By Sylene Argent, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Essex Free Press
During the Greater Essex County District School Board (GECDSB) special meeting on June 10, two Code of Conflict Investigation reports were presented, one for Trustee Nancy Armstrong, the other for Trustee Cathy Cooke.
Ultimately, both Trustees were censured, and various sanctions were approved against them.
Both investigations were regarding comments the two Trustees made either at a GECDBS meeting on April 2, 2024, or to media afterwards, on what became seen in the community as a controversial naming process for the new Kingsville K-12 School.
It was eventually named Erie Migration District School.
Last week’s meeting was a two-hour session full of Points of Orders, often cutting off Trustees. The reasoning often being they were not sticking to the matter at hand and could not speak about the process of how the school name came about, only to the report from the lawyer who investigated the comments or motions on the table.
GECDSB Chairperson, Gale Hatfield, explained on June 4, 2024, the GECDSB passed a motion to have an investigator appointed to examine the conduct of Cooke in relation to and/or arising out of the Special Public Meeting of the Board held on April 2, 2024.
In addition, on September 23, 2024, the GECDSB voted to get an impartial investigation into an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct by Trustee Armstrong in relation to and/or arising out of her appearance on “That Kingsville Podcast,” published on YouTube on August 3, 2024.
Rubin Thomlinson LLP was retained to investigate both complaints.
Members of the GECDSB considered the findings of the report at a special meeting June 10. Trustee Ron LeClair and Trustee Cooke, who was investigated, were absent.
“The responsibility of the Trustees tonight is they must decide whether the Code has been breached,” Hatfield explained, and if so, if any sanctions should be imposed.
The Board could accept or reject the investigator’s recommendations or opinions. Any motions regarding a breach or sanction had to be decided by a vote of two-thirds of Trustees present.
As per the Education Act, Armstrong and Cooke were unable to vote on motions, or participate in deliberations, regarding themselves.
Background
The background to this investigation was in regard to the naming of the new K-12 school in Kingsville in 2024. The new school replaced other schools in Kingsville, Colchester, Harrow, and parts of Leamington, including Kingsville District School. It opened in September.
A naming committee, which included Trustees, Board staff, students, and community representatives, was formed. It was Chaired by Trustee Julia Burgess.
Over 600 names were submitted for consideration from the community that the committee looked over. In February 2024, a report to the GECDSB detailed that “Kingsville District Academy” or “Greater Kingsville Academy” were selected as the top two choices. However, Burgess proposed “Erie Migration Academy,” which was later changed to “Erie Migration District School,” as EMA was recognized as a vulgar acronym.
Within its Naming Policy Regulation, Trustees are not required to accept the recommendations of a Name Selection Committee, and may propose alternative names.
Burgess previously explained she suggested Erie Migration Academy as the school’s catchment extended beyond Kingsville.
At the April 2, 2024 meeting, GECDSB Vice Chairperson Christie Nelson called for a vote on the original motion to strike the word “Academy” and insert “District School.” The vote carried, by seven to three.
At that meeting, the GECDSB hired a parliamentarian to guide the meeting. During which, before the name was altered, Burgess brought forward a motion to amend the previously adopted motion of the name to immediately call the question. That meant that there would be no debate on the original motion to change the name. That carried 7-3.
The Rubin Thomlinson report also details that the Ombudsman received more than 300 complaints following the naming decision. It adds that investigation into the process, the Ombudsman concluded in its report of June 15, 2024, that the Board of Trustees had acted in accordance with its policies, regulations, and Governance By-laws in the school naming process.
Trustee Cooke censured, requested to attend restorative justice
The Rubin Thomlinson report outlined the statements Cooke made during the April 2, 2024 meeting, and the statements she made to the media afterwards.
Ultimately, the Rubin Thomlinson report found Cooke’s comments during that meeting did not breach the Code of Conduct, and the GECDSB accepted that.
During the April 2, 2024 meeting, the report details, Cooke raised a question respecting who had brought in the recommendation to change the name. Cooke said she felt it was important to know on whose recommendation the issue was being considered, the report details.
In addition, when Burgess raised a point of order that this was not a question of clarification at that meeting, Trustee Cooke responded, directly to Burgess, and Burgess asked her to speak through the Chair. Cooke did correct that.
A few other instances were outlined.
The Rubin Thomlison report, however, found, “her statements during the media interview were contrary to the Code of Conduct.”
That was in regard to a video of Cooke speaking after the April 2, 2024 meeting that was posted to YouTube, where she said, “I am extremely disappointed, I am extremely frustrated, and I think this whole thing was a terrible mess. What they did tonight was shut everybody up. They didn’t want trustees to talk. They didn’t want to hear anything from anybody in the community, all they wanted to do was shove it through and that’s what they did, and it was wrong, it’s wrong to the trustees. But more than that, it’s wrong to the community. And I am angry and I’m not staying tonight for the public meeting. This is just a mess, and Trustee Burgess did what she did, got it through.”
She also said, “This was a planned thing, they knew exactly how they were going to do this tonight and that’s what they did…”
According to the Rubin Thomlinson’s report, Cooke reiterated her position that she was not criticizing or undermining the decision made to name the school “Erie Migration,” nor were her criticisms about the specific motion put forward on April 2, 2024, to replace “Academy” with “District School.” Her objection was about the overall process, not the result.
A majority vote passed that the Board of Trustees, regarding the allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct by Cooke, found she breached sections 6, 14, 23, and 24, by the reasons the investigator provided with her media interview.
Trustees Nancy Armstrong and Linda Qin were opposed.
Burgess motioned to censure Cooke for her comments to the media April 2, 2024, which was supported by the Board, with opposition from Armstrong and Qin.
Through her motion to censure, Hatfield said Cooke’s remarks “were personal, demeaning, and disparaging of her fellow Trustees and the Board.” She claimed Cooke failed to act in a manner that would support public confidence in the abilities and integrity of Burgess and the Board.
In addition, Burgess motioned that a restorative justice practice facilitation be requested of Cooke through the Board, and that she and Trustee Kim McKinley would be included in that, and anyone else on the Board who felt disparaged. That way, the Board could work through it and find some justice. There is remediation to it.
That passed, with only Armstrong and Qin opposed.
This is meant to repair the harm of any of the victims, as well as the offenders, to work towards healing, Director of Education Vicki Houston explained. There would be a cost for the facilitator.
It would be up to Cooke to respond or not.
Qin asked how can the Board remedy the situation to the community that feels hurt. Hatfield told Qin the Board was not talking about the community and had to speak to the motion.
Qin opposed the motion.
Qin does not think public budget dollars should be paid for this.
Burgess noted they continue to pay for this in heartache, mental health, for their own security. She said it is a healing way to do things. Qin believes the controversy should have been avoided from the beginning.
Burgess also moved that Cooke enter a comment on the Windsor Star YouTube page where the video was posted to mitigate some of the what she called damaging comments and apologizing for disparaging fellow Trustees. She said that is the primary site where her comments were shared.
No one seconded this, so it did not move forward.
Trustee Malek Mekawi moved Cooke be barred from sitting on Student Discipline and Appeals Committee. It was not related to the matter, so it was withdrawn.
Burgess moved to suggest Cooke secure removal or additional commentary on all inaccurate or disparaging comments on social media. There was no seconder.
Burgess also requested Cooke provide a public apology for the harm caused. There was no seconder.
McKinley moved to bar Cooke from three meetings of the Board and three private committee meetings. She withdrew her motion.
Burgess moved to bar Cooke from Board meetings in January and February of 2026 with the reason for causing harm because of her media interview. These are lighter meetings, typically, she noted.
Hatfield said the media interview was egregious. “I was highly disturbed, insulted, and upset, and all the other emotions that go on with in,” Hatfield said. She did not see any continuation of that behaviour towards the Board. She was unsure barring Cooke from meetings would serve any purpose.
McKinley said she tends to be a forgiving person, but has not yet heard from Cooke on the matter, which likely would have made a difference.
Qin did not support the motion as she believed Cooke had good intentions and was trying to help her communities and have their opinions reflected. She said it is punitive, Armstrong agreed with that.
This motion failed.
McKinley further said Cooke’s comments were disparaging. That included a report she said Cooke made “I am here for the right reasons, some aren’t.”
“That statement really affected me. I felt like, “why, what is that about?’”
Burgess found having to read the report and go through the matter again, “traumatic.”
She was interviewed in October, and was told the investigation had been concluded, and that it was not necessary to interview her on the matter. She said she only got to speak to the matter in the “broadest sense.”
Qin said she found that meeting last year hurtful, because she wasn’t given the right to speak, and the Board was not given the chance to question the name.
Burgess called a Point of Order, wondering if Qin was speaking of the meeting itself or the report. After some debate between Qin and Hatfield about that meeting and motions made, Qin was told to speak to the motion only.
While Qin tried to explain her recount of the meeting, a bell chimed several times, cutting her off.
“We are talking about the report of the investigator, not your opinion of the meeting,” Hatfield said. “If you continue to challenge that, I am going to have to ask you to leave for this part of the meeting.”
She refused to release Qin’s mic, until she understood that.
“Don’t get into debate about what you think happened at that meeting. It is documented in the report, Hatfield told Qin.
Qin tried to raise points, but was told a few more times she was out of order.
Houston explained the purpose of the investigation was only to determine whether there was a Code of Conduct breach. Not the process.
Burgess claimed some comments fuelled hurt to her and her family in her community “to the point of threats and my security.”
Trustee Armstrong censured, requested to participate in restorative justice, barred from private meetings
The Rubin Thomlinson’s report investigated statements Trustee Armstrong made during her appearance on the “That Kingsville Podcast.”
A few of the comments she made included:
“I have lost opportunities to speak because they called Robert’s Rules on me and I didn’t know enough to say what I should have said . . . we got along very well because I deferred to their expertise, but this name was something that I had a strong opinion about. And, so that’s why, since then, it hasn’t gone very well.”
“…When I was agreeing with everyone, then they would offer me that consideration and I truly appreciated it — as I said we got along really, really well, until I had an opinion that did not follow, and that’s when, yeah, I was bullied, and it’s not happening again. So, anyway, it’s, it’s gone way downhill since February.”
“I viewed the process — this is my word — I viewed the process as being hijacked. So, apparently, nothing illegal happened because it is within the policy that it can happen, but my husband had a really good way of saying it. He said, nothing illegal happened, but the process was morally and ethically bankrupt. And that, that’s — that’s how I feel.”
She also questioned the vetting process.
There were many other comments mentioned.
The Rubin Thomlinson report identified five possible provisions of the Code of Conduct that Trustee Armstrong may have contravened: 3, 6, 14, 23, and 24.
The report outlines there were some statements made by Trustee Armstrong in the podcast which Burgess considered were not justified, and were incomplete, exaggerated, or simply incorrect. Armstrong, however, stood by the statements she made in the podcast, and maintained that she had an obligation to the students and the electorate to make these issues public.
Burgess motioned that the GECDSB find Armstrong breached those sections of the Code of Conduct, based on the reasons provided by the investigator. This passed, with Qin opposed.
She wanted to make it clear to her she was unequivocally in breach, based on a myriad of her reasoning, including that she said Armstrong still contests the name as lately as the last meeting, and there is no evidence of any remorse, acceptance of the Ombudsman report, or due process, or that she said the name was vetted properly by a professional of the Board.
She went on to talk about a portion in the investigation where Burgess said she did contact Armstrong at one point, but Armstrong said she never received the call.
They both provided evidence of this. Hatfield told Burgess to stick to the motion at hand.
Burgess went on to talk about how she had issue with some of the report’s findings, which Hatfield reiterated she had to stick to the motion. Qin also called a Point of Order, but while explaining, Hatfield noted her Point of Order was not valid.
“If you can’t control your words, I’m going to ask you to leave,” Hatfield said to Qin. Qin argued, with her mic off, while Hatfield told her to stop.
In speaking to the motion, Qin said she watched the video and found Armstrong to be sincere and spoke with integrity to talk about what happened. Hatfield cut her mic off again, noting she had to deal with the investigative report, not her own findings. She called her comment out of order.
After the motion finding Armstong was in breach of the Code, Hatfield moved the GECDSB censure Armstrong for her conduct during the podcast. This passed with Qin opposed.
She called Armstrong’s comments demeaning and disparaging, and that she failed to act in a manner that would support public confidence in the abilities and integrity of Burgess and the Board.
Qin questioned where Armstong demeaned other Trustees. She cautioned being careful using words like “demeaning” if the investigator did not use them in the report.
Burgess supported censures, noting Amstrong comments were worthy of it.
Burgess also motioned to request Armstrong participate in restorative justice practices on behalf of the Board, including anyone named in the report, including herself, McKinley, and anyone else who wanted to participate. This passed, with Qin opposed.
Burgess moved to bar Armstrong from ever participating in any private session meeting, until the end of the term in the fall of 2026, due to what she said was breaking confidentiality and misinterpretation. This passed, with Qin and Trustee Nelson opposed.
Qin believed that was too punitive.
“I warn the whole Board to be careful doing such punitive things to Trustees. Enough is enough,” Qin said.
Burgess asked if she was being “warned or threatened in any way?”
The report outlines in terms of vetting the school name, Burgess indicated that she had called Scott Scantlebury, the Public Relations Officer, for the Board, to vet the name “Erie Migration Academy.”
She also noted that the Board, including Trustee Armstrong, had been specifically told that the name had been vetted. Trustee Burgess noted that there was nothing in writing, so there was no documentation to provide. She noted that the process did not require it. She pointed out that the fact that there was no documentation did not mean the vetting had not been done.
Other claims investigated in the report include consultation on the name, and comments Armstrong made in the podcast regarding Armstrong’s lack of procedural knowledge and comments. So where Armstrong’s comments about mental health and bullying and how the school acronym would have a negative impact on students.
During last week’s meeting, Armstrong said she did not wish to be disrespectful, but “the hurt that has been mentioned here, also the kids in the community were hurt as well,” Armstrong said.
Burgess immediately called a Point of Order, Hatfield noted Armstrong was unable to speak to the matter as she is named in it, based on Education Act rules.
Armstrong decided to leave the meeting, while discussion took place in regards to the findings.
The Trustees will be notified of the sanctions. They have 14-days to provide written submissions to the Board with respect to the determinations and sanctions.
From there, the Board will either confirm the decisions of the Board or reject the decisions based on their responses.
Be the first to comment