With the City election being tomorrow, the City of Vancouver has sent out voting cards to Downtown Eastside residents, informing them that their voting station is Carnegie Centre. Trouble is, a large percentage of neighbourhood residents are banned from entering Carnegie Centre. These bans have been instigated by City staff running Carnegie Centre or Capilano University staff running the Carnegie Learning Centre, and are jointly enforced.
When Carnegie and Capilano ban people, they are well aware that they are creating a barrier to voting. Carnegie is a standard polling station, for all elections: civic, provincial, and federal.
A man banned from Carnegie said he talked to a security staffer last week and was told that they were not allowing banned people into the building on election day. That's a lot of people, when you consider that they have banned hundreds of people a year from Carnegie, usually for freedom of expression, totaling thousands of people by now. Many never go through the often humiliating process of having their barring overturned. Many don't know there is such a process.
Even if security personnel were instructed to back off for a few minutes while a banned person entered the building to vote, many banned people are uncomfortable going back to Carnegie as they were often verbally or physically abused or humiliated during the process. One woman told me that she left the building trembling the night a security guard assaulted her; he was angry that she had been making waves about the undemocratic banning process so he banned her. "When I got my voting card and it said I had to go to Carnegie to vote, I started getting flashbacks," she told me.
And what about the guy who was banned after being thrown to the ground by three security staffers, including the head of security, because he verbally protested when they blocked him from returning his books to the Carnegie public library in a tiny pull cart. Do you really think he wants to return to cast a vote?
Showing posts with label Carnegie Centre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carnegie Centre. Show all posts
Friday, November 18, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
City's subsidized meals for poor being diverted to staff making five and six figure salaries
Today on CKNW, Mayor Gregor Robertson said that the City could not possibly find further places to make cuts in the budget as the City was already "goin' bare bones".
Bare bones? City staff and management continue to fatten up on the heavily subsidized meals the City provides for them daily, even though they make five and six figure salaries. These meals, meant for the poor, are a cut above a regular cafeteria food; they have a health food orientation.
Carnegie Centre provides these quality subsidized meals daily not only to it's own staff but to staff and managers from the surrounding poverty industry organizations on the Downtown Eastside. And they provide similar, reportedly even higher quality, subsidized meals to staff and management at the Gathering Place, which is an organization downtown just off Granville St. This City meal subsidy program provided as a staff and management perk has been going full tilt for decades. Yet it was never been part of negotiated contracts.
Dan Tetrault, Carnegie's Assistant Director, is estimated to have received a minimum of $20,000 in meal subsidies over the two decades that he's worked at Carnegie -- that's a conservative estimate, based on him eating one subsidized lunch each work day. Actually, people have seen him ordering up breakfasts, lunches, and dinners on a regular basis for years. Tetrault is a CUPE member; we know that because he stood on the picket line during the last strike demanding more money and benefits.
These big earners pay no tax when they purchase these meals from Carnegie. No HST.
For years Carnegie served a full dinner, your choice of meat or vegetarian, for $3.00 every evening at 5 o'clock, except for Saturdays when the meal was $2.00. They also served a hearty lunch: an entre and a salad for $1.75. Their salads are good, they have lots of greens in them; sometimes they have potato or beet salad as well. And they served a daily breakfast for $1.75. And for years you could get a healthy low-sugar snack for under a dollar: big date squares for eighty cents, muffins for 50 cents, fruit, yogurt, granola made in-house, etc. They don't serve junk food, except for Blue Sky cola which is a little lower in sugar than regular colas.
Last year they raised the price of all meals by 25 cents at Carnegie. The meals at the Gathering Place have always been a little more expensive than Carnegie; an evening meal there is $3.75. They offer a similar range of healthy food as Carnegie.
A few years ago, a worker in the Carnegie cafeteria told me that they prepare 60 meals an evening and when they're gone, they're gone. Last year, even more of those 60 meals went to yuppies. The rock bottom prices at Carnegie were advertised in a two page spread about the Carnegie cafeteria in the Province newspaper. It was like an infomercial, emphasizing the great service this cafeteria was performing by feeding the poor. According to one regular at Carnegie, the kitchen co-ordinator, Catriona Moore, didn’t want the prices published in the Province. She was ignored. The regular noticed a rush on “yuppies” after that. “There are whole tables of them.”
Whitty avoided mentioning that she helps herself to the meals on top of her over $100,000 salary -- she used to regularly show up for the Tuesday veggie burger with a choice of green or potato salad for $1.75 -- talked to the Province reporter about the helping hand the cafeteria gives to the poor, “They come, we accept them, we feed them.” Too often she does not feed them. The poor and homeless are routinely turned away at both Carnegie and the Gathering Place. The working poor too -- people who get welfare but are allowed to earn a top up by doing odd jobs such as unloading trucks in Strathcona -- are often told the food is gone when they rush down to Carnegie after work.
A homeless guy was telling me the Sunday before last that he had arrived after 5 o’clock and the dinner at the Gathering Place was sold out. He had been looking forward to the pork dinner “with those little potatoes”. I asked him if the staff got their plates, and he said they had.
It's time for a two-tiered payment system at Carnegie and the Gathering Place. People who aren't poor can pay double for a meal. They will still be getting a bargain. Try getting the hearty Carnegie lunch at a restaurant downtown for less than $10. If unionized workers and management in the poverty industry paid more, they could help finance that cafeteria.
A two-tiered payment system would also ensure that the City is not draining customers from private sector restaurants in the City. Waves coffee shop next door to Carnegie looks like it's going bankrupt. It's close to empty much of the time. They've shrunk their hours. At Waves, they charge $7 for a burrito or wrap, before tax. And you don’t get a salad with it. Waves also competes with the Carnegie coffee shop which sells fresh ground coffee for 60 cents per take-out cup.
Carnegie could model on Quest Food store for the poor just up the street on Hastings, which requires proof that you are poor. They make that proof easy to get. They accept a form letter signed by any staffer at a Welfare office confirming that you qualify for food assistance -- these forms are apparently available from any front desk receptionist. Quest will also accept a letter from other organizations that cater to poor people. They will even take a letter from a Minister. When you give them your letter, they give you a card that you are expected to show each time you shop. That system hasn’t stopped a couple of Carnegie workers, a security guard and a former teacher, from relentlessly sneaking in there for the rock bottom prices. But overall the system seems to work; everybody I know who shops there is dirt poor.
Carnegie wouldn’t have to hire extra staff to issue these cards. They already have front desk staff who give out membership cards as part of their job description. They indicate on your membership card whether you are a Senior qualifying for extra services -- I think they put a stamp on the cards of Seniors -- so they could put a stamp on the cards of people who qualify for subsidized meals. Or give them a card in a different colour. On the "bare bones" City budget, incidentally, these front desk workers were built a brand new desk with a tall back, like a throne, after we referred on this blog to the “surfer boy” who sits at the front desk looking at the web. It was built at a time when the City claimed to be looking for efficiencies to save money.
When Mayor Robertson commented today about the City of Vancouver operating on a "bare bones” budget, he was responding to BC Conservative leader John Cummins’ statement that the new gas tax could be avoided if municipalities cut 5% off their budgets and allocated that money to the Evergreen Line. Robertson called Cummins “ignorant”. But what Cummins said is not far removed from what the homeless man who missed out on the pork said: the City throws money at Carnegie Centre and the Gathering Place and they don’t seem interested in the fact that staff inside are helping themselves.
Bare bones? City staff and management continue to fatten up on the heavily subsidized meals the City provides for them daily, even though they make five and six figure salaries. These meals, meant for the poor, are a cut above a regular cafeteria food; they have a health food orientation.
Carnegie Centre provides these quality subsidized meals daily not only to it's own staff but to staff and managers from the surrounding poverty industry organizations on the Downtown Eastside. And they provide similar, reportedly even higher quality, subsidized meals to staff and management at the Gathering Place, which is an organization downtown just off Granville St. This City meal subsidy program provided as a staff and management perk has been going full tilt for decades. Yet it was never been part of negotiated contracts.
Dan Tetrault, Carnegie's Assistant Director, is estimated to have received a minimum of $20,000 in meal subsidies over the two decades that he's worked at Carnegie -- that's a conservative estimate, based on him eating one subsidized lunch each work day. Actually, people have seen him ordering up breakfasts, lunches, and dinners on a regular basis for years. Tetrault is a CUPE member; we know that because he stood on the picket line during the last strike demanding more money and benefits.
These big earners pay no tax when they purchase these meals from Carnegie. No HST.
For years Carnegie served a full dinner, your choice of meat or vegetarian, for $3.00 every evening at 5 o'clock, except for Saturdays when the meal was $2.00. They also served a hearty lunch: an entre and a salad for $1.75. Their salads are good, they have lots of greens in them; sometimes they have potato or beet salad as well. And they served a daily breakfast for $1.75. And for years you could get a healthy low-sugar snack for under a dollar: big date squares for eighty cents, muffins for 50 cents, fruit, yogurt, granola made in-house, etc. They don't serve junk food, except for Blue Sky cola which is a little lower in sugar than regular colas.
Last year they raised the price of all meals by 25 cents at Carnegie. The meals at the Gathering Place have always been a little more expensive than Carnegie; an evening meal there is $3.75. They offer a similar range of healthy food as Carnegie.
A few years ago, a worker in the Carnegie cafeteria told me that they prepare 60 meals an evening and when they're gone, they're gone. Last year, even more of those 60 meals went to yuppies. The rock bottom prices at Carnegie were advertised in a two page spread about the Carnegie cafeteria in the Province newspaper. It was like an infomercial, emphasizing the great service this cafeteria was performing by feeding the poor. According to one regular at Carnegie, the kitchen co-ordinator, Catriona Moore, didn’t want the prices published in the Province. She was ignored. The regular noticed a rush on “yuppies” after that. “There are whole tables of them.”
Whitty avoided mentioning that she helps herself to the meals on top of her over $100,000 salary -- she used to regularly show up for the Tuesday veggie burger with a choice of green or potato salad for $1.75 -- talked to the Province reporter about the helping hand the cafeteria gives to the poor, “They come, we accept them, we feed them.” Too often she does not feed them. The poor and homeless are routinely turned away at both Carnegie and the Gathering Place. The working poor too -- people who get welfare but are allowed to earn a top up by doing odd jobs such as unloading trucks in Strathcona -- are often told the food is gone when they rush down to Carnegie after work.
A homeless guy was telling me the Sunday before last that he had arrived after 5 o’clock and the dinner at the Gathering Place was sold out. He had been looking forward to the pork dinner “with those little potatoes”. I asked him if the staff got their plates, and he said they had.
It's time for a two-tiered payment system at Carnegie and the Gathering Place. People who aren't poor can pay double for a meal. They will still be getting a bargain. Try getting the hearty Carnegie lunch at a restaurant downtown for less than $10. If unionized workers and management in the poverty industry paid more, they could help finance that cafeteria.
A two-tiered payment system would also ensure that the City is not draining customers from private sector restaurants in the City. Waves coffee shop next door to Carnegie looks like it's going bankrupt. It's close to empty much of the time. They've shrunk their hours. At Waves, they charge $7 for a burrito or wrap, before tax. And you don’t get a salad with it. Waves also competes with the Carnegie coffee shop which sells fresh ground coffee for 60 cents per take-out cup.
Carnegie could model on Quest Food store for the poor just up the street on Hastings, which requires proof that you are poor. They make that proof easy to get. They accept a form letter signed by any staffer at a Welfare office confirming that you qualify for food assistance -- these forms are apparently available from any front desk receptionist. Quest will also accept a letter from other organizations that cater to poor people. They will even take a letter from a Minister. When you give them your letter, they give you a card that you are expected to show each time you shop. That system hasn’t stopped a couple of Carnegie workers, a security guard and a former teacher, from relentlessly sneaking in there for the rock bottom prices. But overall the system seems to work; everybody I know who shops there is dirt poor.
Carnegie wouldn’t have to hire extra staff to issue these cards. They already have front desk staff who give out membership cards as part of their job description. They indicate on your membership card whether you are a Senior qualifying for extra services -- I think they put a stamp on the cards of Seniors -- so they could put a stamp on the cards of people who qualify for subsidized meals. Or give them a card in a different colour. On the "bare bones" City budget, incidentally, these front desk workers were built a brand new desk with a tall back, like a throne, after we referred on this blog to the “surfer boy” who sits at the front desk looking at the web. It was built at a time when the City claimed to be looking for efficiencies to save money.
When Mayor Robertson commented today about the City of Vancouver operating on a "bare bones” budget, he was responding to BC Conservative leader John Cummins’ statement that the new gas tax could be avoided if municipalities cut 5% off their budgets and allocated that money to the Evergreen Line. Robertson called Cummins “ignorant”. But what Cummins said is not far removed from what the homeless man who missed out on the pork said: the City throws money at Carnegie Centre and the Gathering Place and they don’t seem interested in the fact that staff inside are helping themselves.
Trees at Carnegie Dying under "Green" Vision Council
Under "Green" Vision Council, the life is being choked out of trees on the outdoor patio at Carnegie Centre at Main & Hastings.
The patio trees are surrounded by steel grates which they have outgrown. The grates are now sticking into the tree trunks, choking the trees. One guy, a nature lover, smoking on the patio a couple of weeks ago, said he complained to Carnegie Director Ethel Whitty about the fact that the trees were being choked and those grates had to be adjusted. Nothing was done.
Mayor Robertson and the Vision/COPE Council have kept Whitty, in a job that pays over $100,000 even though she has consistently failed to address issues raised by Downtown Eastsiders. She gets millions of dollars a year to run Carnegie and she can't manage to loosen the grates around the outdoor trees.
Meanwhile, the City is fining health food millionaire businessman, Aaron Stevens, for cutting trees in his backyard. Many of those trees amounted to dead brush in the backyard of a property that the previous owner had left unattended for years.
The patio trees are surrounded by steel grates which they have outgrown. The grates are now sticking into the tree trunks, choking the trees. One guy, a nature lover, smoking on the patio a couple of weeks ago, said he complained to Carnegie Director Ethel Whitty about the fact that the trees were being choked and those grates had to be adjusted. Nothing was done.
Mayor Robertson and the Vision/COPE Council have kept Whitty, in a job that pays over $100,000 even though she has consistently failed to address issues raised by Downtown Eastsiders. She gets millions of dollars a year to run Carnegie and she can't manage to loosen the grates around the outdoor trees.
Meanwhile, the City is fining health food millionaire businessman, Aaron Stevens, for cutting trees in his backyard. Many of those trees amounted to dead brush in the backyard of a property that the previous owner had left unattended for years.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Seventy Year Old Woman Abused at Carnegie, Security creates No Consequences
A 70 year old woman had a bottle of water thrown at her by a man as she stood waiting for the elevator at Carnegie. She said the bottle could have broken her ankle, as it landed near her foot. She reported the incident to Skip Everall, Security Co-ordinator.
Everall spoke to the man who had thrown the bottle and then dropped the entire issue. The woman was puzzled that nothing had been done. She was told by another Carnegie member that Everall has a record of not taking abuse of women seriously.
In fact, the way this case was handled is typical of the sharia law practiced at Carnegie under the the City of Vancouver. The way sharia works is that a man's testimony is given twice the weight of a woman's. And men can decide on the punishment a woman deserves, without any input from her. (Skip Everall and guard Ted Chaing, made a decision about a woman's punishment for raising the issue of sexism, without any input from her.) Physical abuse of a woman is not considered serious, although a woman failing to defer to a man is considered worthy of serious punishment.
Such sharia punishment, when imposed by the City of Vancouver, generally involves barring the woman from City services for an extended period. After she serves her sentence, she has the option of meeting with Everall, a meeting during which she must act meek and deferential, and make no mention of her rights, in order to be considered sufficiently rehabilitated to have access to services funded by her tax dollars reinstated. I'm not exaggerating. We have tapes of these 'sharia court' sessions financed by the City of Vancouver. It's an example of the social degeneration that can occur when City Hall tosses 3 million dollars a year at Carnegie staff, and essentially looks the other way, expecting little or no accountability for how patrons are treated.
I pointed out to a Carnegie member a couple of years ago that what was being practiced at Carnegie was comparable to sharia law. She then pointed this out to Carnegie Director, Ethel Whitty. Ethel "just shrugged", she says.
Everall spoke to the man who had thrown the bottle and then dropped the entire issue. The woman was puzzled that nothing had been done. She was told by another Carnegie member that Everall has a record of not taking abuse of women seriously.
In fact, the way this case was handled is typical of the sharia law practiced at Carnegie under the the City of Vancouver. The way sharia works is that a man's testimony is given twice the weight of a woman's. And men can decide on the punishment a woman deserves, without any input from her. (Skip Everall and guard Ted Chaing, made a decision about a woman's punishment for raising the issue of sexism, without any input from her.) Physical abuse of a woman is not considered serious, although a woman failing to defer to a man is considered worthy of serious punishment.
Such sharia punishment, when imposed by the City of Vancouver, generally involves barring the woman from City services for an extended period. After she serves her sentence, she has the option of meeting with Everall, a meeting during which she must act meek and deferential, and make no mention of her rights, in order to be considered sufficiently rehabilitated to have access to services funded by her tax dollars reinstated. I'm not exaggerating. We have tapes of these 'sharia court' sessions financed by the City of Vancouver. It's an example of the social degeneration that can occur when City Hall tosses 3 million dollars a year at Carnegie staff, and essentially looks the other way, expecting little or no accountability for how patrons are treated.
I pointed out to a Carnegie member a couple of years ago that what was being practiced at Carnegie was comparable to sharia law. She then pointed this out to Carnegie Director, Ethel Whitty. Ethel "just shrugged", she says.
Rigged Complaints Process at Carnegie: Woman has been Waiting almost Two Years for City staffer Dan Tetrault to Respond to Abuse Incident
There is evidence that the process for the many Carnegie members who have complaints about staff abuse is rigged. Complaints about staff abuse or other forms of misconduct are regularly sent to CUPE member Dan Tetrault. That's where the rigging is: complaints against CUPE members are sent to a CUPE member to be addressed.
It has now been almost two years, and there has been no response to a formal complaint that went to Tetrault after being lodged with Security Co-ordinator Skip Everall about Brent, a cashier who approached a woman in an aggressive manner and swore at her. She was entering the cafeteria at the time and he apparently was trying to close earlier than scheduled -- she wonders if he was sneaking out early for the long weekend -- and didn't want customers getting in the way. She was uncomfortable returning to the cafeteria due to Brent's conduct.
Everall scolded the victim for daring to speak to a security guard about Brent's behaviour -- even though members are instructed at Carnegie to report any incident to security. (Members are discouraged from handling such situations themselves. Signs of empowerment on the part of any low income person are considered punishable by barring from all City services at the Centre.)
It has now been almost two years, and there has been no response to a formal complaint that went to Tetrault after being lodged with Security Co-ordinator Skip Everall about Brent, a cashier who approached a woman in an aggressive manner and swore at her. She was entering the cafeteria at the time and he apparently was trying to close earlier than scheduled -- she wonders if he was sneaking out early for the long weekend -- and didn't want customers getting in the way. She was uncomfortable returning to the cafeteria due to Brent's conduct.
Everall scolded the victim for daring to speak to a security guard about Brent's behaviour -- even though members are instructed at Carnegie to report any incident to security. (Members are discouraged from handling such situations themselves. Signs of empowerment on the part of any low income person are considered punishable by barring from all City services at the Centre.)
After scolding the woman for daring to believe she had a right to speak to a security guard, Everall told her that complaints about staff are to be sent to Dan Tetrault. He would not allow the guard to write an Incident Report and slammed the Incident Report binder closed. Everall instructed her to submit the complaint in writing. She did so immediately and handed it directly to Everall. He said Tetrault, would respond to it. The complaint was balanced, in that the complainant pointed out that Brent had previously been polite to her. (Others at Carnegie noticed Brent had become nasty at times; they figured his probationary period was up.)
The complaint was buried.
It will be two years in July since the woman who was cussed at was told to put the complaint in writing. If the situation had been the other way around, if a woman in the Centre had cussed at a male staff person, the woman would have been instantly barred for an extended period from City of Vancouver services inside Carnegie. She would have had an Incident Report instantly written about her and entered into the City of Vancouver "Security" database where it would remain for at least two years.
David McLellan, General Manager of Community Services, who oversees Whitty and Tetrault, is ultimately responsible for ensuring that a response is given to complainants about staff. McLellan would be aware that when a written complaint is lodged, a letter acknowledging receipt is to be immediately sent to the individual. No letter was sent in this case, although there was a witness who saw her hand the written complaint to Everall.
The sham of sending individuals with complaints against Carnegie staff to Tetrault has continued for roughly 20 years. Many Carnegie members are not aware of the conflict of interest position occupied by Tetrault. They assume he's management when they take a complaint to him. They haven't seen the photo of him on the internet standing on a CUPE picket line with a placard when Carnegie staff were on strike.
Tetrault's abuse of his City powers became public when he barred the husband of a co-worker with whom he had entered a sexual relationship, denying the husband/taxpayer access to all City services at Carnegie. That barring was lifted when bloggers made it public.
But what lingers are questions about why Tetrault has been allowed to continue to abuse his City powers while in a conflict of interest position. It is not uncommon for people who have lodged complaints with Tetrault against his fellow CUPE members to find themselves the target of barrings a few months down the road. Barrings are regularly rubber-stamped by Tetrault.
Tetrault should be stepping aside when he is in a conflict of interest position. He would no doubt claim that Director Ethel Whitty is ultimately responsible for the barrings and just delegates responsibility to him. Don't believe a word of it. Barrings are regularly instigated and implemented under Tetrault's supervision, without Whitty even being on the premises.
Whitty has positioned Tetrault as the go-to guy for complaints against staff -- "talk to Dan Tetrault," members are told -- even though his conflict of interest position virtually guarantees that he will take no serious action. In most cases, complainants, both men and women, report that Tetrault did absolutely nothing. I know of no case where a member felt they got a satisfactory result. There is enormous resentment against Tetrault by members who have been brushed off over the years.
Here's what you can expect when you take a complaint to Tetrault: He will greet you in a somewhat friendly voice tone as if he were greeting a family member -- staff push the "Carnegie family" angle to discourage poor people from seeing class and power differences favouring the povertarian class. He will allow you to tell him what you experienced. When his demeanor is described to me, it never fails to bring to mind the term, "feminized male": consistently speaking in a mild one of voice, shuffling his feet a bit, looking at the floor (non-threatening male), smiling a bit because of course he's in the company of "family". He will come across as inoffensive. But you are likely to be highly offended when you discover that he has done dick about your complaint. And it is likely that you will discover that, as thousands of members before you have discovered. And you may also find staff behaviour toward you becoming hostile, once they realize that you are a complaining 'black sheep'. And if you keep returning to Tetrault's office to find out why nothing is being done, you may find that he has sailed away on his yacht to places where he can't be reached by "family" members.
This rigged complaints process where staff have one of their own deflecting complaints against them, has contributed to an environment at Carnegie which has parallels to the degeneration over the decades of Woodlands. Although the clientele are not at all similar, the abuses that continue unchecked are in some ways similar -- physical and verbal abuse and even systematic sexual exploitation. Tetrault is not solely to blame though. Whitty admitted at a Board meeting that she would defend her staff no matter what, and she has to date covered for them even when there was evidence of sexual exploitation and verbal and physical abuse.
The fact that a woman has been waiting almost two years for a complaint against Brent to be processed, is not about his cussing. It is about a rigged complaints process. When the suppression of the complaint against Brent reaches the two year mark in July, it has been suggested that Councillor Susan Anton be asked to ensure that David McLellan answer for this delay. McLellan should also explain why complaints of staff abuse or misconduct are directed to Tetrault who belongs to the same union and stands on the picket line with staff.
The sham of sending individuals with complaints against Carnegie staff to Tetrault has continued for roughly 20 years. Many Carnegie members are not aware of the conflict of interest position occupied by Tetrault. They assume he's management when they take a complaint to him. They haven't seen the photo of him on the internet standing on a CUPE picket line with a placard when Carnegie staff were on strike.
Tetrault's abuse of his City powers became public when he barred the husband of a co-worker with whom he had entered a sexual relationship, denying the husband/taxpayer access to all City services at Carnegie. That barring was lifted when bloggers made it public.
But what lingers are questions about why Tetrault has been allowed to continue to abuse his City powers while in a conflict of interest position. It is not uncommon for people who have lodged complaints with Tetrault against his fellow CUPE members to find themselves the target of barrings a few months down the road. Barrings are regularly rubber-stamped by Tetrault.
Tetrault should be stepping aside when he is in a conflict of interest position. He would no doubt claim that Director Ethel Whitty is ultimately responsible for the barrings and just delegates responsibility to him. Don't believe a word of it. Barrings are regularly instigated and implemented under Tetrault's supervision, without Whitty even being on the premises.
Whitty has positioned Tetrault as the go-to guy for complaints against staff -- "talk to Dan Tetrault," members are told -- even though his conflict of interest position virtually guarantees that he will take no serious action. In most cases, complainants, both men and women, report that Tetrault did absolutely nothing. I know of no case where a member felt they got a satisfactory result. There is enormous resentment against Tetrault by members who have been brushed off over the years.
Here's what you can expect when you take a complaint to Tetrault: He will greet you in a somewhat friendly voice tone as if he were greeting a family member -- staff push the "Carnegie family" angle to discourage poor people from seeing class and power differences favouring the povertarian class. He will allow you to tell him what you experienced. When his demeanor is described to me, it never fails to bring to mind the term, "feminized male": consistently speaking in a mild one of voice, shuffling his feet a bit, looking at the floor (non-threatening male), smiling a bit because of course he's in the company of "family". He will come across as inoffensive. But you are likely to be highly offended when you discover that he has done dick about your complaint. And it is likely that you will discover that, as thousands of members before you have discovered. And you may also find staff behaviour toward you becoming hostile, once they realize that you are a complaining 'black sheep'. And if you keep returning to Tetrault's office to find out why nothing is being done, you may find that he has sailed away on his yacht to places where he can't be reached by "family" members.
This rigged complaints process where staff have one of their own deflecting complaints against them, has contributed to an environment at Carnegie which has parallels to the degeneration over the decades of Woodlands. Although the clientele are not at all similar, the abuses that continue unchecked are in some ways similar -- physical and verbal abuse and even systematic sexual exploitation. Tetrault is not solely to blame though. Whitty admitted at a Board meeting that she would defend her staff no matter what, and she has to date covered for them even when there was evidence of sexual exploitation and verbal and physical abuse.
The fact that a woman has been waiting almost two years for a complaint against Brent to be processed, is not about his cussing. It is about a rigged complaints process. When the suppression of the complaint against Brent reaches the two year mark in July, it has been suggested that Councillor Susan Anton be asked to ensure that David McLellan answer for this delay. McLellan should also explain why complaints of staff abuse or misconduct are directed to Tetrault who belongs to the same union and stands on the picket line with staff.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Carnegie Staff Thumb Noses at Jenny Kwan
What Jenny Kwan did, Carnegie management has undone.
Last November, Jenny Kwan, MLA for Vancouver East, got a call from a Carnegie member, also named Kwan, who had been unjustly barred from the Carnegie for four months. Jenny said she would help him. He believes she had one of her staff call Carnegie, as his barring was lifted and he wasn't required to go through the usual meeting with Security Coordinator Skip Everall. When Kwan attempted to talk to him, Everall said, "I don't want to talk to you."
Anyone who has ever reported Carnegie corruption to the outside world knows that Carnegie staff retaliate. Kwan said he noticed a young security guard glaring at him (he didn't know that the guard is reportedly the son of Everall.) Then Everall got the opening he needed. "I was feeling good it was New Year's day," says Kwan, who explains that he was joking with some old Chinese guys who sit in the Carnegie lobby and made a sex joke. He made the joke in Chinese and they were laughing, and then he translated it into English. Everall instantly gave orders to security guard Ted Chaing to bar Kwan for a month.
Chaing issued the barring. But Kwan has no hard feelings toward Chaing. "He had to do it; that's his boss; he would have been fired." The exact reason Kwan was given for the barring was that Everall considered him "loud" and "corrupt". Carnegie is an adult centre; you don't see kids around there much, so who is going to be corrupted by Kwan?
Kwan's plan to begin going to the Carnegie Learning Centre this month to improve his English literacy, a plan that he had already run by Learning Centre teacher Lucy Alderson, has now been nixed by Everall. One less student in a learning centre that is already clinically dead.
The barring of Kwan would have been rubber-stamped by Carnegie Director Ethel Whitty and Assistant Director Dan Tetrault. All barrings are rubber-stamped by them.
Funny, Everall, Whitty, and Tetrault didn't see the need for such an extreme response last year when a 50 year old male staffer was having sex with a teenage female client.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
An Ethel Sighting on Boxing Day
After a year of sitting in her office rubber-stamping barrings of Downtown Eastsiders from Carnegie Centre, Ethel Whitty was spotted on Boxing Day. She was in the Carnegie theatre helping to serve turkey dinner to those still allowed through the door. The dinner was free but you had to have been given a ticket by staff.
It was a traditional turkey dinner with all the trimmings. Instead of the brussel sprouts they served for years, they made the switch to mixed vegetables this year and last, carrots and peas this year There was also apple juice. Fruit cake for dessert. And all the coffee you could drink for as long as you were allowed to sit in the theatre, which wasn't long because there were three sittings so there was a new crowd waiting to burst through the doors.
Rudy, a musician, was Santa. The real Santa Claus couldn't be expected to work on Boxing Day, having gone full tilt over Christmas. So Rudy who has a natural long white beard gave out the gifts.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Jenny Kwan Helps Man Unjustly Barred from Carnegie
A Chinese man who has been going to Carnegie for 20 years, says Carnegie Security boss Skip Everall told him, "You have a big mouth." The Chinese man who speaks broken English, responded, "A lot of people around here don't like you." Everall barred him.
The barred man's last name is Kwan, like the MLA, Jenny Kwan.
When Kwan was barred, he recalls, "I was really angry." He called Everall a "bully" and an "asshole" .....in Chinese. He said it in both Mandarin and Cantonese, which got the attention of the Chinese people who sit around in Carnegie.
After being barred for 4 months, it was time to have a Kwan to Kwan talk.
Kwan spoke to Jenny Kwan and told her about the unjust barring. He believes she had a staffer call Carnegie. He went back to Carnegie and was allowed in. He tried to talk to Everall who told him, "I don't want to talk to you."
Barring is going full tilt at Carnegie. Kwan says they have now barred a short, middle-aged, Jewish woman, from a middle-class background. The barred woman had been going to Carnegie for years for the arts programs. A woman who sometimes comes to our blogger meetings knows her, and says she's quite assertive which is probably what got her barred. Kwan says the barred woman doesn't want to go back to Carnegie now that she's been barred. It's common for people who are barred to never go back.
"They bar all the good people," says Kwan.
The names of the hundreds of people who are barred each year remain on the membership list though, as they have paid their $1 membership fee and been issued a membership card. They are included in the stats Carnegie gives to the government to justify funding.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
City Staff at Carnegie Go on Name Calling Rampage
As the City of Vancouver hikes residential taxes and community centre fees, we are reminded of the "services" being funded.
A City staff person at Carnegie Centre left a series of comments at this blog last week in response to our latest post, "Man Banned from City Services without Evidence." It is obvious that the comment was written by a staff person as they referred to "J", a barred man discussed in the post, by using his legal name, the name in the Carnegie security database, not the name patrons at Carnegie use for him. The commenter also appeared to have familiarity with the barring, which few people knew about as "J" had left Carnegie immediately after being told he was barred. Bloggers did not initially publish the comment because the staff person had breached confidentiality legislation by naming a banned patron.
Following is the comment, with the barred man's name edited out. Note the presumption of guilt despite the fact that City staff lacked evidence to bar this man from City services at Carnegie:
"[His] simple 4 day barring from Carnegie is totally acceptable and understandable. Carnegie is a "clean and sober" community centre where patrons, including women, children, seniors and handicapped persons, can be quite upset by displays of public drunkenness and consumption. As well, there are many patrons who struggle with sobriety and can have adverse responses to such behavior. If [he] is in such dire need of Carnegie resources, he needs to be prepared to abide by some simple rules that were created with ALL in mind - not just to preclude [his] poor behavior. Shame on you [Name] - and the writer of this post - for trying to make it sound like he was poorly treated."
Note also the fact that this staff person portrays people who speak up about barrings as the problem, not City of Vancouver staff who are denying taxpayers access to services without grounds.
When we failed to publish this comment, the Carnegie staff person escalated the smear tactics, which staff routinely do, and falsely suggested the barred man was gay and attracted to the Security Supervisor, which would be Skip Everall. Again the staff person used the barred man's legal name which we have edited out.
"Rumor has it that [Name] has a "thing": for the Security Supervisor and British accents! "
When we didn't publish that smear, the Carnegie staff person left yet another comment:
"If the BLOG had any sense of commitment to the DTES, it would print my post below which I have submitted numerous times. But you obviously do not care about the 1000's of patrons of Carnegie as a whole." The commenter ignores the fact that easily a 1,000 people have been barred from Carnegie since it opened, and then does what abusers typically do, minimize the abuse. "You only care about the fuck ups who - "fuck up" - the enjoyment of the Centre for all - namely...."
Here the commenter discloses first and last names of people who have been barred and/or spoken up about the unfair barring process. Again, it was obvious that the comment was coming from a staff person as they named a person whose barring case is known only to Carnegie staff, and one blogger. Confidentiality legislation was not only disregarded by the staff person in disclosing names, but insults were then attached to those names, "Rich Bitch", "Boozy", "Madder than a Hatter"....
And of course a staff comment wouldn't be complete without libeling William Simpson, the man who has been banned from setting foot in Carnegie Centre since he exercised his democratic right to get elected to the Carnegie Board. The commenter falsely claimed that Simpson had lied about the fact that he was homeless. 'Bill "I'm homeless? but have residence in a nice coop".' Bill did not lie. He was sleeping in Crab Park for months.
In closing, the commenter again portrayed people who speak up as being the real problem, not City staff inflicting an epidemic of barrings on Downtown Eastside residents attempting to use City services. "You are all in need of a metaphorical kick in the ass."
Ad hominem attacks are always quicker and easier than supporting claims with evidence. And evidence has never been City staff's strong point.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Man Banned from City Services Without Evidence
One would think that while the 'Fraud Foursome' -- Mayor Gregor Robertson, Penny Ballem, Ethel Whitty, and Skip Everall -- face a criminal complaint for knowingly allowing the City “Security” database to be chronically used to make fraudulent entries about Downtown Eastside residents, they could resist recidivism. But last week another Downtown Eastsider became the target of security fraud.
"J" was barred from all City services at Carnegie Centre last Friday, including the Vancouver Public Library and Capilano College Learning Centre housed in the building. "J" who unloads trucks on call and depends on Carnegie for food services as he lives in a room where the mice eat his food and even chewed the pocket out of his coat, was sitting with his pal "L" on the outdoor patio of Carnegie having a smoke and a coffee. "It was a cold morning", he told one of our contributors.
John, a Carnegie security guard with a British accent marched onto the balcony and asked J if he had a mickey of alcohol on him. "What makes you think that?", J asked. John didn't give him an answer. As usual, the security guard appeared to be relying on hearsay evidence: somebody thought they saw something and ran to security. This policy of informing on one another is encouraged by City security staff as part of the make-work for CUPE culture at Carnegie.
Witnesses will confirm that John made no attempt to actually determine whether J had a mickey. He didn't ask him if he would mind if he checked his bag. He didn't lean over and sniff his coffee to see if it was spiked. J's breath did not smell of alcohol, according to a witness. Instead of attempting to obtain evidence, John leaped to the next step: sentencing. He banned J from City services at Carnegie Centre. J was not allowed to so much as enter the front door of the building. He told J he could return in one day.
J returned the next day and was stopped by receptionist Dan Feeny, and told that he was not allowed in the building, that he remained barred. That would indicate that a formal security report had been typed into the City Security database where it will remain for a minimum of two years but probably much longer (one woman discovered a false report filed ten years ago being used against her recently); Feeney is one of the receptionists who types the reports into the Security database. Feeney told J that it was against "policy" to allow him to re-enter the building without the approval of head of security Skip Everall.
But Everall was not available to meet with him. Everall is only on premises four days a week and is often difficult to locate.
These barrings are upsetting to people in the neighborhood. A witness dropped by J's room unannounced yesterday, saying, "Are you barred from Carnegie?!" and complaining that Everall was abusing power. "He used to be an orderly at Riverview," the witness told J. The witness said he wished the previous security boss, John Ferguson had remained at Carnegie (If you ask me, Ferguson was not much better. But the rumour that he resigned because he didn’t get along with Ethel Whitty, would suggest he was better.)
J remained barred until yesterday, almost a week. He returned to Carnegie looking for Everall, and was at the front desk when Everall came down the stairs. Everall was preoccupied with something, a meeting he had just been to, and he told J his sentence was up. J was once again allowed to access City services that he had been paying for. Everall was dressed in black when he made this ruling. “Thank you, your honor”, J said. Another security guard overheard him and laughed.
A review of the numbers: Six days without City services. Two years with a report in the City database that he posed a “security” risk at Carnegie. Three employees contributing labour time to this case. Zero evidence.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Ashley Machiskinic had a Beer in Regent Pub before Flying Out 5th Floor Window to her Death
When Ashley Machiskinic went flying out the 5th floor window of a room at the Regent Hotel to die in the alley below, a guy who frequents Carnegie Centre was sitting in the Regent Pub having a beer. He is a regular at that pub. Another guy in the Pub said to the Regular, "You know that girl who was just sitting at the bar having a beer? She went upstairs and jumped out the window."
The Regular was nonplussed. She had been sitting near him but he hadn't talked to her.
The Regular didn't wait for Machiskinic's death to become a media event before he came forward with his story. He was talking about this the day after Machiskinic died on Sept. 15.
This past Sunday evening, he was standing by the Salvation Army soup truck having a brocolli and turkey soup when he was asked if he had been to Carnegie on Friday for the Town hall meeting with Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu, the meeting about the lax approach of police to women flying out windows on the Downtown Eastside. He said he hadn't known about the meeting. He hadn't known about the earlier demonstration at the Police Station either. He hadn't read the media coverage, as he doesn't read the 'lamestream media'. But he repeated his story to people standing around at the soup truck, his story about the young woman sitting at the bar of the Regent Pub having a beer and another guy in the pub -- Patrick, I believe -- telling him that she had gone upstairs and jumped out the window.
The Regular was asked at the soup line what this woman at the bar had looked like. Young, pretty, native, he said. He said she was sitting at the "long table" at the bar, "where she always sat." He was sitting near her.
He wasn't aware that people in the neighbourhood were disputing the police version of her death as a suicide.
I wonder if police also wrote off as a suicide, the young woman who went out the fouth floor window of the Cobalt Hotel in the summer of 2008. (We reported on it at the time; it has not been forgotten and continues to be occasionally discussed in the neighbourhood.) She was a white woman with reddish hair in a ponytail, possibly in her thirties.
Even though police are disadvantaged by the fact that Cobalt tenants aren't talkative, they would have had access to records that pointed away from suicide. That young woman had been beaten up on the same floor of that hotel a few days before she went out the window to her death. She was lying in the hallway after the beating (which may have even involved a stabbing) and the ambulance was called and the paramedics worked on her. A police report is generally written when there is a violent incident. She made the mistake of returning to her room at the hotel, which raised eyebrows as it was clearly unsafe.
When I read news coverage of the murder of a young woman in Delta, Laura S., I noticed that the crime scene had been secured for weeks, and remains secured, guarded by a cop. I thought of the Cobalt murder where a person who was on the fourth floor during that period said they don't recall a crime scene with yellow tape, at least nothing that obstructed the ability of people on that side of the fourth floor quadrangle to come and go. A neighbour just a few doors from Machiskinic had no idea that a death had occurred until two or three days later when another tenant mentioned it. After the young woman went out the Cobalt window, police didn't think to secure the spot in the hallway near her room where she had been beaten just days earlier. They went door to door the night she died and asked, "Did you hear anything unusual?", but they didn't ask about the earlier beating. If the Cobalt had been an expensive hotel, that entire side of the fourth floor quadrangle would have been behind yellow tape with a cop guarding the crime scene.
A person in the Cobalt hotel said they didn't personally know the young woman who died but had seen her around and she seemed to be a nice person, but they believed she was "into smokin' crack and maybe even banging up [injecting]".
I read in the paper that Chief Chu loaned Vancouver police officers to the Delta police to ensure that a maximum effort was made to solve the murder of the young Delta woman.
The Regular was nonplussed. She had been sitting near him but he hadn't talked to her.
The Regular didn't wait for Machiskinic's death to become a media event before he came forward with his story. He was talking about this the day after Machiskinic died on Sept. 15.
This past Sunday evening, he was standing by the Salvation Army soup truck having a brocolli and turkey soup when he was asked if he had been to Carnegie on Friday for the Town hall meeting with Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu, the meeting about the lax approach of police to women flying out windows on the Downtown Eastside. He said he hadn't known about the meeting. He hadn't known about the earlier demonstration at the Police Station either. He hadn't read the media coverage, as he doesn't read the 'lamestream media'. But he repeated his story to people standing around at the soup truck, his story about the young woman sitting at the bar of the Regent Pub having a beer and another guy in the pub -- Patrick, I believe -- telling him that she had gone upstairs and jumped out the window.
The Regular was asked at the soup line what this woman at the bar had looked like. Young, pretty, native, he said. He said she was sitting at the "long table" at the bar, "where she always sat." He was sitting near her.
He wasn't aware that people in the neighbourhood were disputing the police version of her death as a suicide.
I wonder if police also wrote off as a suicide, the young woman who went out the fouth floor window of the Cobalt Hotel in the summer of 2008. (We reported on it at the time; it has not been forgotten and continues to be occasionally discussed in the neighbourhood.) She was a white woman with reddish hair in a ponytail, possibly in her thirties.
Even though police are disadvantaged by the fact that Cobalt tenants aren't talkative, they would have had access to records that pointed away from suicide. That young woman had been beaten up on the same floor of that hotel a few days before she went out the window to her death. She was lying in the hallway after the beating (which may have even involved a stabbing) and the ambulance was called and the paramedics worked on her. A police report is generally written when there is a violent incident. She made the mistake of returning to her room at the hotel, which raised eyebrows as it was clearly unsafe.
When I read news coverage of the murder of a young woman in Delta, Laura S., I noticed that the crime scene had been secured for weeks, and remains secured, guarded by a cop. I thought of the Cobalt murder where a person who was on the fourth floor during that period said they don't recall a crime scene with yellow tape, at least nothing that obstructed the ability of people on that side of the fourth floor quadrangle to come and go. A neighbour just a few doors from Machiskinic had no idea that a death had occurred until two or three days later when another tenant mentioned it. After the young woman went out the Cobalt window, police didn't think to secure the spot in the hallway near her room where she had been beaten just days earlier. They went door to door the night she died and asked, "Did you hear anything unusual?", but they didn't ask about the earlier beating. If the Cobalt had been an expensive hotel, that entire side of the fourth floor quadrangle would have been behind yellow tape with a cop guarding the crime scene.
A person in the Cobalt hotel said they didn't personally know the young woman who died but had seen her around and she seemed to be a nice person, but they believed she was "into smokin' crack and maybe even banging up [injecting]".
I read in the paper that Chief Chu loaned Vancouver police officers to the Delta police to ensure that a maximum effort was made to solve the murder of the young Delta woman.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Confidentiality Laws Ignored under Carnegie Director Ethel Whitty
It was a test. When a barring at Carnegie occurred in April 2010, a decision was made by the victim not to tell anybody. The goal was to expose the level of disregard for privacy law under Ethel Whitty.
Word spread fast. Within days, all staff in the cafeteria knew and soon the customer base got wind of it.
Five months have gone by. This weekend, the victim of the barring reportedly heard residents of her apartment building, one of whom works at Carnegie, talking about it.
An estimated 200 Carnegie members a year are victims of this reckless disregard for British Columbia's tough privacy laws.
Carnegie staff even attempted to get the Downtown Eastside Enquirer blog to print material about female Carnegie members. They wanted women who had been barred or spoken up about undemocratic practices inside Carnegie to be identified -- they sent the DTES Enquirer the names of these women -- and they wanted them publicly labelled "barnyard animals" and "nudie lesbians". City Manager Penny Ballem was aware that this was occuring. So was Councilor Raymond Louie.
Whitty vigorously enforces privacy laws when it comes to staff at Carnegie, but not the clientele. At one point Whitty attempted to pass a motion at a Board meeting to prevent the names of staff from being mentioned at committee meetings where a complaint lodged against them was being discussed. When then Board member Rachel Davis objected, Whitty asked her why staff where "fair game", to which Davis responded that she resented the implication that she was viewing staff as prey to be hunted.
Contrast Whitty's protectiveness of staff with her attitude that a Carnegie member can be told that they are barred by a dumpster diver or some other person on the street who was told by Carnegie staff or who overheard Carnegie staff talking about it. One guy learned while eating dinner at the Evelyn Saller Centre that he was barred from Carnegie. Another guy dropped in to Carnegie to buy a tea and heard Security boss Skip Everall openly conspiring with a coffee shop volunteer to bar a member. "You're barred,", the tea buyer told the member on a Saturday night outside Carnegie. A meeting was held with Whitty about that breach of confidentiality; two years have passed and Everall has not been held accountable and Whitty has yet to even respond to the complaint.
The privacy of Carnegie staff is so fiercely protected that if a member lays a complaint with a security guard about physical aggression by a staff person -- there is plenty of staff aggression; ask the skateboarder who got thrown onto the marble floor by 3 security guards for bending the rules by using a pull-cart to return his library books -- they will be scolded by Security boss Skip Everall for doing so. Everall considers reporting staff to a security guard to be a breach of staff privacy. Complaints about staff must must be directed to Assistant Manager Dan Tetrault, Everall has asserted, and if a member feels at physical risk by a staff person, they are expected to wait until Tetrault docks his yacht and returns to work on his next scheduled shift. Security guards at Carnegie offer class-selective security, just as privacy laws are applied in a class-selective manner at Carnegie.
Whitty can't have it both ways. Carnegie is classified as a social service provider rather than a community centre, possibly as a means of maximizing funding, getting grants, etc. But most people use Carnegie as a community centre, dropping in to get a bite to eat in the cafeteria, use the Music program, check out books or use computers in the library. There are no social services being provided. But there is a social service mentality encouraged by Whitty and the staff; Whitty pushed to hire a security boss from a mental hospital, which revealed how she wanted people treated. The social service agency classification though would require that Whitty and her staff be particularly vigilant in ensuring that personal information about members is handled in a manner consistent with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. She ignores the Act.
Whitty has a license to practice as a social worker. Time it was revoked.
Word spread fast. Within days, all staff in the cafeteria knew and soon the customer base got wind of it.
Five months have gone by. This weekend, the victim of the barring reportedly heard residents of her apartment building, one of whom works at Carnegie, talking about it.
An estimated 200 Carnegie members a year are victims of this reckless disregard for British Columbia's tough privacy laws.
Carnegie staff even attempted to get the Downtown Eastside Enquirer blog to print material about female Carnegie members. They wanted women who had been barred or spoken up about undemocratic practices inside Carnegie to be identified -- they sent the DTES Enquirer the names of these women -- and they wanted them publicly labelled "barnyard animals" and "nudie lesbians". City Manager Penny Ballem was aware that this was occuring. So was Councilor Raymond Louie.
Whitty vigorously enforces privacy laws when it comes to staff at Carnegie, but not the clientele. At one point Whitty attempted to pass a motion at a Board meeting to prevent the names of staff from being mentioned at committee meetings where a complaint lodged against them was being discussed. When then Board member Rachel Davis objected, Whitty asked her why staff where "fair game", to which Davis responded that she resented the implication that she was viewing staff as prey to be hunted.
Contrast Whitty's protectiveness of staff with her attitude that a Carnegie member can be told that they are barred by a dumpster diver or some other person on the street who was told by Carnegie staff or who overheard Carnegie staff talking about it. One guy learned while eating dinner at the Evelyn Saller Centre that he was barred from Carnegie. Another guy dropped in to Carnegie to buy a tea and heard Security boss Skip Everall openly conspiring with a coffee shop volunteer to bar a member. "You're barred,", the tea buyer told the member on a Saturday night outside Carnegie. A meeting was held with Whitty about that breach of confidentiality; two years have passed and Everall has not been held accountable and Whitty has yet to even respond to the complaint.
The privacy of Carnegie staff is so fiercely protected that if a member lays a complaint with a security guard about physical aggression by a staff person -- there is plenty of staff aggression; ask the skateboarder who got thrown onto the marble floor by 3 security guards for bending the rules by using a pull-cart to return his library books -- they will be scolded by Security boss Skip Everall for doing so. Everall considers reporting staff to a security guard to be a breach of staff privacy. Complaints about staff must must be directed to Assistant Manager Dan Tetrault, Everall has asserted, and if a member feels at physical risk by a staff person, they are expected to wait until Tetrault docks his yacht and returns to work on his next scheduled shift. Security guards at Carnegie offer class-selective security, just as privacy laws are applied in a class-selective manner at Carnegie.
Whitty can't have it both ways. Carnegie is classified as a social service provider rather than a community centre, possibly as a means of maximizing funding, getting grants, etc. But most people use Carnegie as a community centre, dropping in to get a bite to eat in the cafeteria, use the Music program, check out books or use computers in the library. There are no social services being provided. But there is a social service mentality encouraged by Whitty and the staff; Whitty pushed to hire a security boss from a mental hospital, which revealed how she wanted people treated. The social service agency classification though would require that Whitty and her staff be particularly vigilant in ensuring that personal information about members is handled in a manner consistent with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. She ignores the Act.
Whitty has a license to practice as a social worker. Time it was revoked.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
An Ellen Sighting
I spotted City Counselor Ellen Woodsworth looking snazzy this afternoon in her black and white knit jacket and black pants, with her galpal, as I darted into Carnegie.
Crossed my mind that Woodsworth may have taken time out from her schedule to work on the damage control strategy being used by Ethel Whitty and Skip Everall as they continue their undemocratic barring policy at Carnegie. It's a strategy that no doubt needs to be tweaked now that they've been exposed as far away as China for allegedly manufacturing evidence to justify banning political critics from City services at Carnegie.
It's a fraud scandal that has been weighing like an iron rice bowl on Mayor Robertson's head as he tries to pass himself off in China as an upstanding business broker.
Crossed my mind that Woodsworth may have taken time out from her schedule to work on the damage control strategy being used by Ethel Whitty and Skip Everall as they continue their undemocratic barring policy at Carnegie. It's a strategy that no doubt needs to be tweaked now that they've been exposed as far away as China for allegedly manufacturing evidence to justify banning political critics from City services at Carnegie.
It's a fraud scandal that has been weighing like an iron rice bowl on Mayor Robertson's head as he tries to pass himself off in China as an upstanding business broker.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Blogger Assaulted by CUPE Representative
When a CUPE representative abuses a blogger, does anybody see? The above video of a CUPE representative roughing up a pro-Israel blogger last month for using a video camera at a rally, was posted on YouTube. But the public generally doesn't see video footage of abuse tactics employed by CUPE members against people who don't share their political views.
Certainly the public doesn't see CUPE abuses of people at Carnegie Centre who dare speak to bloggers who criticize CUPE, people who are almost without exception too poor to afford lawyers. These people can get roughed up physically by CUPE "security" at Carnegie, but more often they are simply targeted for permanent removal from this taxpayer funded Centre.
I was reminded of what is not being seen when Pivot Legal Society announced they had been granted a hearing at the BC Human Rights Tribunal on May 31, 2010 about "removals" of poor people from public spaces. Pivot's complaint was not about Carnegie. It was about removals by the Downtown Ambassadors who work for the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association. The Ambassadors earn lower salaries than CUPE members -- a welfare recipient who takes a security guard course can sometimes get a job strutting around in an Ambassador uniform -- who guide tourists and ask the poor and downtrodden or addicted to stop sitting in doorways, on sidewalks, or on benches, to leave and not return.
These "removals" by Ambassadors from public spaces no doubt do constitute Charter violations, but the Ambassadors will have to work to catch up to CUPE members who have been performing these "removals" for thirty years at Carnegie Centre. CUPE members at Carnegie keep a gigantic black binder documenting such "removals", on the front reception desk, like a trophy. A victim's account of a removal -- they call them "barrings" at Carnegie -- is not considered a necessary addition to the binder. When Pivot was asked to help put a stop to these abuses, after CUPE "security" executed the removal of an elected official who happened to be poor and homeless and didn't happen to share their politics, a female Pivot lawyer refused to challenge Carnegie, saying, "But they're our friends."
The Downtown Ambassadors are not Pivot's friends....because they are not CUPE's friends. The Downtown Ambassadors are infringing on CUPEs turf. The job description of the Ambassadors, according to the website of the DVBIA, is to complete "daily incident reports on issues attended to". That's what CUPE members at Carnegie do -- not only Carnegie "security" staff but Carnegie street workers too, some of whom have been caught working with police to deter criticism of CUPE members. If anybody is going to be restricting the civil liberties of the poor, or kicking the arses of bums, let it be somebody paying CUPE union dues, or CUPE will fight it like it's contracting out.
Former Pivot Executive Director, David Eby, was criticized last year in the comment section of Jamie Lee Hamilton's blog, Oldtown, for ignoring rampant civil liberties abuses at Carnegie. Eby responded that Pivot could not tackle all of the problems in the Downtown Eastside. He's right. But Carnegie Centre is considered "the livingroom" of the Downtown Eastside, a pivotal institution. Pivot has to really work not to see the human rights abuses going on there.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
"We're fuckin' closed!": Courtesy of a Carnegie Cafeteria Cashier
Message from Dan Tetrault of the City of Vancouver: a man can abuse a woman at Carnegie and it's not a problem.
The attitude of Carnegie management is that we won't talk about abuse, we'll keep it quiet, keep it in the "family" -- successive Carnegie managements have actually referred to Carnegie members they are regularly stripping of human rights as "family".
A couple of months ago, I asked a Carnegie member if anything had come of her complaint about verbal abuse by a Carnegie cashier. "Nothing," she said. Unless something has been done since I last talked to her, the one year anniversary of the City stalling on that complaint is just around the corner.
The incident with the cashier occurred at the beginning of a long weekend last year. The Carnegie member walked into the cafeteria, the door was open; it wasn't closing time, but she had no way of knowing that staff were closing so that they could presumably sneak out early. A relatively new cashier, Brent, marched up to her and barked, "We're fuckin' closed!"
Since abuse by staff was becoming a recurring problem, she reported the incident to a security guard and asked that he ensure it not happen again. The security guard was new on the job and he was considering writing up an Incident Report. He opened up the black binder on the front desk where Incident Reports are filed, when Head of Security Skip Everall, came along and intervened.
Everall held the huge black security binder in the air -- it's attached to the front desk with a chain -- and slammed it shut by the ear of the female member. (She has become accustomed to physical aggression from Everall. Last summer, she walked by his office where he was on the phone and he got up and slammed the plate glass door closed.) Later, as she talked to Everall at his offfice, he scolded her for making a complaint to a security guard about Brent. "You shouldn't be talking to security about him!", he told her. She responded that if a man walks up to her and curses in her face, she had every right to talk to a security guard.
Everall told her that a complaint about staff must not be mentioned to a security guard, that it could only be heard by a bureaucrat, Dan Tetrault. Tetrault, the Asst. Director on the third floor, has a reputation for covering for fellow CUPE members. He after all stood on picket lines with them during the last strike. It's a situation of gross conflict of interest. I have never known one complainant who got a satisfactory result.
Further, to talk to Tetrault about a complaint, a complainant might have to wait days for him to come to work, especially if the abuse occurs on a weekend -- Carnegie is open 7 days a week -- or, in this case, at the beginning of a long weekend.
The female Carnegie member put her complaint in writing, got Everall to initial her copy, and got a verbal promise that he would pass it on to Tetrault. She was fair in the complaint, saying that this was the first time he had been rude to her. (She believes he was motivated by the fact that she had raised concerns about another staff person's conduct. It is common for CUPE members at Carnegie to mistreat people who have complained about one of their fellow CUPE members.)
Tetrault has never responded to that complaint. It disappeared into thin air. The anniversary of it's disappearance is coming up.
Tetrault's suppression of that complaint about verbal abuse by Brent, must be contrasted with his past conduct. Tetrault previously demonstrated that he supports the use of the draconian tactic of "barring" as a means of teaching a woman the lesson that raising her voice to an abusive man to tell him that she is tired of his abuse -- she talked back to Devor, the coffee seller, "Coffee Nazi", in the Seniors Lounge who yells at hundreds of people a year -- is not an acceptable response, even if he is yelling at her at the top of his lungs.
By not dealing with the abuse complaint, Tetrault sent the wrong message to Brent. Brent has been rude to her every time she has attempted to use the cafeteria since. City Manager Penny Ballem was told about Brent's conduct and the fact that it was part of a pattern of retaliation (which has more recently included assault) to deter members from raising concerns about staff. Ballem did nothing, except pass the buck to Brenda Procten who in turn did nothing.
Total bill: half a million dollars in salaries for these people.
The attitude of Carnegie management is that we won't talk about abuse, we'll keep it quiet, keep it in the "family" -- successive Carnegie managements have actually referred to Carnegie members they are regularly stripping of human rights as "family".
A couple of months ago, I asked a Carnegie member if anything had come of her complaint about verbal abuse by a Carnegie cashier. "Nothing," she said. Unless something has been done since I last talked to her, the one year anniversary of the City stalling on that complaint is just around the corner.
The incident with the cashier occurred at the beginning of a long weekend last year. The Carnegie member walked into the cafeteria, the door was open; it wasn't closing time, but she had no way of knowing that staff were closing so that they could presumably sneak out early. A relatively new cashier, Brent, marched up to her and barked, "We're fuckin' closed!"
Since abuse by staff was becoming a recurring problem, she reported the incident to a security guard and asked that he ensure it not happen again. The security guard was new on the job and he was considering writing up an Incident Report. He opened up the black binder on the front desk where Incident Reports are filed, when Head of Security Skip Everall, came along and intervened.
Everall held the huge black security binder in the air -- it's attached to the front desk with a chain -- and slammed it shut by the ear of the female member. (She has become accustomed to physical aggression from Everall. Last summer, she walked by his office where he was on the phone and he got up and slammed the plate glass door closed.) Later, as she talked to Everall at his offfice, he scolded her for making a complaint to a security guard about Brent. "You shouldn't be talking to security about him!", he told her. She responded that if a man walks up to her and curses in her face, she had every right to talk to a security guard.
Everall told her that a complaint about staff must not be mentioned to a security guard, that it could only be heard by a bureaucrat, Dan Tetrault. Tetrault, the Asst. Director on the third floor, has a reputation for covering for fellow CUPE members. He after all stood on picket lines with them during the last strike. It's a situation of gross conflict of interest. I have never known one complainant who got a satisfactory result.
Further, to talk to Tetrault about a complaint, a complainant might have to wait days for him to come to work, especially if the abuse occurs on a weekend -- Carnegie is open 7 days a week -- or, in this case, at the beginning of a long weekend.
The female Carnegie member put her complaint in writing, got Everall to initial her copy, and got a verbal promise that he would pass it on to Tetrault. She was fair in the complaint, saying that this was the first time he had been rude to her. (She believes he was motivated by the fact that she had raised concerns about another staff person's conduct. It is common for CUPE members at Carnegie to mistreat people who have complained about one of their fellow CUPE members.)
Tetrault has never responded to that complaint. It disappeared into thin air. The anniversary of it's disappearance is coming up.
Tetrault's suppression of that complaint about verbal abuse by Brent, must be contrasted with his past conduct. Tetrault previously demonstrated that he supports the use of the draconian tactic of "barring" as a means of teaching a woman the lesson that raising her voice to an abusive man to tell him that she is tired of his abuse -- she talked back to Devor, the coffee seller, "Coffee Nazi", in the Seniors Lounge who yells at hundreds of people a year -- is not an acceptable response, even if he is yelling at her at the top of his lungs.
By not dealing with the abuse complaint, Tetrault sent the wrong message to Brent. Brent has been rude to her every time she has attempted to use the cafeteria since. City Manager Penny Ballem was told about Brent's conduct and the fact that it was part of a pattern of retaliation (which has more recently included assault) to deter members from raising concerns about staff. Ballem did nothing, except pass the buck to Brenda Procten who in turn did nothing.
Total bill: half a million dollars in salaries for these people.
Monday, March 15, 2010
One Small Step for Skip Everall, One Giant Step for Carnegie Membership
It's the same old story. I hear it so many times.
A photographer complained last week to Carnegie Security boss Skip Everall about the threats being directed at him when he attempts to use Vancouver Public Library computers at Carnegie Centre. The photographer said a native woman -- he said her name -- who is sometimes on duty as computer monitor is abusing her access to publicly funded Carnegie "security" guards. If an issue comes up with a computer user (sometimes issues have to be worked out such as whose turn it is on the waiting list) that actually requires communication, she skips the communication, and tells the person, "I'm calling security." End of discussion. If the person doesn't become passive, she carries through with the threat.
Last week, this monitor threatened to call security on this photographer when a disagreement arose. She didn't actually carry through with the threat on that occasion, but she has previously, so he lodged a verbal complaint with Carnegie Security Co-ordinator, Skip Everall.
The photographer did not know that he was not the first person to lodge a complaint about the use of the threat at Carnegie to "call Security" as a substitute for communicating with Downtown Eastsiders. This substitution was previously brought to the attention of City Manager Penny Ballem in writing in 2009 and during a meeting in January 2010. The photographer used a term that others have used though, to describe this substitution: "bullying".
Last week, this monitor threatened to call security on this photographer when a disagreement arose. She didn't actually carry through with the threat on that occasion, but she has previously, so he lodged a verbal complaint with Carnegie Security Co-ordinator, Skip Everall.
The photographer did not know that he was not the first person to lodge a complaint about the use of the threat at Carnegie to "call Security" as a substitute for communicating with Downtown Eastsiders. This substitution was previously brought to the attention of City Manager Penny Ballem in writing in 2009 and during a meeting in January 2010. The photographer used a term that others have used though, to describe this substitution: "bullying".
The photographer was not unhappy with Everall's response. Everall told him that this particular computer monitor had been doing that often.
This is a step forward. Everall was essentially admitting that the right to call security is being abused at Carnegie, at least in this case. Mind you, this computer monitor is a volunteer; it is unlikely that Everall would make such an admission in cases where the threat was being uttered by staff, his fellow CUPE members -- and there are many such cases.
Everall's admission is nonetheless a step in the right direction in a City of Vancouver community centre where threats to call security have become the default method of dealing with low income people who know their rights and expect them to be respected.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Email from a former Downtown Eastsider
I've been out of touch with the happenings of DES and today I thought I would catch up on the [Carnegie] newsletter. Now, I haven't read it in a couple of years, but it was like looking back in time. Same people patting each other on the back. Looks like a mutual admiration society to me.
[...]
I suppose there was some good to Ms. Prevost, but I never got to see it because I wasn't in the circle. Whenever I saw her and if I happened to say Hi, I was ignored, but she was true to the circle! I'm so glad that my circumstances got me out of Dodge and away from these people. It's too bad too because Vancouver has a lot to offer, even in the DES. I belong to a community centre here that is partially funded by the city and private donations and I have yet to hear about a single banning or any left wing politics.
Tear the place down and start over with people who care about people not their pay cheques. Take care out there. It's not paranoia if they're really watching!
[...]
I suppose there was some good to Ms. Prevost, but I never got to see it because I wasn't in the circle. Whenever I saw her and if I happened to say Hi, I was ignored, but she was true to the circle! I'm so glad that my circumstances got me out of Dodge and away from these people. It's too bad too because Vancouver has a lot to offer, even in the DES. I belong to a community centre here that is partially funded by the city and private donations and I have yet to hear about a single banning or any left wing politics.
Tear the place down and start over with people who care about people not their pay cheques. Take care out there. It's not paranoia if they're really watching!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Margaret Prevost Passes Away
Margaret Prevost, a longtime Downtown Eastside activist, passed away on February 6th. She was born in 1956.
There will be a memorial for her at Carnegie on March 4, 2010 at 1 p.m.
There will be a memorial for her at Carnegie on March 4, 2010 at 1 p.m.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Frustration Mounts at Carnegie over Blocking of WiFi Access to Poor
John B. is one of many Carnegie members expressing frustration at the decision by City management at Carnegie to block the poor from accessing WiFi at Carnegie. As reported earlier on this blog, people like John can no longer sit on the third floor at Carnegie and access WiFi with their laptops or netbooks.
The only WiFi access remaining at Carnegie Centre is in the tiny Vancouver Public Library reading room on the first floor. But John points out that the library WiFi is "not designed to carry the load". He says that after 4 or 5 people are signed on, he can't even get on.
Another man who regularly volunteers in the Carnegie computer (desktop) room for 80 cents an hour in food vouchers, says he is frustrated at the blocking of WiFi access at Carnegie for people with laptops. He now has to go to Waves coffee shop with his laptop. He sits in the back and avoids purchasing a coffee.
John hopes to start a petition to take to City Hall to have Carnegie staff share the WiFi signal with the poor.
But John has decided that his first step will be to talk to Carnegie Director Ethel Whitty. He did not know Whitty's name until today when another Carnegie member gave it to him. The member reportedly warned him that he would get nowhere with Ethel Whitty.
A third man, a longtime Carnegie member sitting in Waves using a laptop, was pessimistic about getting Carnegie staff to share WiFi access with the poor. "They don't care. From Whitty on down, they don't care."
The only WiFi access remaining at Carnegie Centre is in the tiny Vancouver Public Library reading room on the first floor. But John points out that the library WiFi is "not designed to carry the load". He says that after 4 or 5 people are signed on, he can't even get on.
Another man who regularly volunteers in the Carnegie computer (desktop) room for 80 cents an hour in food vouchers, says he is frustrated at the blocking of WiFi access at Carnegie for people with laptops. He now has to go to Waves coffee shop with his laptop. He sits in the back and avoids purchasing a coffee.
John hopes to start a petition to take to City Hall to have Carnegie staff share the WiFi signal with the poor.
But John has decided that his first step will be to talk to Carnegie Director Ethel Whitty. He did not know Whitty's name until today when another Carnegie member gave it to him. The member reportedly warned him that he would get nowhere with Ethel Whitty.
A third man, a longtime Carnegie member sitting in Waves using a laptop, was pessimistic about getting Carnegie staff to share WiFi access with the poor. "They don't care. From Whitty on down, they don't care."
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Carnegie Claws Back WiFi from Poor
The poor accessing wifi at Carnegie Centre have been cut off.
It used to be that low income people at Carnegie would sit and wait an hour for their turn on a public-access desktop computer to surf the net, until they got hold of laptops and began accessing wifi. Over the past year and a half low income people with lap tops have gotten into the habit of sitting in the big empty room on the third floor of Carnegie in the evenings and surfing the net. Wifi was available there, outside the offices of Carnegie management and the Learning Centre. And it was available in the Carnegie cafeteria on the second floor too, outside the office of CCAP, a project funded by VanCity and run by anti-poverty czar Jean Swanson to lobby for housing for the poor.
Carnegie has put an end to this access. Wifi has been secured so that it cannot be accessed by the poor, only by union members and Carnegie and management.
There is wifi access in the small branch of the Vancouver Public Library on the first floor of Carnegie, but it is painfully slow. Yesterday, six people were huddled around one plug-in at the back of the library, all finding the wifi access too slow.
The rumour is that wifi access was terminated for legal reasons. But the raison d'etre of CCAP and Carnegie is supposed to be to help the poor.
Carnegie has a history of hostility toward the poor eager for internet access. Just look at where they situated the Computer Room. Despite a huge empty space with tables and chairs on the third floor (referred to as the gallery), the computer room which is the service attracting poor people to the third floor in the evenings, is a miniature room tucked in the back beside the washrooms. This was planned, when renovations were occurring years ago. You can literally hear people using the toilet when you're in the computer room. It is such a narrow room that when people walk to the computer they've signed up for, it is impossible to avoid bumping the chairs of other people sitting at computers. This leads to conflict. And the guards get called and people get written up on the "Security" database for causing trouble.
Wifi access for the poor at the UBC Learning Exchange two blocks from Carnegie is, I'm told by two people who use it, also from CCAP. The people who use the Learning Exchange are the same people who use Carnegie. (The Learning Exchange operates weekdays until 5 p.m., unlike Carnegie which is open until 11 p.m. seven days a week.) Doubtful that CCAP will turf the poor off wifi at UBC though; I would bet that CCAP is given money by UBC in exchange for that access. The poverty industry is of course all about money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)