After Showing that Lies are Within his Comfort Zone, David McLellan is Appointed Media Spokesperson by City on Carlene Robbins Affair

If Mayor Gregor Robertson wanted the community led to believe that what looks like the firing of Deputy Chief License Inspector Carlene Robbins was not a firing, it would be convenient to assign the task to David McLellan. McLellan has demonstrated that lies are within his comfort zone, lies so persistent that police have been asked to conduct a fraud investigation.

McLellan is the City's General Manager of Community Services, a job in which he oversees Carnegie Centre where he has continued to allow fraudulent "security" reports about critics of City staff to be filed in the City security database, prompting a criminal complaint. He has also allowed Carnegie Director Ethel Whitty to keep her job -- Carnegie members fear her contract has been renewed -- despite the fact that she has repeatedly being caught lying to the media (lies which have been extensively covered on this blog), and she has deceptively used her role as a City bureaucrat to fundraise for the political organization, CCAP, an arm of COPE.

McLellan has apparently learned from his predecessor, Jacquie Forbes-Roberts, who "resigned" (Downtown Eastside residents believe she was fired) after signing a letter linking her to the barring of an elected official from Carnegie based on manufactured evidence, a barring that continues under McLellan. McLellan simply evades communication with victims. Today was the first time victims heard his voice. He was on the radio.

The City has assigned McLellan the task of talking to the media about the sudden departure of Robbins from her job. The timing of the departure has raised questions, as it came after calls for an independent inquiry into the deaths of three men living in an East Van house where bylaw infractions were rampant. In an at times lackadaisical voice tone, McLellan, who is paid a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, took the line during his CKNW radio interview that the departure of Robbins' was a resignation, not a firing.

If Robbins resigned, what about City staff saying, according to citycaucus.com, that Robbins' had been given an ultimatum: quit within a week or be fired. And what about Robbins retaining a lawyer, something that even McLellan admitted that he had heard, according to City Caucus. CKNW radio reported that Robbins had called her departure after 38 years of service, a "constructive dismissal", a phrase that is used when an employer makes an employee's work life so intolerable that she has little choice but to resign. McLellan, though, told CKNW that there had been no changes to Robbins' workplace situation.

It sounded to me from the radio interview -- I just heard a clip -- that McLellan was lying by omission. He said the fire had been caused by a faulty electrical cord, not a bylaw infraction, so there would have been no basis for firing Robbins. McLellan seemed to be concealing the fact that the City inspectors had written a report prior to the fire, a report since made public in which the heavy reliance on electrical cords in the house was identified as a safety hazard. The inspector wanted this risk remedied through the installation of more electrical outlets by the owner of the house. Sounds like a bylaw infraction to me. This safety concern is public knowledge, and surely would have been known to McLellan since he was the media spokesperson on the case.

The inspector's report had apparently not been ignored by Carlene Robbins. She and the Chief Building bureaucrat had been in regular communication with the owner of the flophouse. That's more communication than McLellan has ever had with victims of Carnegie abuses, even though there is evidence linking Carnegie barrings (and sexual exploitation) of clients with deaths.

Why isn't McLellan being fired?

Update: Robbins has since spoken to the Courier newspaper and indicated that she did not leave the City on the best of terms. "What I'm saying is that I am currently in a dispute with the city and I'm trying to resolve it privately."

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.

For 57 Days City Hall has Avoided Giving Barred Carnegie Member Reason "in writing"

A witness who has spoken up about the use of the City of Vancouver "security" database at Carnegie to make fraudulent entries about critics, has found herself barred from Carnegie Centre for 57 days now, with no end in sight. She is not allowed to enter the building, not even the Vancouver Public Library branch there. She was notified of the barring on April 25, 2010 and immediately asked to be given the reason "in writing". Her request was instantly refused by the security guard who informed her that she was "barred", a guard who identified himself as "Ty" only after she asked his name.

There is evidence that the ban was pre-meditated and politically-motivated. From the beginning of the process of being informed that she was barred, the fact that she had been one of the Carnegie members who made complaints to Penny Ballem was referred to by Ty as the "problem." [If I obtain a copy of the statement she submitted to police, I will quote Ty's alleged comments more completely.] A few minutes later, when Ballem's name came up again, Ty reportedly claimed he didn't know who she was. Toward the end of the barring, after he had followed the woman to the bathroom, Ty revealed that the barring was a result of pressure from Penny Ballem and Gregor Robertson to clear her out of the building. "I guess, they don't want witnesses around", says the barred woman.

Police have been made aware of everything from verbal abuse to assault experienced by this woman since coming forward as a witness to fraud and other abuses involving the City's "security" database at Carnegie. A male Carnegie member recalls eating dinner with this woman at Carnegie in the spring, when a volunteer took her photograph, using a flash, without her permission -- she would later be told that the photo had been taken on instructions from Tio, a City staff cashier on duty, a fact she says Tio did not deny when she asked him about it -- and then stood yelling insults at her at the top of his lungs, grabbing the attention of the crowd of diners in the cafeteria. "Why isn't security doing anything!" the witness demanded to know. A security guard stood beside the yelling man, just inches away.

She was also at Carnegie having dinner -- she had just finished -- on the evening in April when Ty told her she was now barred from the entire building and refused her request to "put it in writing". At a later point, she asked that he at least allow her to read the "Incident Report" so that she could counter false statements. He refused. He told her that he did not need input from her. She told him she wished to sit down and write her own incident report about what she was experiencing, but he refused, ordering her out of the building. Such biased practices -- including outright fraud -- had been previously brought to the attention of Penny Ballem, once during a meeting in January at City Hall. The Mayor was also made aware of these practices.

Shortly after being barred, the barred woman mailed a request to City Hall and requested, under the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act, a copy of the incident report and a copy of entries made in the City's electronic "security" database. She then telephoned the Freedom of Information office twice to see if they had received it. She spoke to a male assistant to manager Paul Hancock. The assistant told her on April 29th that he had finally received her letter. She explained that she needed a copy of the incident report quickly so that she could appeal the barring; she asked him to keep in mind that for every day that passed without this Incident Report, she was denied access to City Services in her neighbourhood, such as the public library at Carnegie. She told him that there should be no reason for extensive delay in getting the incident report to her, as it was easily retrievable from the Incident Report binder which sits on the front reception desk at Carnegie for all staff to review. The assistant reviewed her request letter and said it seemed straight forward to him and he didn't anticipate it taking long. He said he would "send it out" that day.

Shortly after speaking to the assistant, the banned woman received a letter dated April 30th from Paul Hancock, Manager, Corporate Information & Privacy, City Clerk's Office. Hancock wrote:

"This will acknowledge receipt of your request dated April 26, 2010. . . for a copy of an incident report written about you by Ty, a security person at Carnegie Centre at approximately 9:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 25, 2010."

"Under the Act, we have thirty (30) business days to respond to freedom of information requests. The City received your request on April 29, 2010 so we are required to respond by June 11. 2010 at the latest."

I ran into her on Sunday, June 20th, at Sunrise market and she said she had not received it. Even if the City had mailed the Incident Report on the last possible day, June 11th, she would have had it last week as Vancouver has over night delivery.

Hancock ended his April 30th letter to her with,

"We understand that this is an urgent matter for you so we will do our best to expedite this request for you."

That was 52 days ago, as of Sunday.

UBC Learning Exchange Flirts with Funding Fraud

The UBC Learning Exchange on the Downtown Eastside is dabbling in the type of funding fraud that was prevalent at Carnegie Centre for years: taking money from taxpayers to provide services to low income people and then locking the doors to those services for the flimsiest of reasons.

Despite making a big deal in the media about the services they provide to the Downtown Eastside poor, staff at the UBC Learning Exchange have begun locking the poor out of the Learning Exchange on Mondays. Monday is a day when most taxpayers would expect a richly funded educational facility to be open and operating full tilt. But the poor arrive and find the door locked and peer in to see povertarians sittin' pretty.

You can bet the povertarians haven't mentioned this to funders.

Dionne Pilan, Co-ordinator of the Learning Exchange, did tell Downtown Eastside "learners" at the Learning Exchange that she planned to lock them out one day a week. In a classic povertarian "exchange" with learners, she asked them what day would be the least worst for them to have the facility closed. Most people chose Wednesday. "We decided on Monday," she reportedly announced. No mention of who "we" was, but presumably it included the Director, Margo Fryer, and others on their 17 member staff, some of whose jobs are fundraising. "Did she ask if Monday was ok with you?", I asked users of the Exchange. No, was their answer.

Pilan explained that staff had decided on Monday because they figured Downtown Eastsiders were too stupid to remember that the Learning Exchange was closed on Wednesday. Actually, she avoided the word stupid. She said, according to Downtown Eastsiders who were reliving the experience at Waves just down the street, that staff believed it would be too difficult for them to remember that the Learning Exchange was closed on Wednesday; Monday would be easier to remember.

The poor actually have no difficulty remembering where they can get a free coffee on the Downtown Eastside and on what day. Coffee is bait UBC uses to lure the poor into the Exchange.

And the poor are smart enough to figure out, as one man who no longer goes to the Learning Exchange said, "'Dionne wants a long weekend." Of course, it is not the sort of long weekend where she can stay home, but it's a slack day. "Any day that she doesn't have to deal with you guys is like a day off", he said. He also offered an explanation for why Dionne chose Monday, over Wednesday, to lock out the poor. She can already count on a slack day one Wednesday a month, on welfare cheque Wednesday, a day when many regulars at the Learning Exchange have more pressing business to take care of, like shopping. If you were already basically getting one Wednesday a month off, he asked, "Wouldn't you chose Monday to close? That gets you an extra day."

Poor but not stupid.

By locking the doors on Monday, Pilan and Fryer end up short-changing the poor for the entire week, particularly on Tuesdays. There is a bottleneck on Tuesdays, caused by people who after a weekend without computer access couldn't get access to one on Monday to check email, etc. People get less computer time as the receptionist who signs people on and off computers is under pressure to cycle them through fast.

Pilan's excuse for closing the Learning Exchange one prime time day a week is that she can write grant proposals for new programs, like a program to teach Downtown Eastsiders how to teach computer skills to others for money. Let's get this straight: she's locking the poor out of services she's funded to provide to them in order that she can write proposals for more funding to provide services to the poor. She reportedly said she had two grant proposals to write and, 'I
can't do that and deal with you people at the same time.'

Here's the dirty secret: she doesn't have to deal with them. The receptionist does that. Sometimes there are even two receptionists. Pilan comes out of her office to chat and socialize with Downtown Eastsiders, to talk about the Olympics or whatever. It's possible she may also cover for a receptionist on a break. Sometimes, I'm told, she also occasionally comes out if there is a computer question that a receptionist can't answer, but that if she were writing a grant proposal, people could simply be told that their question would have to wait until the next day.

Downtown Eastsiders suspect they've been duped, that a closure that was sold to them as temporary, is actually permanent. The sign on the Learning Exchange door announces, "New Hours", not temporary new hours. How long does it take to write two grant proposals? Surely not more than a month of Mondays. The Exchange has been closed for two Mondays now.

If Dionne's grant proposals are not written soon and the Learning Exchange re-opened, the poor have their own proposal: that funds earmarked for providing them with computer facilities on Mondays be returned.

Vancouver Police Stop Fundraising for United Way, a Year after Giving them a Harley

Photo: This photo was taken when a swarm of police officers on motorbikes stopped on Main St. What was the incident? They had to pick up their order from the SUBmarine sandwich shop. Two officers put the boxes of food in the trunk of a police car travelling with the motorcycles.

Vancouver Police have decided not to fund raise for United Way this year.

Canadians Opposing Political Psychiatry were informed of this decision after writing to the Vancouver Police Board on Sept. 22/09 requesting that they put an end to Vancouver Police fundraising for United Way. Initially, COPP received an email from Rachelle Radiuk, Executive Director of the Police Board, stating that the request would be discussed in camera by the Police Board at their next meeting on October 21, 2009. But on Thursday, October 1, 2009, COPP received a second email from Radiuk stating:“I just received a copy of a letter sent from the Vancouver Police Union to the United Way confirming that the Union would NOT be participating in United Way fundraising this year as they will be promoting their own charity….”

For years, COPP has been criticizing the conflict of interest inherent in the role of Vancouver Police as a fundraising arm of a private charitable organization which they could be called upon at any time to investigate. United Way has even gotten onto the police payroll in that officers can opt for payroll deductions for United Way. COPP alleges that this conflict of interest relationship has resulted in police employing tactics including fabrication of evidence, illicit accessing of medical records, and political psychiatry, while under pressure from United Way to deter criticism.

Conflict of interest in the VPD's relationship with United Way was in evidence as recently as last year as COPP continued efforts to have this illegal activity addressed. In 2008, one of Chief Chu's aids called such efforts "vindictive" in a letter to a COPP member, a response to a letter addressed specifically to Chief Chu. At the same time, Chief Chu was arranging to give a decommissioned VPD Harley-Davidson motorcycle to United Way as a gift. City records show that the Chief personally lobbied the City to get this gift approved.

City Management at Carnegie Accused of Fraudulently Manufacturing 15 Witnesses

It's not the first time City of Vancouver management at Carnegie Center have been accused of faking witnesses to support barrings and it probably won't be the last.

City of Vancouver staff are accused of faking witnesses in the barring of a woman from the Seniors Center on June 18, 2008. Carnegie Security boss, Skip Everall, barred the woman after Devor, a notoriously abusive coffee seller, asked him to. The woman says Devor had yelled at her and swung his arms at her to push her out the door, resulting in her raising her voice and telling him that she had been taking his abuse for ten years and she was "fed up" with it.

Everall barred the woman based on Devor's version of events; he never spoke to the woman even though he saw her twice that day and she remained in the building. When a staff person allowed the woman a peak at the Incident Report that Everall had written to justify the barring -- Everall and Whitty refused to show it to her -- she noticed that he had claimed that there were "witnesses". During her appeal meeting for the barring on June 23, she told Everall that she didn't believe witnesses existed. Certainly Everall could not support the existence of such witnesses. "When I asked him for their names, he told me, 'The only witness that counts is Devor'". She also asked him what these witnesses had said. He couldn't identify anything, not even generally, what they had said.

When neither Everall or his boss Ethel Whitty would give the woman a copy of the Incident Report, she exercised her right on June 18th to request one through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The City has 30 days to respond to such a request. It has now been 2 1/2 months and the woman has not received a response. But a photocopy of the Incident Report was leaked to the Downtown Eastside Enquirer blog and shown to the woman. She was outraged at what she believed to be retroactive evidence tampering.

Everall was now claiming that Devor's version, albeit a cryptic version, of events entered in the Incident Report had been “corroborated by 15 patrons in the lounge at that time.” The woman says there were nowhere near 15 people in the Seniors Lounge that day. “You won’t find 15 people in the Seniors’ [Lounge] on any Saturday afternoon when the sun’s shining,” says the woman who Everall identified in his report as a “regular in the seniors lounge”. “I went down there that day to use the computer ‘cause I knew the place would be deserted. I got a computer right away; usually there’s a waiting list.”

Not only did Everall and Whitty come up with 15 mysterious unnamed witnesses, they avoided questioning another witness who came forward in this case, one with a name and a face. This witness was a regular Carnegie volunteer who could contradict Everall’s claim that there were 15 witnesses in the Seniors that afternoon. The volunteer regularly goes down to the Seniors Lounge to buy green tea and was there when Devor and Everall were discussing barring this woman. “I tried not to listen,” he said, “I didn’t want them to think I was eavesdropping.” A few minutes later, Devor announced to the volunteer that the woman had been barred. The volunteer passed the message on to the woman later that day, which prompted her to approach Richard, a Security guard, to ask if this was true.

The volunteer/witness estimates there were “four or five” people in the Seniors Lounge that day. He did not see Everall speak to anyone other than Devor. Both Whitty and Everall were given the full name of this witness just after the incident while memories remained fresh, a fact that is confirmed by taped conversations. Whitty stated clearly on tape that she would talk to this witness. The volunteer says Whitty did subsequently bump into him at Carnegie but asked him only “about my music”, not about what he had seen in the Seniors. Since the incident, the volunteer/witness has dropped into Carnegie every day and says Whitty and Everall regularly say hello to him but never ask him what he saw – or didn’t see — in the Seniors Lounge that day.

City Manager Judy Rogers has for years known that staff at Carnegie are subjecting members to fraud and human rights abuses. It is unseemly for a woman with a history of condoning such practices to have been chosen to welcome the world as a member of the 2010 Olympics Organizing Team. Time for Premier Campbell to remove -- let's say "bar" -- her.

Colin Hansen "Rewarding" History of Sexual Harassment at SFU

Colin Hansen is rewarding sexual harassment. That’s how a former SFU student views a visit by BC’s Minister of Economic Development two weeks ago to the Downtown Eastside, to deliver $13.3 million in cheques to the Simon Fraser University Center for the Contemporary Arts. The cheques delivered on March 28th are part of a promise by Premier Gordon Campbell last year to give $49.5-million in special funding to the School for Contemporary Arts on the Downtown Eastside.

When delivering this special funding -- over and above regular funding -- Hansen made no mention of the Center’s special history, twenty years of evading investigation into the alleged operation of a sexual harassment ring of male professors. It is a history that has been festering much like that of native residential schools abuse or pedophile priests festered for decades.

The sexual harassment ring that operated in the Center for the Contemporary Arts involved an element of fraud according to previous reports by the woman who dropped out of the Center for the Contempoary Arts when she lost her ability to concentrate after years of sexual harassment. She has also spoken previously about the persistent lesson taught by Visual Arts professors in the sexual harassment ring -- Jeff Wall, Greg Snider, and David McWilliam -- all of whom had spouses and children, about how to handle a female spouse: deception.

SFU President Michael Stevenson did not show up to accept the $13.3 million cheque from Hansen. Stevenson is well aware of the controversy surrounding his hustling of public dollars for the Center for the Contemporary Arts while concealing it’s alleged history of operating as a site for professors to “harvest” female sex partners. “It’s affecting his reputation, and well it should”, the woman says. “He should resign over the way he’s ducked this issue like it’s a game.” Stevenson sent Warren Gill, Vice President for University Relations, to pick up the cheque from Hansen. “A spin doctor”, the woman calls him.



Hansen presented the cheques from an outdoor podium at a construction site for new Center for the Contemporary Arts studios on Hastings St., directly across the street from the Center’s old visual arts studios (middle building in photo above) where sexual harassment had been rampant for years. But Hansen’s ‘out with the old, in with the new’ hoopla has not caught on with the woman who dropped out due to sexual harassment. “I have trouble even walking by there”, says the woman who lives in the low income Downtown Eastside neighborhood. “As the years go by, it doesn’t get any better. I make a point of not looking at the building.”

At the time he turned over the $13.3 milllion cheque, Hansen encouraged donors to support the Center for the Contemporary Arts' private fund raising campaign. A press release from Hansen’s office praised SFU Chancellor emeritus Milton Wong and businessman Michael Audain for making “leadership” donations. Leadership is not a word the woman would use.

Carnegie Director, Ethel Whitty , Blows Hot Air on CBC Radio

Carnegie Director Ethel Whitty declined an invitation by CBC's Early Edition to be interviewed yesterday along with William "Bill" Simpson, the homeless man barred from Carnegie Board meetings two weeks after being elected to the Board. But Whitty turned up on the show this morning. Dag, a Vancouver blogger, commented on the DTES Enquirer, that Whitty conveniently waited until Bill Simpson and another Board member, Rachel Davis, were not in the CBC studio to "contradict" her.

When interviewed this morning, Whitty told a very different story than Simpson and Davis had told yesterday. Witty claimed that Simpson had been barred from Carnegie because an employee had laid a WorkSafe complaint against him.

But Whitty's story doesn't hold up.

There had been no mention whatsoever of a WorkSafe complaint in the official letter that Whitty delivered to Simpson notifying him that he was barred from Carnegie. The reason given in the June 2007 letter on City of Vancouver stationery was that Simpson operated a website which “features links” to the Downtown Eastside Enquirer blog.

Even Whitty’s boss at City Hall, Jacquie Forbes-Roberts who signed the official letter barring Simpson, doesn’t seem to be pushing a WorkSafe angle. Miro Cernetig spoke to Forbes-Roberts when writing his column on the Simpson case for the Dec. 24th Vancouver Sun and made no mention of any WorkSafe complaint. Forbes-Roberts did acknowledged, according to Cernetig, that she didn't know whether Simpson was a blogger.

The WorkSafe complaint Whitty referred to was an extension of harassment of bloggers at Carnegie Center. A Carnegie staff person made a WorkSafe application after being exposed on the DTES Enquirer for allegedly having sexual relationships with sometimes troubled clients, some of whom later attempted or committed suicide (for undetermined reasons). There are witnesses to the fact that this staff person, who was not actually named on the blog, was having sexual relationships with clients. [Since then one of her ex-boyfriends suspected of kissing and telling has been barred from Carnegie too -- even though he hadn't set foot in the place for two years!]

Whitty stated at a Carnegie Community Relations meeting at Carnegie last summer that City lawyers and WCB lawyers got together to work on the employee’s complaint that Simpson created an unsafe environment for her at Carnegie due to his involvement with the DTES Enquirer blog and Bill Simpson’s relationship to it. Whitty stated that when WCB decides that there is a safety issue at Carnegie, they instruct her to, “Make it safe”. Hence, the barring of Bill Simpson. The fact that Simpson wasn’t the blogger and that the content of the blog can be supported by witnesses apparently did not act as a deterrent in such decision-making.

A further indication that WorkSafe is a damage control strategy is that Carnegie management and staff had been barring Simpson for political reasons long before the WorkSafe complaint had been lodged. The WorkSafe complaint was lodged in response to a Feb./07 article about sexual misconduct on the DTES Enquirer. That article was published after Simpson had already been barred from the Carnegie Learning Center (not yet the entire Carnegie Center) in Jan./07. He was taken by Learning Center Co-ordinator, Lucy Alderson, to the office of Carnegie Head of Security, Skip, and told that was barred from the Learning Center (situated on the third floor of Carnegie Center) for blogging on the Downtown Eastside Enquirer.

Two years before that, in 2005, Simpson was barred from Carnegie for handing out election literature in the building. The literature criticized management. After being barred, Simpson stood outside Carnegie handing out his election literature. Assistant Manager,Dan Tetrault, then allowed him back into the building on the condition that he not hand it out inside the building.

Whitty has a record – caught on tape – of smearing both Bill Simpson and the DTES Enquirer. At both a public Carnegie Board meeting and a Community Relations meeting last summer, she made defamatory statements about the blog and Simpson, providing no examples to support her claims. Even when Simpson specifically asked her for such an example, after he read the letter she delivered to him in June 2007 barring him from Carnegie, she offered none.

"They have nothing," said Board member Grant Chancy at a Board meeting last summer.

Chancy, a former unionized worker who has the WorkSafe manual at home, announced at a Carnegie Community Relations meeting last summer that he saw nothing in Simpson’s conduct that would justify a WorkSafe complaint. Chancy said he had found “no threats” on the DTES Enquirer blog and “I’ve looked and I’ve looked and I’ve looked.”

A number of Carnegie members feel the same way,leading to grumbling that there should be a fraud investigation into this WCB claim. The claim, which presumably resulted in a payout, was based on a non-libelous blog that, as Board member Sophie Friegang stated before her resignation, is well within the boundaries of "free speech".

When Whitty first floated the WorkSafe reason for barring Simpson in the summer of 2006, Board member Rachel Davis called Gordon Harkness at WorkSafe to find out what was going on. What Harkness told her was surprising. Davis included it in a statement she left on CBC's Talkback line in response to Whitty's claims: "Mr.Harkness told me that there has been no assessment by WorkSafe of William Simpson whatsoever."

Davis pointed in her Talkback statement to the defamation involved in Whitty's suggestion that Simpson posed a safety risk:
"I think people are aware that WorkSafe only deals with cases of
violence or extreme verbal abuse, and nothing like that has
happened. So for [Whitty] to use the Worksafe name in an attempt to
legitimize this barring is really just a heartless blackening of
William’s reputation and that makes me really sad, because if they
will do this to him, a democratically elected board member, what
would they do to your average member who disagrees with their policy?
I find it frightening. And I know other members do too. I stand by my
statement:The Barring of William Simpson was a political act against
a whistleblower perpetrated by the City."

Whitty added in the CBC interview that she would like to meet with Simpson and come to a shared understanding of proper conduct in the Center. She is trying to save face. There is nothing improper about Simpson's conduct.

Criminal Investigation Into United Way Requested

Today a Vancouver woman requested that the new Vancouver Police Chief, Jim Chu, ensure that a criminal investigation she requested into United Way in 2003 is carried out. She had asked that United Way be investigated for fraud/public mischief.

The original request for an investigation was made after then United Way director, Ron Dumouchelle, lodged a police complaint against the woman in an attempt to prevent the dissemination of a Report on United Way to donors. The woman makes a compelling case that evidence in the police report was consistently fabricated or misrepresented and that it culminated in an effort to subject her to "political psychiatry" under fraudulent pretenses. She points out that United Way was not the sole offender here. Constables J.P. St. Amant and Lee Patterson, after being briefed by Dumouchelle and anonymous witnesses at United Way, played a major role in libelling her in the report. "It was a joint effort," she says. "It looks from the report like they were feeding off one another."

Shortly after requesting the criminal investigation in 2003, the woman received a telephone call from Sergeant Warrent Lemecke informing her that the criminal investigation was being postponed until a complaint she had lodged with the Police Complaints Commission in the case was processed. The VPD did not, Lemecke claimed, want to perform "parallel investigations". "It was an excuse," she says. "The Vancouver Police collect donations for United Way and the last thing they want to do is investigate them."

The fraud and political psychiatry to which the woman was subjected, she alleges, has done irreparable harm to her wellbeing and reputation. In seeking an investigation, she has the support of the ad hoc group, Canadians Opposing Political Psychiatry [COPP]. COPP is encouraging individuals targeted for "political psychiatry" to insist that a criminal investigation be carried out.

Fraudulent Evidence Found In United Way Police Complaint

A Vancouver woman feels upset every time she sees United Way Campaign commercials claiming that donations will be used to promote “respect” in the community. If United Way values respect, she says, why haven’t they helped get fake evidence attached to her name in police files expunged. The fake evidence, she says, appears in a Vancouver Police report dated Dec. 18, 2002, written after Ron Dumouchelle, then Executive Director of United Way of Vancouver and the Lower Mainland lodged a police complaint against her.

Dumouchelle wanted police to pressure the Vancouver woman -- we'll call her “the whistleblower” -- to suppress a Report on United Way to which she and others had contributed and were making available to major donors. Dumouchelle stated in an internal document dated the week police were called that if donors got even a “whiff” of this report, donations to United Way could be affected.

Even after Constable J.P. St. Amant admitted in his police report that he and Dumouchelle were aware that this case was “not a criminal matter” but a civil matter, the police report reveals that Dumouchelle continued to pressure police to make contact with the whistleblower.

The whistleblower believes that the VPD, who fundraise for United Way and appear in their newspaper advertisements, were performing a favor for United Way. Certainly it was acknowledged in the police report that Dumouchelle had recruited police to visit the whistleblower because civil court wouldn’t be quick enough for him. And police did not follow the usual procedure of entering, at the top of the police report, the alleged “OFFENCE” being investigated; that section was left blank.

The first visit by police to the whistleblower's home occurred on Dec. 18, 2002, the day police reported taking "oral statements" from Dumouchelle and "witnesses" guaranteed anonymity at United Way Campaign headquarters on Dunsmuir St. in Vancouver. When Constables Lee Patterson [PC 2125] and J.P. St. Amant [PC 2010] arrived at the apartment of the whistleblower, she says, they pounded on her apartment door until the entire wood-framed building shook. "They scared my neighbors and damaged my reputation," she says. Const. St. Amant later left the woman a voice mail, which she has preserved, denying that he and Patterson had acted aggressively at her home.

After this visit, Dumouchelle told Const. St. Amant, according to the Dec. 19 police report, that he was “satisfied with police attention to date” – yet the police report shows that he continued to lean on police for over a week to have further contact with the whistleblower.

The report that United Way wanted suppressed contained information about alleged practices in United Way member groups that several women and men wanted funders to put a stop to. The report focused primarily on allegations against a battered women’s organization, allegations such as unfair labour practices and course entry requirements that differed for different applicants.

Dumouchelle was feeling the heat. He revealed in an internal document dated Dec. 2002 that he had been contacted by the Canadian Labour Congress and a few corporate donors about the Report on UW. It was then that he asked police to press the whistleblower to take out of circulation a form letter which offered the Report on UW to major donors. Dumouchelle noted in an internal document that he wanted this material out of circulation as United Way was facing a Campaign shortfall of $600,000 and was asking corporate donors for a top up.

Evidence Fabrication and Misrepresentation
After reviewing the police report, the whistleblower lodged a written complaint in 2003 to the Board of Directors of United Way in which she outlined evidence that had been fabricated. Shortly afterwards, Dumouchelle resigned as Executive Director – no reason given publicly. But United Way “has done nothing in five years”, says the whistleblower, to have the libelous material attached to her name expunged from police files.

Following is a sampling of falsified or misrepresented evidence:

paranoid in nature
In his Dec. 18th report written after his briefing by Dumouchelle and anonymous witnesses, Const. Patterson claimed that the Report on UW was "paranoid in nature". The DTES Enquirer reviewed the report and found nothing that could be considered paranoid. As evidence of paranoid content, Patterson claimed that the whistleblower had discussed lesbian "couch-trip" practices, "cult-like practices", and "comparisons" with the case of serial killing accomplice Karla Homolka. These claims are examined below as part of a sampling of evidence in the police report that the whistleblower alleges is "clearly fabricated or misleading".

lesbian “couch-trip” practices
Const. Patterson wrote that the whistleblower had written about lesbian “couch-trip” practices in the UW Report. "Outright fraud", says the whistleblower. The term “couch trip” had appeared nowhere in the Report on UW. Yet the term “couch trip” was presented in quotation marks in the police report and identified as a direct quote from the UW Report. The whistleblower has no idea what a “couch trip” is.

“cult-like practices”
The whistleblower was presented in the police report as having gone on in the Report on UW about “cult-like practices” at the battered women’s organization. Perfect for portraying her as a nut. What was conveniently concealed in the police report, though, was the fact that it was clearly stated in the Report on UW that it was an anthropologist from Simon Fraser University who had identified a few practices at the battered women’s organization as being typical of cults – not the whistleblower.

The anthropologist had been particularly concerned about rules in support groups which restricted the flow of information, rules enforced through an explicit threat of being ostracized from the group – literally being asked to leave – for non-compliance. The rules tended to maximize the number of women and non-violent men labeled “battered women” and “batterer”.
The issue of “cult-like practices” actually occupied a small sector of the 16-page report. The fact that this quote was excerpted and magnified in importance was typical, says the whistleblower, of the “tabloid" nature of the police report.

“mentions Homolka case and comparisons”
Another deceptive claim inserted in Patterson's police report on the day he met with Dumouchelle was the following: "mentions Homolka case and comparisons." A review of the Report on UW reveals no "comparisons" whatsoever with the case of Homolka, who was convicted of being an accomplice to her husband in serial killings.

Although the claim of “comparisons” was a complete fabrication, the whistleblower points out that the Homolka case was actually mentioned in the Report on UW. But in the police report, it was stripped of it’s original context, she says, “conveniently making me look like some kind of nut fixated on the Homolka case.” The context was this: An administrator at a battered women’s organization funded by United Way had appeared on BCTV prime time News Hour and performed an assessment of Karla Homolka, clearing her of all wrongdoing. The conduct of this administrator so outraged British Columbians that BCTV announced that their switchboard had been jammed with complaints, prompting them to re-play a segment of the interview on the next evening’s News Hour. The taped BCTV appearance was mentioned in the Report on UW as a tangible illustration of an issue raised in the report – the issue of this administrator consistently presenting herself “in the guise of a psychological professional” when in fact she had no such credentialing.

Neither this administrator or her United Way funders would answer questions about what this administrator’s credentials actually were. In an internal United Way document dated Dec. 2002, though, this administrator was referred to as a “library technician”.

“sexual under tones of lesbian controlled supervisors"
Despite the fact that the bulk of the Report on UW focused on unfair labor practices and fluctuating course entry requirements, it was summarized by Const. Patterson in the police report as having "sexual under tones."

At another point, the report was identified as containing "sexual under tones of lesbian controlled supervisors". The whistleblower insists there was no claim made in the Report on UW that supervisors at the battered women's organization were "controlled" by lesbians. She says there was a segment of the Report on UW which outlined allegations of discrimination against heterosexual women, primarily in hiring, by the lesbian administration of the battered women's organization. United Way never discussed accounts of discrimination with witnesses who were in a position to corroborate them.

The whistleblower says that the salacious entry about "sexual under tones of lesbian controlled supervisors" was typical of the "tabloid journalism" that passed for evidence-documenting in this case.

“requesting $525 compensation for her 16 page report.”
Even the content of a form letter announcing that the Report on UW was available to major donors was blatantly falsified in the police report. An announcement in the form letter that the report was available for a fee of “$25 to cover labour costs” was misrepresented in the police report as “requesting $525 compensation for her 16 page report.” (The date on the form letter was correctly identified in the police report.) The inflation by $500 of this fee on a page of the police report in which the Report on UW was being portrayed as “paranoid in nature” served to enhance the portrayal of the whistleblower as a crackpot.

“paranoid letters” to “undisclosed workers”
Patterson also wrote in his report that the whistleblower had been writing “paranoid letters” to “undisclosed workers”. The whistleblower alleges that this claim is fraudulent. Certainly no such letters were filed in the VPD Property Office. "That’s because they don’t exist", says the whistleblower. No "undisclosed workers" were ever identified either. The whistleblower had one contact person at United Way, Zena Simces, who answered to Dumouchelle. Simces had assured the whistleblower via voice mail that she did not view her communication as harassing and that United Way welcomed her feedback. Simces was conspicuously absent from the police report.

“concerned for the safety of employees” (a claim which was retracted the same day)
On Dec. 18th, Cst. Patterson claimed in his report the reason for the police visit to United Way was, “DUMOUCHELLE…is concerned for safety of Employees.” Yet this claim was retracted just hours later. During follow-up questioning the same day, Const. Patterson got Dumouchelle to acknowledge that safety “is not perceived as an issue.” Dumouchelle further admitted, according to Patterson’s report, that there had been “no threat (direct or indirect) involving physical harm or property damage.” In fact, in the police report which was absurdly redundant, Dumouchelle admitted on 15 separate occasions during questioning either in person or over the telephone that the whistleblower posed “no physical risk”.

Not only is it clear from Const. Patterson’s report that Dumouchelle had not been “concerned for safety of Employees”, it is evident as well from the report of Const. St. Amant. Just as he had admitted to Patterson, Dumouchelle admitted to St. Amant, who often spoke to him separately on the telephone, that he had no safety concerns. On the day after police met with Dumouchelle and showed up on the whistleblower’s doorstep, Const. St. Amant wrote:
“PC 2010 contacted DUMOUCHELLE via telephone and informed of contacting [whistleblower] ….Dumouchelle satisfied with police attention to date… PC 2010 was informed that no employee has been threatened, observed or met [whistleblower] ….”

The fact that the story about being “concerned for the safety of employees” was bogus is supported by a voice mail message that the whistleblower preserved from Dumouchelle’s assistant Zena Simces. Simces, whom Dumouchelle had assigned to be the contact person on issues of concern regarding the battered women’s organization, encouraged the whistleblower to continue to have contact with United Way.

“no improprieties found”
United Way had, at one point, invited a mediator to resolve complaints against the battered women’s organization. Following a conversation with Dumouchelle on Dec. 21, 2002, Const. St. Amant claimed in the police report that mediation had resulted in “no improprieties found.”

The whistleblower says that's not the story she got from the mediator. The mediator had telephoned the whistleblower and said that the battered women’s organization was not co-operating with mediation. The mediator reported that the battered women’s organization had been making excuses, over a period of months, not to meet with her and would not comply with the terms of mediation. One of the terms was that each side would send just one representative to mediation; the battered women’s organization insisted on having up to 7 people in the room, including a lawyer.

The whistleblower found United Way cagey after the mediator dropped the case. The whistleblower asked Zena Simces for a copy of anything written by the mediator. Despite two promises, Simces was not forthcoming with the material.

"acknowledges being in an abusive relationship"
The entry "acknowledges being in an abusive relationship", unlike the others listed above, was not false, but United Way had breached confidentiality by linking the whistleblower's name to this information. "I was shocked to see this being used against me in a police report," says the whistleblower.

The whistleblower had attended confidential support groups at the battered women's organization years earlier when she was leaving an abusive relationship. But her name, like the names of other women who had attended support groups and were witnesses to activities at the battered women's organization were withheld in the Report on UW, other than "Cindi" who did not have a problem with her given name being used. A Collective, not an individual, was identified on the cover of the Report on UW as having authored it.

Request for Criminal Investigation into United Way and Several Major Donors
The whistleblower has never been told the names of anonymous witnesses who, according to Constable Patterson's Dec. 18 report, met with police at United Way Campaign headquarters: "PC's 2010/2125 met with witnesses and complainant at 777 Dunsmuir..." Later on the same page of the police report, though, Patterson entered the names of several major United Way donors as witnesses in the case:

· Canadian Red Cross
· Revenue Canada
· Canada Post
· Toronto Dominion Bank
· Westminster Savings
· Canada Safeway

In requesting a public mischief investigation into this case, the whistleblower named the above-listed donors along with United Way and Dumouchelle. These donors were presented in the police report as witnesses based on the fact that they had obtained copies of circulating documents — a Report on UW or a form letter making the report available. Documents collected from them were later turned over to the VPD “harassment unit”, as indicated by the Dec. 29 police report. [This process may have been interrupted by a ‘Cease & Desist” letter sent to St. Amant’s supervisor, Sgt. Hatchman, as the Dec. 29th page would be the final one in the police report.]

In addition to an investigation into donors, the whistleblower had wanted an investigation into the role, if any, of the national United Way of Canada in the lodging of the “mischievous” police complaint . A letter exists to support the whistleblower’s claim that Executive Director, David Armour, became aware of this case shortly before the police complaint was lodged.

Despite Inspector John De Haas of the VPD having telling the whistleblower that she was entitled to request a public mischief investigation if a police complaint lodged against her had been unfounded and involved fabricated evidence, no investigation took place. When she requested the investigation, she got a call from Sergeant Warren Lemecke making excuses to stall it (an issue to be covered in a separate article).

PART II: United Way and VPD face allegations of further retaliation against the whistleblower based on the ordering of a VPD "Car 87" visit to her home after she put on record her intent to seek a criminal “Public Mischief” investigation.
Canadians Opposing Political Psychiatry have labelled this alleged retaliation, “political psychiatry”. The whistleblower has documented evidence to support her claim that the Car 87 visit was ordered under “fraudulent pretenses”. For Part II, see United Way Implicated in Political Psychiatry

CUPE Continues to Lock Poor Out of Services at Carnegie -- as Mayor Sullivan Cowers

Canadian Union of Public Employees has been back to work at Carnegie Center on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside for some time, but they continue to lock the poor out of services.

These povertarians got themselves a 20% raise -- that's what their 17.5% raise works out to with compounding -- which means that after a period of five years, they will have pocketed an extra full year's pay. So why are the services that they are being paid to provide still not being consistently provided at Carnegie Center. This problem began long before the strike and led at one point for calls for a forensic audit.

Striking Vancouver Public Library workers, the last to settle, returned to work at the Carnegie Center branch on Wednesday. But they took the morning off, along with other CUPE members in the building. It was Welfare Day and that is a day when CUPE members and City management refuse to consistently keep services open for the poor. Every Welfare Wednesday, the Carnegie Center closes down for the entire morning until noon; neighborhood residents showing up to use computers or the library stand on the steps. The staff congregate in the theatre for what Carnegie members call a schmoozefest; staff call it a meeting. One woman who has lived on the Downtown Eastside for 35 years and has sat on numerous Boards sees through this. "They just want time off." There are people on welfare all over Vancouver, yet no other community center uses welfare day as an excuse to leave members standing on the front steps.

Not only does Carnegie staff lock the poor out of taxpayer-funded services at the Carnegie Community Centre for the entire morning on Welfare Day, they repeatedly lock them out during "welfare week". A woman went to Carnegie on Saturday, three days after Welfare Day, only to find the Learning Center locked up tight. CUPE members are responsible for keeping it open on Saturdays; on weekdays CUPE members share that responsibility with two teachers paid by Capilano College.

On Thursday, the day after Welfare Day, a woman went to Carnegie to use the 3rd floor computer room which houses nine much-in-demand Vancouver Public Library computers. She found it locked tight and in darkness, in the middle of the afternoon! There were numerous staff persons on the 3rd floor, just meters from the Computer Room at the time. But the excuse is always the same for locking doors: "A volunteer didn't show up." Carnegie has roughly a million dollar wage bill, yet whether services remain open depends on whether some volunteer has gone on a drunk on welfare week.

Even if a volunteer is not drinking, they often have better things to do during welfare week than volunteer for 80 cents an hour in food vouchers at Carnegie. Carnegie Director Ethel Whitty who is paid $104,000 and Assistant Director Dan Tetrault, a CUPE member, have been reminded in the past that they should have contingency plans in place. In a pinch, they could sit in the computer room themselves and keep it open. Or CUPE member and Volunteer Co-ordinator Colleen Gorrie and her assistant Sindi, could sit in there for a few hours. They could use the computer reserved for the monitor. (Sindi could show off her new diamond ring to the people in there, just as she does in her office.) But they never do.

As the poor looking for jobs, or wanting to check e-mail, do course work, or just spend time on the information highway are frustrated by locked doors at Carnegie, Ethel Whitty is at times attending plays performed during the Heart of the City Festival. But her own performance back at Carnegie is what she should be focusing on.

It's not that Whitty and CUPE members such as Colleen Gorrie lack initiative. They started a virtual witch hunt at Carnegie for bloggers who were whistleblowing about locked doors last year. This witch hunt resulted in the barring of homeless man and elected Board member, Bill Simpson, for allegedly being involved in a blog. Whitty has persistently slandered bloggers at public meetings, of course never once providing examples to support her false claims. The police were even called to intimidate bloggers as an apparent favor to a CUPE member, but police admitted in the end that what bloggers were writing was accurate. So much taxpayer funded labour time expended on a 'kill the messenger' strategy, but the poor continue to find doors of services at Carnegie locked in mid-day.

Mayor Sam Sullivan has known about the great taxpayer rip-off at Carnegie since last year and has done nothing. Nada. Sullivan now says that the CUPE strike will not be over until the 2008 Civic Election when he intends to challenge CUPE's attempts to run rough shot over City Hall. But Sullivan is going to have to explain why he has been essentially covering for CUPE at Carnegie.

Related articles:
Carnegie Director Accused of Failing to Deliver Services to the Poor