BIG BROTHER NOT ONLY WATCHES, BUT CHECKS YOUR POLITICS!

This from the Globe and Mail this morning (May 26, 2006), written by former Queen’s Journal co-editor, Greg McArthur.  Brings back memories of History 275, “Conspiracy and Dissent in American History,” a course that I taught for three decades ………Comments welcome.

Guard says Liberal ties cost him promotion

Corrections officer seeks judicial review, claims he was asked about political links

A federal prison guard lost an appeal for a promotion after the Correctional Service of Canada asked him about his support for the Liberal Party, the Liberal literature he has read and the Liberal events he has attended, according to affidavits recently filed in Federal Court. 

David Wreggitt, a guard at the medium-security Joyceville Institution near Kingston, is seeking a judicial review of a decision made by a Public Service Commission appeal board, which turned down his bid for a promotion. The 47-year-old father of three says that, during a hearing on April 29, 2004, he was peppered with questions about his affiliation with the Liberal Party, including why he was a party member and how many times he had volunteered.

“I felt like I was on trial for simply being a Canadian citizen . . . just for voting and going to a function that’s a political function,” Mr. Wreggitt told The Globe and Mail.

Two witnesses at the hearing, Mr. Wreggitt’s wife and his union representative, have submitted sworn statements that describe similar questions. His wife, Michelle Merideth-Wreggitt, said she found the questions unnerving.

“They weren’t nicely asked. They weren’t politely asked. It was not just out of interest. It was very accusatory,” she said.

Most of the employees from the Correctional Service of Canada who were present for the hearing, and the Public Service Commission’s chairman of hearing, didn’t return messages left by The Globe. John Emerton, the staffing officer who allegedly cross-examined Mr. Wreggitt about his ties to the Liberals, refused to comment.

“I need to refer this to our communications people,” Mr. Emerton said. No one from communications contacted The Globe after the newspaper spoke with Mr. Emerton.

C.E.S. (Ned) Franks, a professor emeritus at Queen’s University and an expert on public administration, said there’s a fine line between ensuring that partisan politics don’t seep into the public service and stomping on someone’s right to align themselves with any political organization they wish.

The spirit of the Public Service Commission Act is to allow unlimited rights for political participation, as long as it doesn’t harm a public servant’s capacity to do their work impartially or threaten the public’s trust, Mr. Franks said. “They have no business asking anything about how he votes,” he said. “If that ever came up in the interview, that’s grounds for an appeal.”

Mr. Wreggitt said he also found it suspicious that a recording of the hearing has disappeared. When he tried to subpoena the tape for his case before the Federal Court, the Public Service Commission told him it has no record of an April 29, 2004, hearing, he said.

However, a recording of the hearing that took place on April 28, 2004 — the day before Mr. Wreggitt says he was questioned about his Liberal ties — indicates there was a hearing the next day. At end of the session, John Ojalammi, the chairperson of the appeal hearing, states: “We’re obviously not going to finish today . . . Why don’t we resume tomorrow?”

The promotion that Mr. Wreggitt applied for would have made him a Level 3 correctional officer, essentially a supervisor. Like most in the public service, he was given an assessment to make sure the promotion was based on merit.

However, he was given a low score in the “suitability” category because his warden at the time, Donna Morrin, complained about him speaking to two politicians about a voluntary drug-testing program that he helped run at the prison. In particular, she complained about how he once wrote a letter to then-Liberal MP Lynn Myers, who was the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general at the time, without telling the warden.

However, an internal e-mail written by Patrick Laverty, a recruitment manager with the correctional service, that was obtained by Mr. Wreggitt, points out that his letter was supportive of the program.

“The ‘letter’ was not critical of the management team, it was not a whistle-blowing letter. Would we be accused of muzzling an employee and denying him his legal right to communicate with government officials,” Mr. Laverty wrote.

When Mr. Wreggitt appealed his low score to the Public Service Commission, he said he expected to be questioned about the letter — not his ties to the party.

Mr. Wreggitt says his displays of support for the Liberal Party have been limited to two $100 donations and answering phones during the 1993 election. He has also attended three barbecues that Peter Milliken, the speaker of the House of Commons and the MP for Kingston and the Islands, holds at his house every year. In the January federal election, he voted for the Conservative Party, he says.

JUST THINK WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THE GUARD WERE AN NDP MEMBER, OR GREEN?

7 Responses to “BIG BROTHER NOT ONLY WATCHES, BUT CHECKS YOUR POLITICS!”

  1. john hallan Says:

    Be very careful that one does not automatically take this story as gospel, just because one’s bent is to believe in government surveillance, “big brother” if you will.

    What is not included in this story is the nature of the complainant, David Wreggitt. This particular story is about his appeal of an appeal of a decision not to grant him a promotion. It is easy for anyone to say they were denied a promotion because of political affiliation, knowing full well that the confidentiality of the whole human resources process that decides promotion disallows his superiors from freely sharing the complete rationale behind their decision. Perhaps if they were free to share, you might discover that Mr. Wreggitt’s original failure to be promoted was simply because Mr. Wreggitt was not deemed suitable for the position for a variety of reasons.

    Secondly, even a cursory check of Mr. Wreggitt’s litigious history would show that in many venues (legal, financial), both he and his wife continue to “lose” in legal forums on a variety of issues, then either one of them appeals, loses the appeal, then cries conspiracy and launches a full scale assualt through governing bodies of professions, whether it be legal, professional, medical.

    This case alone is their third submission to the Attorney-General or others at the same level, decrying the “conspiracy” that is keeping them from their due. They have attempted (in other scenarios) to destroy a number of careers, from police officers, doctors, teachers, lawyers and judges, even if it meant submitting false or altered documentation.

    In this particular case, even the information provided is somewhat misleading. Perhaps it was not Mr. Wreggitt’s writing of the letter to an MP that was an issue, it was that he lied about doing it.

    A brief examination of transcripts of the numerous cases in which both Mr. Wreggitt and his wife have been involved (whether it be his third bankruptcy, or other lengthy legal proceedings) all show the same cry of numerous professionals conspiring together to defeat the Wreggitts.

    Yes, this is personal, because I have acted on behalf of, been on the receiving end of, and also witnessed in others, the pain and damage the Wreggitt’s relentless pursuit of their agenda has caused.

    Just to end with a little flavour, Mr. Wreggitt claims to be the father of three. This is true, but in reality, he has custody of none. Of course, however, this is a result of an ongoing conspiracy against him. (sic)

  2. michelle-meridith wreggitt Says:

    Hi,

    Just wondering who you are?????

    And why is a letter of personal attack from his ex-wife on your site???? This response has nothing to do with the facts of the story. I do not understand the nature of your forum.

  3. Doris le webmistress Says:

    a) Says who he is on the main site: THE GEOFF SMITH EXPERIENCE.
    b) It’s a blog, dear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog

  4. Dave Wreggitt Says:

    This is Dave Wreggitt - I do not know of or have ever heard of John Hallan, the name is completely ficticious as are any of “his” statements. If “john Hallan” would like to come forward so that (we) may ruin his life as well (lol), please be my guest. What a rant!!!! It’s a terrible shame that your so-called Blog, in some quest for truth, becomes a sounding board for vicious ex-spouses. But it’s a free counrty, right??? Right????

    Mr. McArthur relied upon court documents and information obtained through the freedom of information act. My only part in the story was to answer any questions he put forth to me.

    This particular case is about employement law, it is not a family court issue………..We got divorced 11 years ago……..and I am Ban…get over it Laurel!!!!!!

  5. Dave Wreggitt Says:

    mouse slipped - Bankruptcy is not a crime - I see divorce as this “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”.

    Is a Blog for slander or the truth? Or both?

    “Mr. Hallan” is uninformed and is relying on inaccurate information. There is no conspiracy theory in this case. It is simply an employee sticking up for his rights as an employee and for the rights of his peers.

    This Case is now in Federal Court. Scheduled to be heard on or about April of 2007.

    Dave Wreggitt
    President Joyceville Institution
    UCCO-SACC-CSN

  6. johnhallan Says:

    Well, well, well.

    The angry ex-wife gambit - easy target for the wreggitt’s.

    you’ve pissed off a lot more people than your ex-wife, who it seems you want to blame for my post.

    yeah, you’re right, you won’t know who I am - but you can pick from an almost endless list of people you’ve screwed or attempted to screw.

    start writing.

  7. john hallan Says:

    p.s. Doris le webmistress is quite correct. It is a blog. you know - freedom of speech - the same freedom that has allowed both of you to say what ever you want - true or not, usually not.

Leave a Reply