased at a dealership in Woodbridge, another community north of Toronto.
“The dealership was contacted and confirmed the female who purchased the vehicle did so with a valid driver’s licence and proper identification,” the release says.
Police had advised Douglas to contact her bank, as well as credit reporting agencies Equifax and TransUnion, to see what else may have been done in her name. While her personal bank information was fine, the credit bureaus told her that someone had taken out numerous credit cards in her name, ringing up between $1,000 and $5,000 in charges. Her address was also listed as being in North York, which isn’t true. Two cellphone numbers that weren’t Douglas’s were also registered to her.
Other car purchases were also listed on her credit report, and police told her that a $60,000 loan had also been taken out in her name.
After learning about the extent of the identity theft, Douglas has done everything she could to clean up her credit report and protect herself.
While she doesn’t yet know how someone managed to get her personal information, police did tell her that the person allegedly buying cars and obtaining credit in her name had obtained her social insurance number.
She’s now working hard to clean up her credit report, sending the credit bureaus various documents to prove her side of the story. She has also contacted Canada Post to ensure her mail wasn’t being diverted to the suspect’s address.
“I think I’ve covered all my bases,” she said. She’s also unsubscribed from email lists she doesn’t want to be on, has told her banks to only communicate with her by phone and boosted the privacy settings on her social media accounts.
“I don’t know what else I can do at this point, but I want this to be resolved and go away and and get back to what my life was and who I am,” she said.
How did someone get enough information on Tara Douglas to be able to open up a bank account, get a bank loan, buy a car and get credit cards, She may never know. The thieves may have gone though her garbage and found a bank statement – that would be more than enough to get them started.
On Saturday June 3rd, you will be able to have your personal sensitive documents shred at the Crime stoppers event. The shredding truck will be at the parking lot on the east side of Brant at Ghent from 9:30 am to 2:30 pm.
 By Staff
May 10th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The following are the people selected as delegates to address the Halton District school Board trustees on the matter of closing high schools in Burlington.
Earlier in the week the trustees listened to 24 delegations and managed to ask a paltry five questions with three of them coming from one trustee.
Chair Kelly Amos didn’t say a word other than to open the meeting, thank the speakers and close the meeting. Engaging the people who elected them seems to be beyond this crop of elected officials.
 Cheryl Delugt, standing, a member of the PARC Tracey and Joelle Howard will speak on the closing of Robert Bateman
Cheryl Delugt, a member of the PARC will speak on the closing of Lester B. Pearson
Elyse Matthews is a community member.
Tammie Beattie will represent the interests of the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC)
Jane Cooper Kelly is a Community Member
Dr. Lisa Van Zoost will speak for Nelson high school
Diane Miller will speak for Lester B, Pearson.
Adam Peaker is a community member
Tom Muir is a community member who has written at length on why the Board of Education is in the situation they are in. He speaks as a Community Member
Debbie Wakem will speak for Robert Bateman high school
 Steve Cussons, on the right, was a member of the PARC committee. Steve Cussons will speak for parents at Aldershot high chool
Jeffrey Huang Ma will speak for Robert Bateman HS
Maeve Fitzgerald will also speak for Robert Bateman HS
Cassie White will speak for Robert Bateman high school as well.
Camryn McKay will speak for Robert Bateman
Denise Davy, who has worked tirelessly for the interests of the parents with children at Robert Bateman, will delegate Thursday evening.
Barbara Heller will speak about the Gifted Programs
Natalie Hiltz will also speak on the Gifted Program
Julie Hill will speak for Robert Bateman HS
Heather deHaan will speak for Robert Bateman
Stephen Beleck will speak for Robert Bateman
Brent Hall is a Community Member
Tracey Bruton will speak for Robert Bateman HS
Lauren Olsen will speak for Burlington Central HS
 Jason Bartlett, parent of a student at Bateman high school Jason and Kelley Bartlett will speak for Robert Bateman HS. Jason has in the past been a member of the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC)
Steve Armstrong, who was a member of the PARC will speak for Lester B. Pearson and for Hayden high school
Douglas Emerson will speak for Lester B. Pearson high school
Renée Sirbu will speak on the International Baccalaureate program
Kathy Berglund will speak for the Aldershot HS
Heather McElrea will also speak for the Aldershot HS
Ron Raj Reddy will speak on the International Baccalaureate program.
The delegation meeting of the Board of Trustees on Monday met at the Board of Education offices – if you were not a delegation you had to watch the proceedings at M. M. Robinson high school, a couple of hundred yards away.
The turn out at MMR was 21 people which narrowed down to 17 as the evening wore on. The Board made every effort to keep a crowd that had the potential to get noisy out side the building.
The policy is not to allow any emotional response from the public. That doesn’t square all that well with a policy that lets the trustees applaud when they are handing out awards to members of the public.
Closing any school is an emotional process – the Director of Education said having to tell the staff at Bateman high school that he had recommended the closing of that school “broke his heart”. It’s doing a lot more than that to the parents of the students at Bateman.
There is nothing wrong with people allowing their emotions to overflow. This Board and these trustees seem to be afraid of hearing how people really feel.
When things get noisy or even a little rowdy – a strong chair has a gavel and can call a meeting to order very effectively; that of course is the problem – the chair isn’t very strong.
A man named Jim Young, an Aldershot resident with a passion for getting better public transit service for seniors in Burlington once told that city council that council was not theirs – it was something they held as a sacred trust on behalf of the public – and we thought he was right.
The 11 trustees were elected to represent the public and ensure that the teachers and board staff deliver the service the province directs them to deliver and that the public wants.
So far – not one person has stood up publicly and said that closing a high school is a good thing for Burlington.
Eleven of the people sitting at the conference table will vote to decide which, if any, of the high schools in Burlington should be closed. Trustees – fill board +
Eleven of the people at the meeting will decide which, if any of the high schools in Burlington are to be closed. There doesn’t seem to be any public support for closing the schools.
At a recent Board of Trustee meeting the 11 members poured over the plans for a new high school on Milton; they talked about where hallways should be, where recreational facilities should be – they sounded like a family designing their new hone. They had all kinds of questions.
They need to be as deliberate and as responsible and as involved and as engaged with the matter of closing a school. This isn’t a game.
 By Pepper Parr
May 9th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Revised: This article has been revised based on information sent to us by trustee Papin
The first wave of delegations to the Halton District School Board were heard last night; twenty four people made their case for keeping different schools open.
The eleven trustees listened – three – just three asked questions. Amy Collard, perhaps the trustee with the experience needed to ask pointed questions of Board staff didn’t have much in the way of questions for any of the delegations,
 Those delegating before the trustees were in one building, those there to just listen were in another location watching the events by an internet feed. Ward 1 and 2 trustee Leah Reynolds had a question that was more technical in nature, Trustee Oliver out of Oakville had the best question – she wanted to know more about what would be involved if Bateman were to be moved to Nelson.
Other than that, the trustees didn’t really engage with the audience. They didn’t ask any of the delegations how they might resolve the question the trustee they were faced with.
As the evening wound down one could easily get the impression that the trustee’s may have felt that they had gotten through the evening with most of the skin on their backs.
 School Board trustee chair Kelly Amos Chair Kelly Amos seemed a bit flustered when she opened the meeting and maintained a polite veneer throughout the evening, hesitant at times that the whole thing might blow up in her face.
Stuart Miller, Director of Education who is going to have to work with whatever decision the trustees make maintained a calm observant demeanor throughout the evening.
There were some excellent delegations. The trustees were given new information, some of it very relevant, but one never got the impression that anything that was said was sinking in.
It was as if there was a line drawn in the sand and each group maintained their distance on their side of the line.
The parents, especially those from Bateman, certainly made their case about the value of the programs that school runs. The Board staff have taken the position that anything Bateman has today they will have when the transition to Nelson is made. The evidence heard last night suggests that is not going to be the case.
The senior staff at Nelson are going to have to work hard at changing the attitudes of a small number of Nelson students and ensure that the welcome they give the Bateman students, if that is where they are going to end up, is genuine. There has been a tremendous amount of exceptionally negative comment made on twitter by Nelson students.
The Nelson pride that Casey Cosgrove, a Bateman student in his high school days, spoke about is going to need an attitude adjustment if the decision is made to close Bateman and march all the Bateman students along New Street to their new digs.
What Cosgrove did do was remind the trustees that they had some amazing people in the community who could and would pull together to find a solution that keeps the schools open. “These are amazing people” said Cosgrove “use them”
Cosgrove wanted the trustees to vote for option 7 – don’t close any of the schools until the real work that has yet to be done can get done to figure out what the possibilities are for making a better decision than the one staff gave the trustees,
 Gary Scobie – don;t close any of the schools until you have better data. Gary Scobie, a Burlington resident who delegates often at city hall, pointed out that “Past estimates of student location into the future have not always proven correct, so it is still questionable whether it is worth the risk of losing high school properties and facilities when it will likely be impossible to place new facilities back into the existing neighbourhoods if the estimates are wrong and if demographic projections are incorrect.
“I believe that you the Trustees understand the politics of what you are being asked to vote on. You are aware of how funding works and how it doesn’t work, and how the PAR process is deeply flawed. You are in a difficult but also pivotal position to put students first.”
Scobie asked the trustees to vote for option 7b – don’t close any of the schools – not at this time.
Lisa Bull, a Bateman parent, was very pointed in her remarks when she said: “The Director’s report in front of us now dismissively suggests that the new locations for the SHSM’s and OYAPs currently located at Bateman are “to be determined” as though they are just another course you could take on-line or pick up along the way. As though moving these programs and putting them in the hands of new teachers would be without consequence.
 Lisa Bull sits in the middle of a group of parents and students protesting a possible closure of their school. “The Director couldn’t be more wrong. These programs change the course of students’ lives. And it is the availability of these programs alongside of the Essentials and Applied programming which create opportunities for success- personal and academic, efficacy, and happiness for students who might not otherwise experience such success. They should not be treated like afterthoughts.”
At this point the trustees are hearing parents advocate that the school their children attend not be closed – and they give some compelling evidence.
What the trustees are not hearing is comment on the larger picture – where is high school education going in Burlington?
Does anyone have a clear idea what may happen in the years ahead? If the senior Board staff have a vision and a deep understanding of what is really taking place – they have not communicated that to the wider community and they certainly haven’t given the trustees the data and information they need to make wise decisions.
 Central made their case – and they were heard. There are other cases that are just as strong. The Central parents made their case – take a high school out of the downtown core and you are hollowing out a significant part of the community. Board staff seem to have understood and they changed the recommendation to the trustees.
Lester B. Pearson has a strong case – which was put forward rather well by Rory Nisan and Fiona Wielhouwer.
The nursery at Lester B. Pearson has a long historical relationship with the city that funds part of that operation. A delegation argued that some of the assets don’t belong to the board. Were they heard? Wielhouwer’s delegation raised some critical questions related to the city’s involvement at Pearson – none of the trustees followed up. Richelle Papin, the trustee for Pearson said she didn’t get the copy of the delegation that Wielhouwer said was sent.
Addition: Papin said in a comment that she “I did get a copy of Fiona Wielhouwer’s delegation report by email on Sunday night. What wasn’t clear was who was to share the report with the other trustees. Normally, any delegation report goes through the director’s office. I assumed a copy would be sent to the director’s office. At any rate, a copy was shared with all trustees last night.”
If the parents of this city feel that the trustees they elected are going to do the really hard work that has to be done to resolve the problems – they may want to get ready for a bruising disappointment.
The public didn’t see much in the way of trustee engagement with the audience at the Board of education meeting last night.
The Gazette will publish more detail on what the delegations had to say.
The majority of the 24 people who spoke last night have every reason to be very proud of the job they did.
 By Staff
May 8th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
And now it comes down to the people who are going to be impacted directly by the closing of high schools.
The parent’s at Lester B. Pearson feel disillusioned by the decision to close their school. The feeder schools that kept Pearson alive were shifted to Hayden high school leaving Pearson with very little in the way of incoming students from the elementary sector.
 Bateman high school parents decided to give their high school a hug – hoping that the Board of Trustees would give them a hug in return? Some of the parents at Bateman are close to frantic with the decision to close that school in 2019 when an addition to Nelson high school will take in what are described as very emotionally vulnerable students with serious learning disabilities.
The parents at Central have gone very very quiet. They were on the original close list (they shouldn’t have been) but they were not on the recommendation that was sent to the trustees last week.
An unfortunate statement released by the Central parents didn’t help the hard feelings that developed between parents at the different schools that were up for closure.
It took ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward an inordinate amount of time to issue a statement and at least try to soothe the very ruffled feathers
 Is a city Councillor restricted to serving on just city council or can she take part in other organizations as well? Ward 2 council member Marianne Meed Ward accepted the request to be a member of the PARC – she has a son at the high school. The Central decision to ask Meed Ward to serve as one of their representatives on the PARC wasn’t popular with many; some saw it as a conflict of interest. She had every right to serve – she has a son at the high school. Quite how her being as city Councillor could be seen as a conflict suggests those who made the remark don’t understand what a conflict of interest is.
If there was a conflict of interest it was with the Mayor who took the gutless approach to representing the city on the PARC and sent the City Manager instead. The conflict was between his personal interests and those of the people he was elected to represent.
The city representative on the PARC did not have a vote – the person was just there as an observer and in a position to make comments. Ridge who filled the city seat said very little other than to suggest that if a school was closed the Board should not sell the land. A school board basically has to dispose of any land or buildings that are surplus to its needs.
 City manager James Ridge, on the right, was appointed by city council to be the observer at the PARC meetings. What the city could have done was looked for ways to rent some of the excess space the school board has and not continue to rent expensive space in the Sims building across the street from city hall where they occupy several floors in that building.
Kim, a parent who moved from the Alton Village into the Lester B. Pearson community so her children could attend Pearson. She and her husband wanted their children to attend a small school. They bought in that community so there children could attend the school
Rory Nisan, a small guy, who played rugby at Pearson said “ I would never have gotten on any team at M. M. Robinson”
Another parent that will be delegating has a boy that is a quiet child, “not the kind of student that will survive in a school with close to 1000 students. He just wouldn’t make it.” This parent, who didn’t want to be named, is working on getting her seven page delegation down to two pages. “All we get is five minutes” she said and she isn’t comfortable being a delegate. “Am I going to be criticized or humiliated when they ask me questions”, she asked.
“When we moved into this community” she said “we called the school and asked about the rumours that the school was going to be closed and we were told that it was just a rumour”.
 Every high school that was at risk had T shirts made up. Even Nelson which was never really at risk. The schools frequently send pieces of paper home with a student – it gets tucked into their back backs – and they are usually on pink paper. They tend not to get read admitted this parent, which drives the administrative people at the school board up the wall who ask – ‘what do we have to do, hang a sign around the neck of every student when we want to get a message to their parents?’
“It was a rainy Friday after school in early October, and we received a letter explained one parent, saying that Pearson was proposed to close in June 2018. I thought to myself, How could they do this just as my child was settling into high school?
“Who does this to students as they just start their high school year? I had so many questions and yet didn’t know where to go for the answers.
“Over the course of the past seven months, our family has endured so much heartache, uncertainty and unnecessary stress. From attending countless public meetings only to witness the conflicts developing between communities…..there were no answers, just more questions. We as a family have participated in all community rallies and committee meetings in hopes to find answers and in a small way feel that we had some sort of control over the situation. As time passed, it was obvious, this process was unproductive and was tearing parents, students, and communities apart.
“As I put on my rose coloured glasses and prepare my delegation, I find myself almost brought to tears. As I sit here in front of my computer and try to put all my thoughts down, I am filled with so many emotions. I found myself frustrated, angry, and emotional torn. I am counting the moments until this is over. When there will be no more meetings….no more agendas…. no more rallies.
 Emotions have been running very high. Not a lot of empathy coming from the Board staff – the trustees get to react to parent concerns during delegations that will start on Monday – the 8th. “The emotions are too much, the memories of the events that have brought me to this final moment makes me wonder…How did I get here? There is an overwhelming fear inside knowing the words I choose have to perfect to have any real impact. What can I say to make the Trustees see the damage a school closure will do to not only my family but so many others? What magic word or key point can I include that will sway their thoughts of a school closure? After all, I am just a parent….. I don’t have a background in education or politics yet here I am expected to stand up and read my delegation in front of a room filled with people who do this every day.
“I just want this nightmare to be over. The students want it to be just another day at Pearson.….where everyone knows you, where teachers support you, where smiles are exchanged, where good memories of high school are made….…..our kids deserve that!
Were you to talk to this parent you would hear her bubbling with ideas on how to keep the school open. Bur she is “just a parent” and she isn’t at all certain that her voice is going to make any difference.
One of the delegations the trustees will ear this evening reads like this:
I wish to express my deepest concerns and disappointment regarding the potential closure of Lester B Pearson High School. I strongly believe that the drastic measure to close our school is very short-sighted.
Lester B Pearson is ideally located in an area of population growth and demographic change. The issue with the 1800 empty seats is the fact that these spaces are not spread evenly across grade levels nor across schools. With 1267 of the empty pupil spaces located south of the QEW, it makes a closure of any North school unwarranted and unjustified.
Since the building of Hayden, our enrollment numbers have dropped considerably. The main reason being, is that we currently have only have 1 1/2 feeder schools, while Hayden has 7 and a large portion of our catchment area is mainly industrial and commercial.
Despite the close proximity to Pearson, many students are being redirected to other schools and require driving or busing, which doesn’t make sense from a logical, geographical, nor a financial perspective. This simply reinforces the need for balancing of feeder schools and redefining boundaries, and NOT for the drastic measure of a school closure in Burlington.
The current low enrollment at Pearson was created by the HDSB and NOT the lack of growth in North Burlington. Based on the most recent data from the 2016 Statistics Canada Census, the population in Burlington has increased by 4.3 % since 2011, and is growing faster than the estimates currently being used by the HDSB. Should the time come when a new school is needed to satisfy additional growth, more money and more “land”which are both currently limited, will be required.
There is a growing trend in Burlington, with the older residents remaining in their homes well past retirement……demographic change is “inevitable”. With the completion of the housing developments within North Burlington, there will be a substantial increase in families moving to the immediate area. It is important that we as a city be proactive and plan for the future growth and change that will result from our current aging population downsizing. With 3 & 4 bedroom homes nestled perfectly between both elementary and highschool, it makes the Pearson and Palmer area a highly sought after community for new and growing families.
Built in 1976, Pearson is the “2ND NEWEST” public high school in Burlington and offers expansive grounds, tennis courts, running track, and beautiful trails/forestry that provides a unique learning environment and recreational area for many local residents to enjoy year round. Despite the current low enrollment, and the rumors of a potential closure, there are still a good percentage of students choosing to attend Pearson through optional attendance.
Pearson was built as a small school and has consistently proven to be a successful platform for providing academic excellence and student success. According to Fraser Institute, Pearson ranks the “2nds BEST” public high school within the City of Burlington. Research has shown, that many students tend to perform much better and suffer from less stress and anxiety in a small school environment.
With bullying issues a growing concern, many students and parents are seeking out small schools where fighting and bullying are less likely to occur due to having a much lower population. The small school environment not only enables students to be more visible to teachers,it also helps to make it easier for teachers and staff to respond should a confrontation between students arise.
The smaller school environment, improves the student teacher relationship, making it easier to identify a student’s need for support and provide a more personalized educational experience. Having a smaller staff size also makes it much easier and faster to collaborate in order to provide student support when needed. In comparison to the larger school environment, students in a smaller school also tend to feel more connected to their school and their community as a whole.
In small schools, such as Pearson, the percentage of students involved in extracurricular activities and team sports is likely to be much higher than at a larger school. Although there may not be as many teams, there is a greater chance of making the team as a result of less competition. Being part of a team helps to build student self-esteem, strengthen social skills and builds strong and positive relationships with their peers.
Overall, small schools tend to be safer, offer a more positive learning experience, and results in higher academic performance amongst students especially those with social, emotional, and academic challenges.
With growing concerns relating to our youth’s mental health, childhood obesity, physical and emotional well-being, perhaps the HDSB should be focusing their efforts on exploring creative/alternative programming, advocating for small schools, promoting walkability, lowering the needs and costs associated with busing, strengthening school-based community partnerships, and NOT on closing schools in Burlington.
 Most of the Burlington trustees attended every PARC meetings and then their twice a month Boar meetings as well. One of those meetings went to well after midnight. Trustees Grebenc and Reynolds taking notes How will the trustees follow up with their questions?
What impact will delegations like this have on the process?
At one of the PARC meetings Director of Education Stuart Miller admitted that the Board doesn’t communicate with parents all that well.
By Staff
May 5th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Parents in Burlington have been waiting for months for their opportunity to address the Halton District School Board trustees on the staff recommendation to close Bateman high school and Lester B. Pearson high school.
The following 25 people have been selected by the trustees to speak on Monday May 8, 2017 starting at 6 pm
 Sharon Picken will be delegating Seating is limited – the overflow will be able to watch the proceedings via a video link in the theatre studio at M.M. Robinson high school
1. Fiona Wielhouwer – Pearson Cooperative Nursery School
2. Carla Marshall – Autism Ontario, Halton Chapter
3. Sharon Picken, David Picken, Kimberley Picken – Self-Contained Programs at Robert Bateman HS
4. Casey Cosgrove – Nelson High School
5. Gary Scobie – Community Member
6. Paul Brophy – Community Member
7. Denise Nacev, Matthew Nacev – Diversity and inclusion at Robert Bateman HS
8. Jodi Correia, Shelley Wettlaufer, Loretta Chin, Colleen Allan & Tracey Kunzli – Dr. Frank J. Hayden Secondary School
9. Adam Doering – Community Member
10. Michael Hribljan – Burlington Central High School
11. Carolyn Whiskin – Burlington Central and ESL Program
12. Lisa Bull, Brian DePoe – Robert Bateman High School Tech Programs
13. Leah Bisutti – LB Pearson High School
 Casey Cosgrove will be delegating. 14. Dianna Bower, Marie Madenzides – MM Robinson High School
15. Amy D’Souza – LB Pearson High School
16. Kristen Priestner – Nelson High School
17. Carter Creechan – Robert Bateman High School
18. Jim Dunn Robert Bateman High School
19. Erin Hossack Robert – Bateman High School Alumni
20. Shasni Pathirana – Burlington Central High School
21. Marianne Anderson – International Baccalaureate Program
22. Jennifer Bishop – Robert Bateman High School
23. John Norris – Robert Bateman High School
24. Christine Hall – International Baccalaureate Program
25. Rory Nisan – Community Member
This is an important part of the process. Parents have not been given much of an opportunity to speak out. The Gazette has published hundreds of comments and withheld publishing almost as many because they were rude, inappropriate and in some cases just plain foul.
The Board has yet to decide if there will be a third evening of delegations. The number of applications to speak has yet to exceed 100.
The 11 trustees are the people who make the final decision. They do not have to accept the recommendation given to them by Stuart Miller, Director of Education.
One recommendation is to not close any of the high schools at this point in time. Another is to take a hard look at the boundaries.
This is the public’s opportunity to help the trustees make the best decision for all the families that send children to the public school system.
Do everyone proud.
The Gazette will publish the delegations and would appreciate the 25 people named above sending us their delegation which we will embargo until 6 pm on Monday the 8th.
Send whatever you have to newsdesk@bgzt.ca – and may the force go with you.
 By Staff
May 4th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The School Board trustees are going to get an earful from Tom Muir when he addresses them sometime next week – which assumes that Muir will be allowed to delegate.
Chair Kelly Amos asked each person who wanted to delegate to provide a 250 word outline. Muir gave her 1594 words.
Here is what Muir sent the Chair who now has to decide if what Muir wants to say meets the criteria for selection, which is: ” to have a “varied perspective” of delegations”
Notes for a Delegation to HDSB on Burlington PAR. May 2017
I note that 5 minutes to delegate limits the scope of the perspective and the topics that can be covered. My presentation will follow these notes suitably reorganized to fit the time allotted.
Summary
The perspective of my delegation will be an overview of the context of the PAR, and provide analysis of various aspects and criteria of the PAR planning data basis, recommendations, and options available to the Board.
 Four of the eleven school board trustees listen carefully at a public meeting. I will cover points related to planning, financials, fiscal, risk, future planning outlooks and needs, demonstrated student benefits from enhanced academic offerings as opposed to known negative impacts, the real net economic and money effects looked at closely with prudence, and the expressed views of the overall school community.
I will discuss the roots of the criteria and justification of the PAR as results of Board planning decisions in LTAPs, future enrollment projections, and so-called “business plans” done in the period 2008 to 2013, and now currently.
I will discuss the origins and makeup of the utilization justification criteria of the PAR.
I will also consider data on financial and fiscal impacts of options to deal with this situation.
Another topic is the increased and better program selection that constitutes the second criteria for having the PAR.
Other points cover how school closures reflect what the community and students have expressed as their wants.
Concluding points cover summary of perspective and points on the data and evidence offered in terms of Trustee responsibility and decision options on schools.
Presentation Outline.
I did not see anything in writing describing what the Board and Ministry had in mind about what a business case is, or what the thinking behind the business case was, as contained in the Capital Priorities Template sent to the Ministry in 2009. This seems to be the way business is done. Either there’s nothing in words, or it’s not available publically.
 Hayden high school – Muir questions why it was built. My first point is that Hayden was built with no seeming regard or public disclosure for the consequences that were built right into the plan from the start – surplus seats in the other Burlington high schools, and Hayden bursting at the seams. Data show this was done by the Board in their planning, boundary and feeder changes, and construction.
In the 2009 plan, submitted to the Ministry, it showed Hayden overflowing with students within 3 years of opening, and continuing this trend. In planned consequences, back in 2009, MM Robinson utilization was planned to decline, by 2022, from 93.7% to 53.4%, and Bateman to decline from 99.2% to 43.9%, by 2018/19. Nelson declined from 108.7% to 95.6%. Most of these declines coincided with Hayden’s projected opening in 2010. By 2022, 1567 students were in these declines, many transferred to Hayden.
The more recent data, shown by the Board, at the November PAR public meeting, and titled in a slide as, “Current Situation: Low Utilization”, paints an even worse picture of what has been done by the Board and only made public in this PAR. This data clearly shows Hayden continuously overfilled grossly with students transferred largely from the other schools, as part of the plan. And this is being facilitated with portables, part of the plan too.
From no students on 2010, Hayden goes to 129% UTG in 2016, and projected at 159% in 2020 and 141% in 2025. At the same time, the other schools continue the planned decline, but now there are 4 schools that are in that situation, not just the 2 schools identified in the 2009 plan, as I noted above. This data is as follows;
– From 112% OTG in 2010, Pearson declines to 61% in 2016, and projected to 55% in 2020, and 50% in 2025.
– From 87% OTG in 2010, Robinson declines to 53% in 2016, and projected to 47% in 2020, and 46% in 2025.
– From 107% OTG in 2010, Nelson declines to 75% in 2016, and projected to 83% in 2020, and 79% in 2025.
– From 95% OTG in 2010, Bateman declines to 59% in 2016, and projected to 55% in 2020, and 50% in 2025.
Looking at the option 23e, in Miller, and the overall plan for Hayden from 2009, and you can see that according to that option outline, Robinson is also overfull by 2020, as Hayden is now to the end of the planning horizon.
So why are we closing schools?
This is the actual data showing how building Hayden created new seats that then became surplus seats for the rest of Burlington schools. We now have a situation of overutilization and underutilization, the main cause of which is building Hayden and then over-utilizing it using boundary, feeder, and program policies.
This is the cause of the “Current Situation – Low Utilization, but this is being ignored and never mentioned, despite being obvious in the data as consequential to the year Hayden was opened.
I will also consider data on financial and fiscal impacts of options to deal with this situation.
The Ministry is not telling the Board to close schools – it’s our call how we spend that part of the money they give us for accommodation costs – keeping all buildings open. That’s a little more than $100 million of a $700 million total budget for 2015/16.
 Director of Education Stuart Miller preparing to speak to parents at Central high school. According to Miller’s report, it costs $564,000/yr to operate Pearson, and $764,000/yr for Bateman. Closing these 2 schools saves only about $2 million a year, when added busing costs, lost revenues, and staff reduction cost savings, are all accounted for (See Miller; busing costs noted there are incorrect – the report says 226, 286, and 96 more students bused, but only costs the 96). Transportation is a concern as student busing increases, and Hayden already has 580 students bused and is the second most costly in Burlington.
Whether schools close or not, all the rest of the Board budget (except admin and transportation) is for instruction, and this nets out to null savings. So closing 2 schools saves only $2 million, but more than $12 million alone is needed to replace Bateman equipment, somewhere else.
Then there is the cost of decommissioning buildings, mothballing, needed ongoing maintenance, what about the pool, day-care, and so many other transition costs that are just ignored.
So what kind of fiscal savings is $2 million out of a $700 million budget (0.003%), to be so concerned about?
And the fact is, the Director’s recommendation calls for the most expensive option of two closures, and this cost is uncertain, likely underestimated, and doesn’t account for planning errors and risk.
Given the provincial Growth Plan saying Halton must grow by 500,000 people by 2041, and the planning enrollment forecasting error and uncertainty, already experienced for Hayden enrollment, this seems to be a reasonable cost to invest in risk management for planning errors. There has been no risk assessment and management done by the Board. Having all our schools open and functioning provides this risk management as a low cost reserve.
The only other maybe money in this fiscal picture is the PODs, from any surplus asset value that may be realized in the future, and that is only a one-time cash-in, partly chewed up by transition and transaction costs. This will not go far for new schools in Burlington.
Another topic is the increased and better program selection that constitutes the second criteria for having the PAR. Since there is no increase in budgets for instruction, more programming cannot come from there, and more generally, there is no information provided by the Board indicating any details of the delivery of this aspect, and only abstract assumptions, but nothing convincing, that larger enrollments allow for this.
The closures impact students negatively for sure, and the impacts on Bateman students affect them in life-altering ways, as special needs students who have been bumped around in the system.
 Parents listen intently to the PARC members as they look at the more than 40 options discussed during the seven meetings held. Other points cover how school closures reflect what the community and students have expressed as their wants. Obviously everyone wants their own neighborhood school kept open. But more generally, when asked for opinions, on two occasions, the public expressed their preference for the Board to spend the money, and implement measures needed, to keep schools open. However, the Board has more or less discounted these results showing public preferences, and it does not appear to have been given any formal consideration.
As it turns out the overall costs of keeping all schools open are a small portion of the Board budgets – savings from closing schools are 0.003% of the Total ($700 M) and less than 0.02% of the more than $100M Accommodation component.
It all comes own to how the 11 school board trustees vote on June 7th. will they go with the Staff recommendation that Pearson and Bateman be closed or will they decide that none of the schools should be closed at this time. The Trustees do not have to close schools, and it appears that on planning, financial, fiscal, risk, student benefits from significantly enhanced academic offerings that are not documented as opposed to known negative impacts, the real net economic and money effects looked at closely with prudence, and the overall school community, it makes no sense.
The PAR Policy statement says that; “Decisions that are made by the Board of Trustees are in the context of carrying out its primary responsibilities of fostering student achievement and well-being, and ensuring effective stewardship of school board resources.”
I argue that based on demonstrated benefits to student achievement, and stewardship of school board resources, now and in the foreseeable future, there is no case to close any schools. The trustees have within their authority the means to move boundaries, feeders, and programs in order to undo the skewed enrollment caused by building Hayden without considering the consequences.
Hayden was built and filled with students by transfers from existing schools that can just as easily be undone.
 By Pepper Parr
May 4th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
People want to speak and feel they are being heard.
Part of that process requires people to listen and to make themselves fully aware of whatever rules are in place.
The issue this time is parents wanting to be sure that they are being heard about the closing of high schools in Burlington.
There is a process. There is a bylaw. It may not be the most elegant piece of writing you are going to see – but there is a bylaw, written by the trustees you elected.
To date the Board of Education has something in the order of 75 requests to delegate. Two evenings were set aside for delegations with the possibility for an additional evening if it is needed.
Board of trustees chair Kelly Amos. While the Gazette has yet to see a single word from Chair Kelly Amos, other than that the trustees would not be responding to our request to rank the values they brought to their jobs as trustees, the fact is that there is a by law that sets out very clearly just what the process is.
How many people have read that bylaw? We just don’t know. However, anyone who filled out the form asking to be a delegation would have had access to the bylaw because it was attached to the on-line form that had to be filled out in order to be accepted as a delegation.
People may not like the rules – the time to complain about them was when that bylaw was written.
Based on what we have learned from Board of Education sources the request are being received and processed. No one at the staff level is involved in the selection process. The chair of the Board of Trustees is doing the sifting through of the applications.
The objective, we are told, is to get a balance of views. What the Chair, apparently, does not want is 20 people from one school standing up and saying the same thing – ‘don’t close our school because our students are so very vulnerable’.
The trustees are acutely aware that some students are at risk and they struggle with the decision they are going to have to make.
The Gazette received the following from a parent:
 Denise Davy – lead advocate for keeping Bateman open. “I understand you’re looking into the 250 word submission that has suddenly been requested by the board. As the leading parent organizer for the Bateman group, you can quote me:
“This is just one more example of the board’s “change the rules” approach that has left parents furious and frustrated at every step of this process. There was never anything said about a 250-word submission until yesterday afternoon then parents had until the next day at noon to put something together.
One woman is on vacation and emailed me that she can’t possibly start putting something together as her laptop is at home with all of the information on it. Most people lead busy lives, especially parents who have a disabled child, and to ask this of them is inappropriate and disrespectful.”
There is nothing in the bylaw requiring an up to 250 word outline of what the delegation will be about. Getting a line that says “about closing Bateman high school” doesn’t help the chair choose who will be asked to speak.
There are some that will take the view that everyone and anyone should be allowed to speak. That is not the process your trustees have chosen – it is the trustees that chose this route and it is the trustees that actually wrote the bylaw. It is not something that was done by staff.
What the Board is looking for are delegations that add to the information they currently have. Emotions are running very high – this is an emotional issue.
It needs a good dose of rationality and common sense.
The Gazette has received a number of well thought papers supported by good data.
If you want your trustees to make the best decision for everyone then give them well thought out arguments and be prepared to follow that up with the time that has been allocated for the trustees to engage the delegations.
Rational if you can. An emotional rant isn’t going to get anyone anything.
The delegation bylaw was revised in January, became effective in February and is due for a revision in September of 2018.
The bylaw that is in place is what the public is going to have to live with.
There is one parent who takes a bit of a different slant on the process: Here is what she has to say:
This process clearly demonstrates insensitivity and the ignorance we are dealing when it comes to this issue and the acceptance of inaccurate data and misinformation which has presented to the public over the course of the last several months. While everyone is entitled to their opinion… Have we forgotten what is to be human? What has happened to being sensitive to the needs and wants of others? What kind of world do we live in, when we completely disregard people and make decisions based solely on money? If money is the motivation behind this farce (which it clearly is) called a PAR process, then perhaps it is time to get creative and find alternative ways to offset costs and not destroy peoples lives and communities…just a thought.
The bylaw that governs the delegation process is set out below:
REQUESTS TO DELEGATE
1. An individual or group may request the opportunity to delegate the Board of Trustees at a Regular or Special Meeting of the Board or at a Meeting of Committee of the Whole. The provisions of this by-law are applicable to both Board and Committee of the Whole meetings.
2. Potential delegates shall submit a Delegation Request Form (see appendix A) by no later than noon, two business days preceding the meeting at which the individual or group intends to delegate. The Delegation Request Form submission timelines will be adjusted for statutory holidays or non-standard meeting days (see appendix A).
If a delegate requires accommodations to submit their request, they should contact the Director’s Office for assistance. A delegate list will be published on the Board’s website 24 hours in advance of the Board meeting.
3. Potential delegates will be advised by the Chair or Vice Chair (or designate) that their request to present has been accepted or denied as soon after the submission deadline as is practical. A written rationale will be provided to potential delegates whose delegations have been denied, and the Board of Trustees will receive a copy of this rationale.
4. Up to six (6) delegations will be scheduled per meeting. Priority will be given to delegates who intend to address issues that appear on the ‘Ratification/Action’ section of the agenda, giving consideration to delegations with a variety of perspectives on an issue. Delegations will appear on the agenda in the order in which the requests have been received.
5. A request to delegate may be deferred to a subsequent meeting if the number of delegations exceeds the maximum number, or if the topic does not relate to an item on the agenda. The Chair or Vice Chair (as applicable) will notify the delegate of the deferral with an explanation and the Board of Trustees will receive a copy of this notification.
6. Requests to delegate at a Regular or Special Meeting of the Board may be referred to a meeting of Committee of the Whole if the topic of the delegation is not expected to relate to an item on an agenda of a Regular or Special Meeting of the Board in the foreseeable future. The Chair or Vice Chair (as applicable) will notify the delegate of the referral and the Board of Trustees will receive a copy of this notification.
WRITTEN MATERIALS REQUIRED
7. In addition to the Delegation Request Form, delegates may choose to provide supplementary materials to be distributed to Trustees. These materials should be provided to the Director’s Office before 10 am on the day prior to the meeting. The Delegation Request Forms will be posted to the Board’s website, and any optional supplementary materials provided by the delegate(s) will be distributed to Trustees on the day prior to the Board meeting.
ELIGIBILITY TO DELEGATE
8. Where a request to delegate has been accepted, and the delegate is unable to attend the Board meeting for which their delegation has been scheduled, a substitute delegate may be recognized by the Chair or Vice Chair (as applicable).
9. Employees of the Board, or representatives of employee groups shall not utilize delegations to the Board to express their views relative to their employment or professional interests.
10. Individuals or groups who have delegated the Board of Trustees on a topic will be permitted to delegate again on the same topic no sooner than four months after the original delegation unless they are presenting new information.
PRESENTATION OF DELEGATIONS
11. Each delegation shall be allowed up to five (5) minutes for their presentation to the Board. Following each delegation, the Chair or Vice Chair (as applicable) will open the floor to Trustees for up to five (5) minutes for questions of clarification to either the delegate or staff.
12. Any delegate or substitute spokesperson(s) for a delegate is expected to refrain from the use of abusive language, or from making any derogatory statement concerning the character or performance of named individuals, including students, staff, citizens, or Trustees of the Halton District School Board. Any delegate who violates this section during their presentation shall be ruled out of order by the Chair or Vice Chair (as applicable) and may be asked to discontinue their presentation.
SPECIAL DELEGATION NIGHT
13. Notwithstanding the other sections of this By-Law, the Chair may, at their discretion, call a Special Delegation Night, specifically for the purpose of hearing delegations on a particular topic, for which all provisions of this By-Law will apply, with the exception that a maximum of twenty-five (25) rather than six (6) delegations will be allowed.
By Staff
May 3rd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom is not happy.
He got a letter from the Chair of the Halton District school Board and wants to know if anyone else received the letter he received.
A reality check Tom – everyone who asks to delegate is going to get the same letter you got.
“Who chooses what an acceptable perspective to present is? asks Tom Muir. Tom Muir has written extensively for the Gazette on the matter of closing two high schools in Burlington.
“Does anyone know if everyone who requested a delegation received this letter?” asks Muir and adds “What the hell kind of censorship and possible suppression tactic is this? Anyone know?”
“They give you less than 24 hours, and want 250 words.
“And they will refuse your delegation if they want to based on what criteria? Who determines what an adequate variety of perspectives is?
“Who chooses what an acceptable perspective to present is?
“I venture to say that I have presented a variety of perspectives on this matter, myself, second to no one. This is disturbing. The Board is a public institution and everyone should be entitled to present once on such a topic as this.
“Any info and ideas?”
 Board of Education Chair Kelly Amos Here is the letter Muir got from Chair Kelly Amos:
Dear Tom,
Thank you for your request to delegate.
As I am sure you can appreciate we have had a great number of requests to delegate from representatives from all the secondary schools in Burlington, as well as some community members.
In order to ensure a variety of perspectives, your delegation description is a very important part of the selection process. As such, we are requesting a 250 word description of your delegation topic, including at least 5 main points, and would request this information by Thurs. May 4th at 12pm in order for the delegation to be able to be reviewed for consideration.
Some individuals or groups have requested multiple delegations. As per the Delegation Bylaw, an individual may only delegate once, as either an individual or as part of a representing group, regarding the Burlington Program and Accommodation Review.
“Individuals or groups who have delegated the Board of Trustees on a topic will be permitted to delegate again on the same topic no sooner than four months after the original delegation unless they are presenting new information.”
“When your response has been received it will be reviewed and all delegations that have been accepted will receive information as to the delegation night you will be appearing on. We will do the best we can to accommodate the night originally requested, depending on space available.”
Muir responds to Chair Amos:
I find this request for 250 words in less than 24 hours, and its stated purpose, as a disturbing development.
Demanding this 250 word delegation description by 12 noon tomorrow is onerous as it has no respect for my individual circumstances in that time period. I would add that the stated purpose compounds that impression.
And I can only assume that every delegation request is being subject to the same demand, but I do not know.
This request does not conform to the Delegation by-law in terms of timing of delegation requests, and possible submission of written material timing, by anything written that I read.
I can appreciate there could be a lot of requests for delegations, but as you know, this is the most contentious issue to face the Board in a very long time.
The Board is a public institution, and you are an elected public official, and every member of the public that wants to delegate, and to be heard, should be able to do so once, without restriction, and without having to submit what they want to say for official scrutiny and approval of their views and right to speak.
As I’m sure you can appreciate, I must tell you, with all due respect, that this very much resembles the possibility of censorship, and suppression, of perspectives and views that don’t pass the criteria or screens that you intend to impose.
As you can also appreciate, this demand, and the optics it projects, will never lead to any good place or satisfactory resolution of this PAR matter.
If you have more than 50 requests for delegation, I think that your responsibility to the public as an elected official imposes on you a fiduciary, and good faith democratic obligation, to accommodate all requests to delegate.
I recall this possibility for many requests, and the need to meet the demand if greater than 50, was aired at a PARC meeting by PARC members. I could not imagine that the PARC would approve of this action.
All perspectives must be heard, not subjected to censorship.
I request and hope that you will abandon this request, which I think leads only to dangerous ground. It is not a good idea.
Yours sincerely, Tom Muir
 By Staff
May 2nd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
As part of its ongoing #Campaign911 and #MakeTheCall911 initiatives to get impaired drivers off area roads, the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) will launch a pilot program in Burlington.
Project Drive Thru (#ProjectDriveThru) is a partnership between police and local restaurants with drive thrus that will educate employees on the signs of impairment and instruct them on how to let the police know what they have observed.
 The server gets a pretty up close look at the driver of the vehicle – can they help to keep impaired drivers off the road. Superintendent Al Albano, Commander of 3 District said earlier today that Burlington has 36 drive thru locations of which 15 are 24 hour a day operations.
“Of the 36 that we talked to” said Albino, “everyone has taken up the opportunity to be part of keeping impaired people off the roads.”
Members of the HRPS will present Project Drive Thru to event attendees and will offer a photo opportunity as well as one-on-one interviews.
Constable Dave Stewart, District Response Unit Officer is identified as the Project Drive Thru creator
The training takes place on Wednesday, May 4th at 9:30 am at the Burlington police detachment.
By Pepper Parr
May 2nd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Changing the way we elect those who represent us from the current First Past the Post (FPTP) where the person with the most votes is the winner and the number of votes does not have to be more than 50% has been a concern for many.
It becomes possible for a political party to win with as little as 35% of the vote.
The other 65% feel they are not represented.
Ranking the ballots so that the eventual winner has at least 50% + 1 is an approach favoured by many.
 How would it work in practice? The Ontario government set out an example that explains just what voters do with their ballots and how the results are tallied up.
Single-member election: an election where one candidate is elected
In this election, you are being asked to vote on the kind of fruit that will be served as a snack.
Ranking the ballot
With ranked ballots you can rank your choices from your most preferred to least preferred option, as follows:
- Cherry 1
- Pear 2
- Strawberry 3
- Apple 4
Calculate the threshold
Thirty people voted, and only one fruit can be chosen. Sixteen votes are needed for a fruit to be elected (50 per cent of 30 votes is 15 votes, plus one makes it a majority).
Count the first choice votes
After the ballots are distributed according to first choices, the vote count looks like this:
None of the fruits has received enough votes to be elected.
Eliminate the option in last place and redistribute those ballots to other candidates
Your first choice, Cherry got the fewest votes. Your ballot will now be given to your second choice, Pear. (The ballots of everyone else who voted for Cherry as their first choice will also be redistributed to their second choices).
After the five Cherry ballots are distributed, the new vote count is:
After the second round of counting, none of the fruits has received enough votes to be elected.
Drop the last place and redistribute those ballots
Strawberry now has the fewest votes. Your ballot stays with your second choice, Pear.
After the seven Strawberry ballots are redistributed, the new vote count is:
Pear is elected with 17 votes. Even though your first choice didn’t get elected, your ballot helped your second choice to win.
The problem was that no one was using such an approach – until Monday evening when London, Ontario’s city council voted to use ranked balloting for their 2018 municipal election. They are the first municipality to do so in Ontario.
Dave Meslin, Creative Director of Unlock Democracy Canada, said “This unprecedented decision makes London City Council the first and only government, anywhere in Canada, to abandon First-Past-the-Post.
“Ranked ballots are a small and simple change that make local elections more fair, inclusive and friendly” said Meslin. “In an age of increasing political cynicism it’s inspiring to see this kind of leadership. Voters deserve a modern electoral system that delivers fair results, reduces negativity and encourages more voices to participate.”
He added that London has put themselves on the map as the #1 leader of democratic renewal in Canada – a great gift to the country on our 150th birthday!
Recent legislation in Ontario allows any of the province’s 444 municipalities to use ranked ballots, but 443 Councils decided to keep the status quo. Electoral reform is difficult to achieve because incumbents rarely want to change the system that put them into power. What we saw in London tonight was rare: selfless leadership.
 Ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward has been an advocate for ranked balloting – but has yet to bring a motion to city council. No one on Burlington’s city council has put a motion on the table giving the citizens an opportunity to debate the issues. Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward said in a prepared statement that she “commend London for taking this step and will be watching the next election with interest. They are in a bit of a different situation as a single tier municipality than we are, as part of Halton Regional.
Meslin argues that “lower tiers can do whatever they want, but the UPPER tier can’t switch to ranked ballots unless all of the lower tiers switch.
The upshot is that Burlington is not going to even debate the issue. Oakville and Milton appear to be taking the same position – there is just no appetite for a change.
Why mess with a good thing.
 By Tom Muir
May 1st, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident who does not have children in any schools, wanted to know why parents in the city of Burlington were being told that two of the city’s seven high schools should be closed. His attempt to get at the real reason behind this decision boggles the mind. Red tape galore – a long but not very pretty story.
Part 4 of a four part series: Another Chapter in This Saga
 Because the response to my Freedom of Inforamtion (FOI) request to the Halton District School Board got tied up in the mail, my failure to receive a response to an identically worded FOI request to the Ministry of Education prompted me to contact them. I found the same problem that a Ministry response was in the mail to my home.
I then asked for and received a response by email, and got it April 11.
The Ministry replied that;
“upon review of the records, it has been noted that your request may affect the interests of a third party”
“The third party has been notified that a request has been made for the records, and has been given the opportunity to make representation concerning the disclosure of the records.”
“A decision on whether the records will be disclosed will be made by April 30, 2017 in accordance with subsection 28(4) of the Act.”
At this message, the identity of the third party remained anonymous.
It was obviously concerning because this long delay, with the opportunity for the third party to appeal a decision to release at the April 30 date, meant that the FOI documents from the Ministry might not be released until after the PARC process was essentially over and would be of no use.
This statement and finding begged me to ask numerous questions. For example,
– I don’t know how such an FOI request as mine, involving entirely public business, by public institutions, could involve the interests of a third party other that the HDSB and the Ministry of Education, and employees of said institutions.
– Please tell me how this could be, and what evidence is there that my request may affect the interests of a third party?
– And why are you withholding all of the record?
– I know of some particular parts of the record that have been disclosed by the HDSB, so tell me how this works?
– How could anyone have personal interest in a public process involving only public institutions and public records, have personal interests and information the disclosure of which might constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy?
– It’s all public business, conducted in the public domain, so there is no personal privacy to be invaded, unjustified or not.
Subsequent correspondence with the Ministry included;
– On second thought to my message below, it occurred to me – is the third party considered by you to be the Halton District School Board?
– There are only 3 parties to this FOI request – I (1),sent the FOI to the Ministry (2), and ask about their interaction with HDSB (3), without which the basis for the FOI request has no object to search.
– If it is, then this is a most ridiculous idea, and it fits with my suggestion that the end result of this failure to disclose any of the record is to delay beyond the timeline of the public process for which the FOI is meant to inform about.
– The record involves HDSB in some way so this fits with all the record being withheld.
– It is also ridiculous to think that disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy for HDSB, which is not a person, and staff who are not private persons in their responsible employment with HDSB.
In response to this, the Ministry stated on April 12;
– The information responsive to your request originated from, and was created by, the Halton District School Board.
– In cases like this one, section 28 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) makes clear that if there is reason to believe the responsive record may contain information referred to in section 17 [Third Party Information] of the Act, we are to give written notice to the entity or person to whom the information relates.
– As you will see in the portion of legislation below, section 17 lists harms that an affected party would need to prove relevant to prevent the release of specified information. Third party notice is important, especially when we require clarity as to whether the information shared by another institution, business or person was supplied in confidence to the Ministry.
Here is our update –
– Following our third party notice to the board (affected party) and our advisory letter to you (the requester), the board confirmed that they have no concerns with the release of the records.
– My staff are attempting to reach the board contact and advise them that we will release the records prior to the end of the third party period. This is not a usual occurrence, but given their green light, we will proceed. I understand you are under a time constraint of your own so, with your permission, we can send you the records via e-mail when they are ready for a mail-out.
Since all this Ministry revelation was going on at the same time as my interactions with HDSB it is easily imagined that the upset was doubly disturbing and running on.
My reading of this is that all the information in the FOI response came from the HDSB. This was disturbing as it sounds like the Ministry didn’t provide any of its own records, despite my knowing of several documents in the HDSB response to their FOI that are Ministry documents.
This makes it appear that HDSB did basically all of the Ministry response to the FOI. And since the scoping of the FOI request was identical for both HDSB and Ministry FOI requests, it would be obvious to the HDSB that they are coming from the same person.
Further, according to the Ministry, despite the HDSB indicating they had no concerns, the groundless and purposeless delay till April 30 was kept in place, and the HDSB would have known about this, and knowing the identical text of the FOI request, would have a highly likely knowledge of who it was that the FOI response pertained to. And yet, the Board said nothing and let the time delay stay in place.
Add all this together – Board and Ministry issues and delays – and let me tell you, that your so called “unnecessarily abrupt” email from me becomes both necessary and appropriate.
So, on the same date, April 13, the Ministry got a equally “abrupt” email challenging what had been done and essentially “demanding” their FOI response that very same day as I asked the Board to provide theirs.
Although I did not get my demand, in contrast with the Board’s stone-wall and continued power driven evasive response, this is what I received;
Good morning Tom,
My office’s decision to issue a third party notice, which is a time extension, is permitted under the Act.
My office is preparing a response that is the totality of the records responsive to your request. We cannot create records for an access request; only provide records that exist in our custody and control. The records existed in our Ministry at the time we received your request.
Despite the April 30th deadline, we intend to get the records to you next week.
Conclusion
So there you have it, my promised story about how this email you find so “unnecessarily abrupt”, as to be so offensive to you, that you continue to play the Board’s power trump card to dictate conditions, a bully tactic that I have no countervailing means to respond with.
So you got something like what you give.
In conclusion, I will say that I did not opt out of conversation with your Superintendent of Business, rather she opted out of a conversation with me about what the conversation needed to consist of in order to meet the standards of public institutional transparency and accountability, which are of course, the basis of trust.
I never said I didn’t want to consider a conversation. I still want the information and clarifications I asked for.
Now – what was in the documents Muir worked so hard at getting? That comes next.
Part 1 of a 4 part series.
Part 2 of a 4 part series
Part 3 of a 4 part series
|
|
