The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Log in

Draft Minutes of the Special General Meeting of March 1, 2018

THE PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING

MARCH 1, 2018

HAMPTON INN, OTTAWA, ON

The Chair, Barry Young, called the Special General Meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and welcomed the delegates and observers. He introduced the head table, namely Robert Trudeau (Parliamentarian) and Julie Gagnon (SGM Coordinator and Recording Secretary).

  1. Approval of the Agenda

Moved and seconded that the Special General Meeting agenda be approved.

Clarification was sought on what rules were used to establish the agenda. The Chair clarified that the SGM was called to deal with one purpose, as per Institute BLs and the NFPCA.

A delegate was of the view that Institute BL 13.3.5 (Delegates) had been contravened and that quorum should represent 300 delegates.

The Chair stated that the Act overrides the BLs and that the NCR delegates present at the SMG were the only ones allowed to vote on the matter. The Chair also stated that the SGM was a valid meeting which would be allowed to take place and that a decision would be made by the delegates.

The Chair was challenged on his ruling. The SGM sustained the decision of the Chair.

The motion carried.

  1. Approval of the Rules of Procedure

Move and seconded that the SGM Rules of Procedures be approved as presented.

Some rules were highlighted by the Chair.

The motion carried.

  1. SGM Resolution

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas a complaint alleging misconduct was filed against National Capital Region Director Peter Taticek, pursuant to the Institute’s Dispute Resolution and Discipline Policy (DRDP);

Whereas a duly constituted Panel of Peers adopted the findings of an independent investigator and concluded that Mr. Taticek had engaged in the following misconduct:

a) Sending a libellous email in violation of By-Law 24.1.1(e);

b) Circulating among members a false report in violation of By-Law 24.1.1.(d);

c) Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the good order of the Institute in violation of By-Law 24.1.1 (o)

d) Engaging in harassing conduct in violation of the Institute’s Harassment Policy;

Whereas the Panel of Peers also accepted the findings of the investigator that Mr. Taticek acted in reckless disregard for the truth and that his conduct was callous and reprehensible;

Whereas the Panel of Peers determined that the appropriate corrective measure was to suspend Mr. Taticek from his position as Director for the remainder of his term set to expire on December 31, 2018; and

Whereas the decision of the Panel of Peers was upheld on appeal by a third party neutral appointed pursuant to Part F of the Dispute Resolution and Discipline Policy;

Therefore be it resolved that pursuant to the Dispute Resolution and Discipline Policy and in accordance with the discipline decision rendered by the Panel of Peers in the matter of 2016DR-16, Mr. Peter Taticek is hereby suspended from his position of National Capital Region Director until the end of his term on December 31, 2018.

It was pointed out that as per Institute BLs, the resolution should have been received by the Office of the Executive Secretary twelve weeks prior to the SGM and was submitted only six weeks prior.

The Chair stated that the NFPCA, which override the BLs, requires that the resolution be submitted three weeks in advance. He further added that the process (timeline) had been agreed to by the Board in January 2018 therefore the meeting would be allowed to continue.

The Chair was challenged on his ruling. The SGM sustained the decision of the Chair.

VP Hindle provided an opening statement in support of the resolution. Director Taticek was also given the opportunity to make an opening statement opposed to the resolution.

The floor was then opened for debate.

Some were of the view that this was an issue of whistleblowing by the member who was being singled out for exercising his due diligence in pointing out an issue of bankruptcy, which is against BLs. Members have a responsibility to call into question the conduct of leadership if and when necessary, without the fear of discipline for doing so. Concern was also raised with other options and/or progressive discipline not having been considered prior to suspension from office.

Some delegates felt that there was context lacking in this case and that the investigation report did not refer to the fiduciary duty of Directors. The Board should have fully discussed and addressed this matter, as well as the concerns raised in the member’s email, instead of sending it directly through the complaint route.

Some delegates stated that the investigation had been conducted appropriately and that the DRDP (as supported by the AGM) had been duly followed. The DRDP is an evidence-based process, substantiated by independent evaluators. It is fair and balanced and was put in place to avoid any political interference, to the benefit of the Institute and its members. The SGM should trust the process and uphold the decision of the Institute’s Panel of Peers in this very serious matter.

After a balanced debated, the question was called and the SGM agreed to proceed to the vote. (3:30).

Director Taticek and VP Hindle were given the opportunity to make closing statements prior to the vote taking place.

The motion was defeated. (61/45)

The SGM adjourned at 3:37 p.m.