Industry News

Unexpected (or expected?) resignation of the Chair

John Ryan's resignation enabled Alfred Wong to run for re-election, for his third term. Both Nigel and Alfred served two terms already and if they were not the Chair and Vice Chair, they could not run again.

Do you remember 2007 when Nigel was running? He distributed his platform (attached). On another forum, he stated that he will not run for a second term because he believes that the Directors should serve only one term and then step down to allow new Directors to take over. Nigel resigned in 2008 and his letter to John Ryan sent shortly after the resignation was the last indication that he is still the independent thinker we thought he would be... in 2009, he was appointed to the same position he resigned from a year ago... and from then on, he has been a faithful follower of John Ryan. If he kept his promise and did not accept any money for his services on the Board, then the amount listed for Directors' fees is much higher than those $ 55,000 on average that we calculated by dividing the amount by 9. However, Mr. Thomson never bothered to inform members whether he kept his election promise.

Alfred Wong - there is not much to be said about him. He was re-elected in 2007 after he asked members to trust him and leave him alone to do his job. He has been the Chair of the Audit Committee for the past year and we all know what the financial statements look like - no real information, other than the CMI has cost us over a million in the last fiscal year. A million that CSIC invested in the CMI Inc. and then wrote off as a loss. At the AGM when a member asked why is the CMI Inc. not shut down when it is losing money, Mr. Ryan's response was: why would we do that? Fiscal responsibility and corporate governance at its best!

Alfred was also the only Director ever re-elected (unless we count Holly Gracey who was appointed in 2005 and elected in 2006. In 2008, Imran Qayyum was defeated by Alli Amlani and Mr. Ryan secured his position on the Board by being acclaimed. In 2009, Dawn Moore was defeated. Both defeats showed clearly that members do not trust the Directors and would like to see a change. If the members are consistent, they cannot re-elect Nigel Thomson and Alfred Wong.

I would also like to point out that the 2010 Election package contains severe restrictions on the ability of the candidates to run a successful election campaign:

3) HOW TO BE NOMINATED

On March 26, 2010 the call for nominations was announced. In order to qualify as a candidate for a “Consultant Director” position on the Board of Directors of CSIC, an individual must:

be a current Full Member in good standing of CSIC; and
have completed all requirements for full membership; and
have completed all requirements for nomination; and
continue to meet all the requirements for nomination throughout the nominations and election period; and
not be in default of payment of any CSIC fees; and
not had his or her CSIC membership revoked or suspended within the last two years preceding the date(s) of the election; and
not have an open complaint before the CSIC Complaints and Discipline department; and
not be subject of a disciplinary action by either the Manager of the Complaints and Discipline Department or the Discipline Council in the two years preceding the close of nomination; and
be at least eighteen (18) years of age with power under law to contract; and
Must have been nominated by at least 15 Full Members in good standing;

There are not many CSIC members left that are qualified to run !!! Almost every CSIC member who dared to speak up against the governance or the Directors' performance was disqualified by having a complaint filed against them by CSIC. Take Phil Mooney, Rhonda Williams, Lynn Gaudet, Jeff Hemlin and many others - those are the leaders that would be excellent candidates for this election.. and yet, none of them is allowed to run.

CAMPAIGN RULES:

In addition to the obligations set out in the Conduct of Candidates above, each candidate is required to abide by the following procedures.

1. Third party campaigning, endorsements, advertising, fundraising and forums:

Candidates are prohibited from receiving, broadcasting, advertising, fundraising, seeking or accepting endorsements from non-CSIC third-party, organizations or individuals.
Candidates are prohibited from postings links to any third-party organization’s or individual’s website and are prohibited from using excerpts from any such website or other print material on their own personal website during the campaign.
Candidates are prohibited from making use of, accepting donations from, or advertising any third party material during the campaign.
Candidates are prohibited against accepting invitations to speak at non-CSIC sanctioned events regardless of whether or not other candidates have beeninvited to participate.
CSIC does not permit the use of third party owned and operated websites for holding candidate’s forums or on-line discusions. Any candidate discovered using a third-party owned and operated website to disseminate election related messages will be open to a possible sanction by the SEO.

3. Candidates are cautioned that the following situations will lead to disqualification of a candidate post certification by the SEO:

Candidate supplied forged signatures in support of nomination as a candidate;
Candidate ceases to qualify to be a director as they are no longer a member in good standing as set out under the by-laws 10 and 3.17.Nomination 12 Package 2010
Where a candidate is found to have accepted funds or endorsements from non-CSIC members or organizations; and
Where a candidate is found to have participated in a non-CSIC organized campaign event.

What does it mean? Neither CAPIC nor the Listserv may endorse a candidate - if they do so, that candidate will be disqualified. I personally may not endorse a candidate - I am officially a third party, since I am not CSIC member. Those candidates that have no contact to their peers are at a great disadvantage - their only way to communicate with the members are the two emails allowed by CSIC and sent through CSIC system to the members. We still remember last year - messages were censored and those candidates who refused the censorship were not allowed to distribute their email to members.

There will be people running for election that nobody ever heard of - how are you going to know where they stand? If they never signed one single motion or petition? If they never participated in any initiative by members? If they never showed any interest in the governance of the Society? Should you vote for them? I don't think so - but use your common sense.

If there are candidates that you are familiar with and have been in touch with before the election, you at least know who they are and what they stand for. These are the people who will need your support and vote.

On a finishing note... just think about what has happened in the past 4 years:

The membership fees increased
The number of dissenters punished by CSIC increased
The spending of the Board increased
Reputation of CSIC members did not improve
CSIC supported every legislation proposed by the government even if it directly and unnecessarily hurt CSIC members - for political reasons
Cost of mandatory CPD points increased by 150%
CMI Inc. cost every member almost $ 700
CSIC annual budget is over $ 8 million
The biggest department at CSIC is that of Complaints and Discipline combined with Intelligence Department while the Education department has 3 people.
The Board continues to violate its own By-laws by imposing restrictions on members who want to run for election
The Complaint and Discipline Department deals predominantly with complaints filed by CSIC - Rule 16 of the Code of Conduct
Those consultants who chose not to get a license are still operating and flourishing

If you like what has happened, then you may vote for the old "the same"... if not, use common sense and think twice before you cast your vote!

Legal fund

We need to raise more money to allow Mr. Waldman to prepare for the hearing. Contributions to the legal fund may be made by anyone, not only CSIC members. Everybody who values freedom of speech, respects the principles of democracy and would like to see our challenge to go forward is welcome to contribute. You will find instructions in the link on the left menu:

Legal fund contribution

Documents related to the current legal challenge

CSIC response to application for leave to the Federal Court and Mr. Waldman prompt rebuttal.

T-1425-09 CSIC - John Koury affidavit, January 10, 2010

T-1425-09 CSIC - Memorandum of Argument, January 15, 2010

T-1425-09 Mr. Waldman's response, January 18, 2010

T-1767-09-CSIC - John Koury affidavit, January 10, 2010

T-1767-09-CSIC - Memorandum of Argument,January 10, 2010

T-1767-09 Mr. Waldman's response, January 18, 2010

On November 30, 2009, Mr. Waldman applied for a leave to hear the case to Federal Court. CSIC response to the application is due on January 15, 2010. Mr. Waldman will have then 10 days to respond to the CSIC writen submission and he expects the oral hearing on the leave to be scheduled at the end of January. If the leave is granted, the case would be heard within 90 days from the decision. A copy of the application and the Memorandum of Fact and Law can be downloaded below.

We need to raise more money to allow Mr. Waldman to prepare for the hearing. Contributions to the legal fund may be made by anyone, not only CSIC members. Everybody who values freedom of speech, respects the principles of democracy and would like to see our challenge to go forward is welcome to contribute. You will find instructions in the link on the left menu:
Legal fund contribution

Application for a leave to Federal Court, November 30, 2009

Memorandum of Fact and Law, November 30, 2009

Decision on jurisdiction of Federal Court, November 5, 2009

Amended Memorandum of Argument

17th Annual Immigration Law Summit, LSUC, November 25 - 26, Toronto

How to claim your CPD points

CSIC Directors announced that they will develop a quiz for those who attended the event. The CPD points will be awarded only to those who paid for the event and successfully passed the quiz. As of now, the quiz is not available.

Documents related to investigation of a complaint

John Koury Affidavit

Letter from investigator, August 17, 2009

Response to investigator's letter by Mr. Lorne Waldman, August 31, 2009

Request by investigator to submit Listserv log, November 11, 2009