TIE Trustee Questionnaire

Which key issues bring you to this role? What are you hoping to accomplish?

Like many, the unacceptable treatment of Carolyn Burjoski made me wake up and take notice. That the Board would have the temerity to throw her under the bus was beyond anything I could have imagined prior to 2022. Worse still, nobody seems to have been held accountable and everything remains cloaked in secrecy.

My platform has three main stages: change the culture, address the issues, follow through.

We first have to change the culture so that free speech is once again respected, and ideas can be properly debated and vetted at the Board table. Currently there is too much censorship. Once we’ve restored liberal norms of debate can we then properly tackle issues like educational technology, safety, and political ideology. And finally, we have to follow up by improving transparency and accountability. No more expensive FOI processes, and people need to be held accountable for failures and promoted for success. Finally, the Board needs to advocate for our students at the Ministry of Education, which is promoting policies which harm students and impede learning. Throwing up our hands and saying “it’s the Ministry’s jurisdiction” isn’t good enough when kids are paying the price.

Which skills do you bring to this role?

I am committed to the liberal process of intentionally seeking out the best arguments on both sides of an issue. Informed decision-making requires it, and I will insist on it.

I am a university science professor accustomed to research and communicating ideas. I am comfortable challenging policies and practices that I believe in good conscience to be wrong. I will prioritize my integrity over the comfortable path of conformity. I think that is among the most important qualities required of a trustee today.

How will you protect and centre Human Rights in your role as a trustee? For example, if a delegate is speaking at a meeting in a way that does not respect the rights of staff or students whose identities are protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code, what will you do?

What happened to Carolyn Burjoski was a travesty. I support the individual right to free expression and I will protect that right. I would never stop a delegate from speaking, especially as an elected trustee tasked with hearing the electorate.

It is important especially to hear voices critical of the government and unions. For example, concerns about sexually explicit books have been silenced. I would not only make sure that any critic of the Board (including those whose views I find objectionable) is heard, I would relentlessly seek justice and make sure Board officials are held accountable for attempting to silence the public they serve.

In my opinion, the only time a delegate might be legitimately cautioned or stopped is if they threaten physical violence or engage in egregious defamation.

The OHRC is weaponized to silence critics of governments and unions. Disagreement is not hate, and the union leadership needs to get that message loud and clear.

What specific actions will you take to actively lobby the provincial government for increased, predictable funding for public education?

None. I understand this is a union survey and your job is to maximize how much money you can extract from the public purse. That is understandable. But competitor private schools offer arguably better education for much less than the >$14,000 per student cost of public education in Ontario.

More practical solutions involve trimming administrative bloat and advocating for a voucher system such that funds follow the student. That will improve equitable access to education, as currently private schools favour those with higher incomes. I’d like to see more flexibility, and this competition would doubtless provide incentives to reform and improve the WRDSB. In the long run, it’s in the best interests of the public system to open it up to more competition.

What is your stance on the outsourcing or privatization of board services (such as custodial, maintenance, cafeteria, or IT services)?

I’m open to it. It’s probably a good idea, but only if there is an open and fair contracting process that prioritizes local businesses that hire Canadians and not foreign workers at below-market rates.

But I would like to get better acquainted with the arguments on both sides of the issue.

What is your vision for ensuring that all students have equal access to nutritious school meal programs, technology, and extracurricular activities regardless of socio-economic status?

I am interested in hearing more specifics about what you’re getting at, but as far as I’m concerned all students at school should have equal access to all programs.

As a general philosophy, however, I am skeptical of mission creep and expanding government. Ultimately, any new program costs the taxpayers. Schools are for education—let’s focus on that. Let parents parent, and families, neighbours, and faith communities fulfil their roles more effectively, free from additional tax burdens.

Students and staff deserve safe learning and working environments. How will you advocate for the collection, analysis, and regular sharing of safety-related data?

The Safe, Caring, and Inclusive Surveys (SCIS) are intrusive and a privacy concern. Given the data breaches at the WRDSB, I will advocate against collecting private information from students.

For example, asking students about their sexuality is highly inappropriate. It is also inappropriate and potentially dangerous to ask students about their family life, as it provides compromising information that can be used by predators.

With child trafficking concerns on the rise, we need to have a serious conversation about why we are doing these invasive surveys at all. I have no idea how they make anyone safe, and I am very curious why unions would support them. If you’d like to enlighten me, please reach out at geoff.horsman@gmail.com.