129. On Approaching The Ontario Ombudsman

VIEWS@ 9658

Searching within the umbrella of our democratic systems, I have been looking for a niche  that concerns itself with vital behaviours of our society. When presented to the public at large, seriously questionable matters, perpetrated even by the highest officials, can have far greater positive effects, than an individual fighting a lonely, personal battle. 

This takes me to the following connective I just gleaned online. The creation of an ombudsman's office in large organizations. I present it here, so that by comprehending it, I can better prepare my text for the Ontario Ombudsman's office. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.agreeinc.com/ombudsman.html

Requirements for a Feasible Ombuds Office

Alignment

First and foremost an ombudsman's office must reflect the values of the organization it serves. There is no use imposing an ombudsman upon an organization that is hostile to reform and change and views complaints and complainants as trouble and trouble makers respectively. For an ombuds Office to work it will need to be part of a conflict resolving system. The organization must decide what it values in that system and know what it wishes to accomplish with it. There are many competing values within organizations and the forward thinking organization will want to articulate its values expressly.

Blogger's NOTE: "the forward thinking organization"  - approaching a staid, set government establishment may be easier said then done.

Autonomy

An ombudsperson needs, as much as is possible, to have an arms length relationship with the organization he or she serves. This will mean a reporting relationship to the legislative or policy making branch of the organization. In a public body like the Law Society of Upper Canada that would mean Convocation. In a private body such as a corporation, that would mean the Board of Directors.

Blogger's NOTE: In principle, and after experience, I question the 'autonomy' of any self-appointed body overseeing the behaviour of its related organization.

Due Process
An ombudsman in the classical sense is an office of last resort. It is not (and never was) intended to serve as the front line resolver of disputes in an organization. In the largest sense, an ombudsperson's job is to assist the policy makers in an organization in overseeing the administration of their policies, to comment critically upon how they are being administered and to recommend policy changes where they seem appropriate. They are intended to keep the "big picture" in mind, seeing the forest and not just the trees.

Although I wholly agree with the above, Human Nature, as it is, tends to fiercely protect its kind; hence, with all good intentions, the original 'arms length' relationship, in time, often tends to diminish. 
  
Due process means respecting the Rules of Natural Justice as they apply in the organizational setting. 

Blogger's Note: "Rules of Natural Justice" >>> I need clarification on this phrase, since my take on Nature has no such thing. In Nature there IS no JUSTICE. 'Survival of the fittest' is the justice of nature. 
The Rules of Civil Procedure, however, with its clear usage of the word 'CIVIL,' Is MAN-made. 
Justice, as such, is man's introduction to its 'organization,' its society. The concept of a certain 'equality' amongst brethren was created when organized religion came in to favour. "We are all God's children."

When observing present day global truth, it is rapidly proving that although with all noble intentions, equality is an impossible task to fulfil. It is in fact UN-natural.  

This includes such fundamentals as:

• providing both sides to a dispute a full and fair opportunity to be heard
• ensuring that no one in the organization is sitting in an adjudicative capacity over a matter where he or she has a direct interest
• providing an opportunity to fully respond to the case made by the "other side"
• providing reasonable notice of any investigation or hearing to individuals affected by the controversy and allowing a fair length of time for parties to prepare and make submissions
• wherever possible providing reasons for decisions that affect people

Blogger's Note:  Ah, wish it were so! A truly Utopian view...

Resources

The organization must make resources available such that the ombudsperson can perform their responsibilities in a diligent and timely manner. There is little that will harm an ombuds office's reputation more than getting a reputation for being bureaucratic, wasteful or sloppy. An ombuds office, properly managed, should model the kinds of administrative practices and behaviours it demands of other units within the discipline, profession or organization it serves. Where an organization does not provide the resources to allow this modeling to take place, it places the reputation of the entire enterprise at risk and may fairly expect to lose all or most of its investment.

Blogger's Note:  As the so called pillars of our society, our appointed Masters and Judges are there to see to that! We count on their unbiased, superior knowledge and wisdom to guide our trials and tribulations to their JUST conclusions. Oh wish it were so... 

Access to Information

An ombuds office's effectiveness is determined by the quality of its investigations. Because the ombudsperson does not have the authority to reverse executive or administrative decisions, its chief weapon is reasoned argument. One key tool in the toolbox is the thorough, demonstratably impartial investigation followed up by a well reasoned report. Without far reaching access to documentary and viva voce information, the investigative officer will be disabled from coming to sound conclusions of fact. Access to information denotes access to documents, electronic files and most importantly to people.

Blogger's Note: My own opinion is that there should be far less "viva voce" and almost exclusively proof of fact through written documentary. I was astounded when asked by Defense Counsel if I would be coming to the Appeal Hearing to ARGUE my appeal in person. 

My case, if I can even remember the claim - it's been so long - was based on a basic 'contractual non-compliance.'A contract, as we all know, is a detailed statement, signed by both parties. A well-written contract spells out in detail WHAT will be produced, HOW, WHEN, WHERE and by WHOM. In order to fulfill It, it should indicate ALL and EVERYONE's responsibilities; signed, sealed and delivered.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY ARGUMENT!  If there IS a need for argument, the contract was clearly NOT well written, since it left questionable room for ARGUMENT.

In the case of a well-written contract, there should be NO need for ANY court appearance. An appointed judge can study the 'Statement of Work" (the Contract); the Plaintiff's 'Statement of Claim,' Defense's 'Statement of Defence,' then render a clearly defined objectively written opinion, followed by commensurate penalties and costs.

Any questioning party feeling ill-treated is allowed their Appeal. However, with the clear warning that should the appeal court feel the appeal is in any way ill-founded, far-fetched, and thus unwarranted, sizeable additional penalties may be ordered,   

That's MY take. I shall approach the Ontario Ombudsman...