A Novel Defence

The devil, they say, is in the details, but here in Ontario, the devil apparently is in the Ontario government.

Outside of this province, I'm not certain how well known the tale of bureaucrat Sanjay Madan is, so here is a quick summary:

Madan was the $176,608-a-year IT boss on the computer application for Support for Families, which gave parents $200 per child under age 12, and $250 per child and youth under 21 with special needs for educational expenses.

In Ontario Superior Court filings, the province alleges that “some or all of” Madan, his spouse, Shalini Madan, their two adult sons, Chinmaya and Ujjawal, and associate, Vidhan Singh, funneled millions in such payments to thousands of BMO, TD, RBC, Tangerine, and ICICI bank accounts last spring.

Madan's wife and two sons, no longer employed by the government, are currently engaged in separate lawsuits against the Ontario government, denying any knowledge of Madan's activities, despite the fact that he used his sons' bank accounts to funnel some of the ill-gotten gains. 

Moreover, in a novel defence, Madan is blaming the victim for all of this unwarranted fuss. In his own

January testimony in civil court [he said] that he “thought there may be an opportunity to take the funds out … it looked like easy money for me,” so he “relaxed” some security provisions to allow more payments to be made into the same bank accounts.

“The (government) knew, or ought to have known, that unscrupulous individuals, including potentially its own employees, might try to exploit weaknesses in its security measures to take money, and having anticipated such threats, ought to have taken steps to prevent them or reduce any losses arising from them,” his statement says.

“By failing to do so, the (province) has failed to mitigate its loss and is largely the author of its own misfortune,” it continues.

Madan is additionally implicated in a computer contract kickback scheme, where he allegedly received secret commissions in awarding the contracts to bidders.  The unrepentant Sanjay's response?

“The (government) not only suffered no loss arising from the alleged “kickback scheme,” but in fact saved money by selecting the highest score bidder in an open bidding contest,”... 

One of the definitions of chutzpah is shameless audacity. In addition to the many millions he is alleged to have pilfered, it is obvious that Sanjay Madan has vast reserves of it.

 

Delusional Or Just Cynical About The People He 'Represents'? Updated

Take a look at this and decide what is going on in the mind of Trevor Zinck, the disgraced MLA from Nova Scotia who pleaded guilty to embezzling money from the public purse through fraudulent claims but somehow thinks he should retain his seat.

Perhaps he has been looking to the Senate for his inspiration?

UPDATE: Seems like the lad just came to his senses.

What Do Politics And Education Have In Common?

With apologies for writing yet another post about education, I cannot escape the conviction that in considering the seamier side of education, with its sometimes immoral and concealed actions, its use of 'spin' and its willingness to overlook or minimize wrongdoing when it suits its purposes, there are many parallels to the kind of unethical, expedient and corrupt behaviour we often find among those we elect to public office.

The other reason for my preoccupation is that I have always detested the existence of double standards in the meting out of justice.

Two events involving two school boards, one current and one going back several years, suggest that justice is not only not done, but not seen to be done.

In today's Toronto Star, a story about a former Kingsville, Ont., principal, Wendy Lynn Liebing,

admitted misusing school board funds over three years and resigned from the association on June 14, the college said on its website. Her certificate of qualification and registration to teach were then cancelled. The case was detailed in the latest issue of the college’s magazine, Professionally Speaking.

“At the time of the resignation, a professional misconduct investigation was in progress wherein the member was alleged to have mismanaged and misappropriated school and board funds,” the website said.

Despite the College of Teacher's euphemistic reference to Liebling's having 'mismanaged and misappropriated' school money, the fact is that she embezzled over $50,000 from her employer, a crime that in most cases would result in criminal charges. I will offer my opionion on why that did not happen in a few moments.

The next case, which goes back several years, involves a former school principal named Glenn Crawford, who was employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.

Like Liebling, Crawford 'misused' school funds and assets for personal reasons, as he admitted to during the investigation. Amongst the fraudulent acts he admitted to were the following:

a) receiving unauthorized personal advances;

b) receiving reimbursement for meal and hotel expenses that were personal;

c) falsifying receipts from Ontario Principals’ Council in order to be reimbursed by the
school;

d) billing both the Ontario Principals’ Council and the school for expense claims;

e) using school funds and assets for personal reasons;

f) authorizing payment of expenses by the school for expenses not related to school activities, such as expenses related to events involving his son including the International Children’s Games and the B’nai Brith Sports Dinner;

g) using the school van for personal reasons and submitting the expenses to the school;

h) receiving reimbursement for the purchase of tires claimed but not installed on the school
van;

i)obtaining the personal services of landscaping company, where his son is a landscape contractor, and billing the school; and

j)authorizing landscape expenses for the 2001/2002 fiscal year higher than those for similar size schools.


The penalty for this malfeasance?

Essentially, Crawford was permitted to resign and had his teaching certificate suspended for one year.

You can read the full decision here.

So why were neither Liebling nor Crawford charged with a crime, something that usually happens to those who embezzle from their employers? The most benign explanation is that the board, being heavily influenced by institutional behaviour, wanted to minimize the publicity surrounding these odious deeds, publicity that would both diminish the institution's reputation and seriously damage the career advancement to the many who put their own fortunes above the good of education.

The second possibility, and admittedly a much more sinister one, is that people who commit crimes but are dealt with softly often have knowledge of things within the organization that no one wants exposed to public scrutiny.

While the latter explanation may seem rather paranoid and conspiratorial, my own years in education were witness to some very questionable things which, while I am not prepared to discuss them here, would never have passed 'the smell test'.