For a week, some trustees at the TCDSB have been publicly calling for the release of a confidential report generated at the request of some radical activists who were “offended” by vocabulary they interpreted as homophobic, therefore hate-speech, on the part of one Trustee, during a public debate where statements were made on the record. They take courage from the “apparent success” expressed by former premier Wynne and current minister Lecce, in their condemnation of “lack of transparency” on the part of that same Board.
We think this is wrong, if not illegal, on many fronts.
First, onthe issue of confidentiality, once breached, surreptitiously, or after deliberation with others in committee, whether in public or private session, no witness will ever trust the confidentiality offered by this Board, its Trustees, Senior Staff or employees in return for input. That applies to the proverbial commercial interests that are jeopardized when bid processes are not conducted in secrecy.
When the Board deliberated and decided on the basis of the confidential report, who authorized trustee De Domenico or trustee Rizzo to speak in public condemning themselves and others for having initially respected the provisions of confidentiality? Who besides the board of trustees, Kyle Iannuzzi or Paolo De Buono (who has tweeted details only someone who had it would know) had a copy? Who implicated Wynne and Lecce in the illegality associated with possession of a confidential document?
Second, who profits by the constant refrain that lack of transparency in this instance is harmful general issues of good governance and public trust in the accountability? Were practices of due process applied following the decision? I attended the meeting – remotely; open to the public – and it seemed so. There were no objections by Rizzo or De Domenico. Maybe Iannuzzi and De Buono objected, but like me, they do not have a vote. They accepted that going in – have they conveniently changed their mind?
Third, the genesis of the “issue” and the complaints registered by offended parties, is a basic interpretation of Catholic doctrine and acceptable practice flowing from that. Not a single person at the Board has the authority to interpret that doctrine – only the obligation to impart that offered by the Church (in this case the Cardinal). It is definitely not in the purview of radical LGBTQ2+ adherents or their sympathizers. Not even the Minister of Education has carriage.
Fourth, stated the purpose for “reopening the issue” belies the public excoriation and defamation of one trustee who stills holds true to a trustee’s obligations to the Constitutional guarantees for Catholic parents. Non-Catholic parents have other options. De Buono and others may wish to equate parental guidance on sexual matters with hatred for homosexual practices. He and his sympathizers might wish to lay hate-motivated charges against those parents and the Church. They should not be allowed to do a public pillorying of Trustee Del Grande to accomplish the same ends.
Any trustee who cannot see the absurdity of their support for the Motion being proposed by De Domenico, whose ultimate prize would seem to be the Chairmanship of the Board, either has no strength of conviction in Catholic values – and should be de-qualified from holding office by the Cardinal – or, more bluntly they are being threatened by the Minister.
We do not need to consult with their mothers or grandmothers. The constant harangue to which they are subjecting Del Grande is a smear on the reputation of any Catholic. We have started to explore legal action, irrespective of the barrage on Del Grande.