By Dr. Bob Uttl<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In May 2009, Principal Wendy Hogg formally evaluated Ms. T\u2019s teaching of a challenging Grade 2 class in School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay<\/a> and deemed it satisfactory. Just nine days later, four Educational Assistants submitted a letter to Ms. Cynthia Stuart, the Director of Human Resources, School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay<\/a>, containing vague and unverified allegations about Ms. T\u2019s classroom performance. The letter was not shared with Ms. T. What followed was a series of troubling actions by Human Resources: the satisfactory evaluation disappeared for over seven years, the uninvestigated allegations were quietly circulated to Ms. T\u2019s future principal and the Superintendent, and basic principles of procedural fairness were ignored. This sequence of events raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and balanced information management within School District No. 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On May 20, 2009, Principal Wendy Hogg issued a \u201cReport on Teacher by Principal\/Vice-Principal to Superintendent of Schools\u201d based on her multiple formal observations of Ms. T\u2019s teaching of a Grade 2 class (all subjects except Music). Principal Hogg concluded that Ms. T\u2019s teaching was \u201csatisfactory\u201d (note that there are only two possible conclusions: \u201csatisfactory\u201d or \u201cless than satisfactory\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. T\u2019s assigned Grade 2 class was extraordinarily challenging: over half the students had Individual Education Plans (IEPs) or other service plans. Principal Hogg described the class as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Educational needs of the pupils \u2013 20 students, 14 boys and 6 girls. 2 students with IEPs for Intensive Behaviour, 2 students with IEPs for Moderate Behaviour, 2 students with IEPs for Learning Disabilities, 2 students with Speech & Language Support, 4 other students who have service plans. The class has a high range of abilities.<\/p>\nPrincipal Wendy Hogg, May 20, 2009<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Principal Hogg\u2019s report failed to mention several critical facts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Surprisingly, Principal Wendy Hogg\u2019s satisfactory evaluation was promptly lost in the School District No. 5 Human Resources Department<\/a>, which was directed at the time by Ms. Cynthia Stuart. (Principal Hogg testified under oath that she had delivered the evaluation to Human Resources.) The evaluation was not located until July 2016 \u2014 more than seven years later and two months after Ms. T was terminated by Ms. Cynthia Stuart\u2019s successor, Mr. Brent Reimer, Director of Human Resources, School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to his Affidavit, sworn on July 13, 2017, Ms. Brent Reimer testified that he “found” the Teaching Evaluation while he was compiling “the disclosure package that the TRB had requested”, that the Union requested it (read the Union’s Request for Principal Wendy Hogg’s lost evaluation<\/a>), and that he provided it on July 7, 2016. Mr. Reimer swore:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 75. On or about July 7, 2016, I spoke to the Union advising them that I had compiled the disclosure package that the TRB had requested and that we would provide the Complainant and the Union a copy of the documents. I also informed the Union that I had found the Teaching Evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 76. In a letter dated July 7, 2016, the Union requested the Teaching Evaluation (the “Union Request Letter”). I provided the Union with a copy of the Teaching Evaluation that same day. It should be noted that under the Collective Agreement, copies of teaching evaluations are provided to the teacher and the Union at the time the report is finalized. The Teaching Evaluation was not signed by the Complainant [Ms. T]. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “FF” and “GG” to this Affidavit is a true copy of the Union Request and Teaching Evaluation, respectively<\/p>\nAffidavit of Brent Reimer, sworn on July 13, 2017<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Mr. Brent Reimer correctly noted what the normal process is, that is, the evaluation is provided to the teacher for signature at the time of the evaluation. Mr. Brent Reimer failed to note that in this instance Principal Wendy Hogg’s evaluation was not signed by Ms. T because the evaluation, signed by Principal Hogg, was promptly lost in the Human Resources Department and NOT forwarded to the teacher and the Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only nine days after Principal Wendy Hogg issued her satisfactory evaluation, four Educational Assistants \u2014 Ms. Cathy Roberts, Ms. Evelyn Gallagher, Ms. Dannelle MacKinnon, and Ms. Linda Butz \u2014 wrote a letter addressed to Ms. Cynthia Stuart. The letter was cc\u2019d to Ray White (CUPE President, Local 4165), Wendy Turner (President, CDTA), and Karen Giles (returning Principal at Pinewood Elementary). It was neither cc\u2019d to nor delivered to Ms. T.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The letter raised vague and non-specific allegations without providing any factual basis<\/a>, specific incidents, dates, or examples. One example stated: \u201cOblivious to surroundings and lacks peripheral classroom management.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The four EAs did not follow expected professional practice. Instead of raising their concerns directly with Ms. T or with their immediate supervisor, Principal Wendy Hogg (who had just evaluated Ms. T as satisfactory), they sent the letter directly to Ms. Cynthia Stuart, Director of Human Resources, with copies to union representatives and the incoming principal. This approach bypassed normal communication channels, deprived Ms. T of any early opportunity to understand or respond to the concerns, and raises serious questions about the EAs\u2019 professional judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The letter was sent only nine days after the satisfactory evaluation and questioned Ms. T\u2019s alleged \u201cappointment\u201d to Grade 2 for the 2009\/2010 school year, even though there is no evidence that such an appointment had been finalized at the time. Ms. T was subsequently assigned to teach Grade 5 rather than continuing in Grade 2. The close timing raises a reasonable question whether the unverified letter influenced the decision to assign Ms. T to Grade 5, and whether the EAs were acting on rumours, assumptions, or information from administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. Cynthia Stuart testified under oath on April 9, 2024, that after receiving the letter she:<\/p>\n\n\n\n By sharing unverified allegations with Ms. T\u2019s future supervisor and the Superintendent while withholding them from Ms. T, Ms. Stuart breached basic principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. Allegations capable of affecting a teacher\u2019s reputation or professional assignments should not be acted upon or circulated without giving the individual an opportunity to respond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On July 14, 2017, in paragraph 15 of her affidavit, Ms. Cynthia Stuart swore: \u201cA copy of the EA letter was copied to the Complainant\u2019s Union and placed in the Complainant\u2019s personnel file.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n She did not disclose in that affidavit that the letter had not been investigated or that she had \u201cno idea\u201d whether the allegations were true or false. The affidavit was relied upon by School District No. 5 in a failed attempt to dismiss Ms. T\u2019s Human Rights Complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the District later disclosed Ms. T\u2019s personnel file, the Four EAs\u2019 letter was not present in the file.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On April 9, 2024, during cross-examination, Ms. Stuart admitted under oath that it would be \u201chighly inappropriate\u201d to place an uninvestigated letter into a teacher\u2019s personnel file. This creates a direct contradiction in her sworn testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. Stuart\u2019s testimony contains repeated hedging language (\u201cI would assume so,\u201d \u201cprobably,\u201d \u201cI do not remember,\u201d \u201cI do not know,\u201d \u201csomehow\u201d). In direct examination on April 8, 2024, she stated she had taken the letter to the management team (including Superintendent Bill Gook) so they were aware of the \u201clatest event.\u201d The following day, on cross-examination, she testified that she did \u201cnot know\u201d if she had shared it with Mr. Gook but \u201cprobably\u201d discussed it with him. These shifts, combined with the contradictory evidence about placement in the personnel file, weaken confidence in the accuracy and reliability of her account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most concerning aspect of this matter is how Ms. Cynthia Stuart, as Director of Human Resources, School District No. 5<\/a>, handled the four EAs\u2019 vague, non-specific, and unverified allegations. She:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The letter was ultimately disclosed only in 2017 as part of the litigation process before BC Human Rights Tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. Cynthia Stuart\u2019s actions reflect a serious failure to apply core principles of basic HR practice:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sharing unverified allegations with Ms. T\u2019s future supervisor while framing the action as \u201csupport\u201d \u2014 without ever informing Ms. T \u2014 is particularly problematic. One cannot meaningfully support a teacher based on allegations about which one knows nothing and has made no effort to verify. Such conduct is far more likely to prejudice the supervisor against Ms. T than to assist her, and it significantly undercuts Ms. Cynthia Stuart\u2019s credibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Human Resources Department<\/a>\u2019s loss of Principal Hogg\u2019s satisfactory evaluation for over seven years indicates either a serious failure to follow the Collective Agreement (which requires such evaluations to be placed in the personnel file and forwarded to the teacher within weeks) or extraordinarily poor file management practices \u2014 or possibly deliberate suppression of positive information. Mr. Brent Reimer, Director of Human Resources<\/a>, School District No 5<\/a>, findings the evaluation only seven years after the fact is stunning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In summary, unverified, vague negative information was treated as actionable and secretly shared with decision-makers, while verified positive information was lost or suppressed \u2014 all without Ms. T\u2019s knowledge or any opportunity for her to respond. This pattern reveals a significant breakdown in HR principles, procedural fairness, and balanced information management. It creates a strong appearance, and likely the reality, of unfair treatment and bias against Ms. T.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Buy me a coffee<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nPrincipal Wendy Hogg\u2019s Evaluation of Ms. T\u2019s Teaching<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Four Educational Assistants\u2019 Letter to Ms. Cynthia Stuart<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Ms. Cynthia Stuart\u2019s Handling of the Letter<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Ms. Cynthia Stuart’s Inconsistent Evidence Regarding Placement in Personnel File<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Ms. Cynthia Stuart’s Evasive Testimony Affecting Her Credibility<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Conclusions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n