Three things to ponder

1. The author, creator of this site does not wish to be named, a request that I am again honouring here. But the author has no problem naming everyone involved, even peripherally with the case, over a period of years and years. The author suggests in asking to hear more from these people that they may have had no discretion in handling the matter, but that possibility is not justification enough not to name them. Is anyone else troubled by this?  Are there no lower or mid level employees here who by being named on this site are subject to the kind of mobbing that this site is set against? 

2. Even if the author believes himself/herself to be innocent of the original accusation that triggered this series of events, is it not odd that the accusation is not discussed?  If the author has been exonerated, think someone wrongfully imprisoned of a violent crime, wouldn't a full acknowledgment and discussion of the accusation be appropriate? Rather than a revictimization, might an understanding of what this person was accused of doing help explain the actions of administration? Are there not some accusations that merit an abundance of caution in dealing with the accusation?

3. If the author has been exonerated, why is he/she not discussing the legal remedy received, the settlement made, or the legal recourse now being sought? The site calls for the public discrediting of retired administrators. Is this not odd? Why is this site not talking about the lawsuit in front of the courts? If this is a case so obvious that we need hear only one side of it, why is the primary remedy a shaming of untried and unconvinced individuals named here? Why isn't the beginning of this story the huge judgment given the author? For all the "facts" set out here, the author is giving us only part of the story I would need to draw a conclusion.

 

 

You state in 1: The lower-level people "may have had no discretion in handling the matter"

I realize that the lower-level people may have been forced into their actions. This is a point that I am trying to make: MacEwan Administration operated/operates as a dictatorship; junior administrators obey 'or else'. And faculty do as they are told, 'or else'. This is not how a real university operates. If the US Military can tell their soldiers they are permitted to disobey a command that would result in a war crime, MacEwan Administrators and faculty must also have the right to not say no to harassment and bullying. Their decision not to exercise this right makes them complicit and/or an active participant in my mobbing. Sometimes the choices in life are hard.

President Atkinson is not directly beholding to anyone. His ignoring of the documents I sent him implicates him and does not bode well for MacEwan. I agree with the poster here.

I want to hear from the Administrators named and from those with pertinent information. Many of them were harmed too — fired or forced out when their actions against me failed. This all points to a dysfunctional MacEwan Administration.

You state in 2: "is it not odd that the accusation [against the author] is not discussed?"

There is no initiating accusation that I am aware of. I speculate as to four possibilities, but do not know the relative weight of these or if it was something else (bottom of the page).

Re 3: "exhonoration" would mean Administration admitting they err'd

I have not been exhonorated of anything. I was psychologically abused by MacEwan Administrators and forced to leave in disgrace. The abusers got to tell their story to my colleagues and there is still a cloud of suspicion over my head. The prevailing belief in academia is that academics don't leave full-time continuing positions unless they have done something really, really bad. The only thing I did was advocate for quality academic programming, provide suggestions appropriate to my position at MacEwan, and discover that MacEwan Administration submitted documents to the Board of Governors for approval under false pretenses.

This hasn't been to court because the laws surrounding workplace harassment and bullying are naescent. That said, I have been advised to look into whether some of the actions against me constitute 'criminal harassment'. Following practices recommended in Preventing Violence and Harassment in the Workplace, maybe MacEwan Administration would assist me with this. 

To this day, I am prepared to work with MacEwan Administration to address the problems at MacEwan and the wrongful actions against me. Their repeated and continued refusal to do so speaks volumes.

 

I would appreciate you extending to me the same courtesy of anonymity you demand. This username is longstanding, between five and ten years for both email and facebook, and recognized by my coworkers.

You state in 3: "Why is this site not talking about the lawsuit in front of the courts?"

What lawsuit? This statement is not true. From whom did you hear this? Or did you make it up?

You state in 3: "Why isn't the beginning of this story the huge judgment given the author?"

What huge judgement? This statement is not true. From whom did you hear this? Or did you make it up?

You state in 3: "For all the "facts" set out here, the author is giving us only part of the story I would need to draw a conclusion."

This website puts forward the principle records I have. I have asked the Alberta Government and the Board of Governers to act. One request is to order MacEwan to release my complete, unredated personnel file to me. This information will help me (and you) better understand what has occurred. Perhaps you can lobby MacEwan Administration, the MacEwan Board of Governors, and the Alberta Government on my behalf?

MacEwan absolutely refuses to see any problems in their actions. In correspondence, Administration repeatedly states that 'no MacEwan Administrator has done anything wrong'. Since that is the case, they should have no problem with me posting the records here.

I remind you that I have repeatedly tried to get MacEwan to address these concern privately, but they adamantly refuse and have severed communication with me.

 

I was asking, if the facts are as clear as you claim them to be, if there is no dispute, why _has_ there been no lawsuit and large payout? Why have you not sued for wrongful dismissal on the basis of all this you represent as "fact," so confident in your claims that you make assertions about good people you name? This happened years ago. You should not need the university to do anything but defend what you claim against a criminal or civil action. Why, in the first week your GoFundMe has been live, have you gotten only the cost of lunch from only one non-faculty colleague, even when you made it perfectly clear that MacEwanites, those people suffering a tyrannical administration, could speak up and join you anonymously?

Based of your statements, you are well aware of the events leading up to my forced departure — the events detailed in this website. You already know the answers to your questions.

 

How can I be aware of the events when you claim not to understand them yourself? I do marvel at the ego behind your statements. A beacon?

Given the feedback from researchers on Academic Mobbing, the feedback from faculty who know me, and the increasing number of hits I am getting nationally and internationally, "a beacon ... illuminating a dysfunctional Administration and dysfunctional Faculty Association" appears quite apt.

And to touch on your query as to why there is little public support from MacEwan. Maybe it is because the faculty and staff lived through an extended reign of tyranny. Good people were working one day and gone the next with no explanation and no farewell. Sometimes just a note saying that "____ is no longer working at MacEwan." Other times, no notice whatsoever. You wondered why so many administrators jumped on board my Mobbing? Maybe it is because, if they resisted, they would be next. This, however, doesn't excuse their actions. People saw the transformation to a university as a chance for a new beginning, but my treatment — detailed herein — killed that dream. 

If the tyranny still exists, MacEwan faculty and staff are very appropriately keeping their head down. Indeed, some may condemn me and this website as a show of allegiance to Administration.

If the tyranny has ended, it will take years for faculty and staff to realize this. Proclamations of "a new openness" and "wanting feedback" will be met with skepticism. It will take several brave souls to test the waters and not be punished/terminated for it to get people to start believing, and then one termination will set everything back years.

I doubt the tyranny has ended. For example, MacEwan Administration is desperately looking for a way to suppress this website without addressing the points raised herein. Additionally, when President Atkinson took over, he repeatedly announced that he wanted to meet with faculty and staff. I asked to meet with him. He refused. And last I checked, he is still President.