|
|
|
CASE 0001 CHAPTER 015
Dr. Brian J. Lynch vs. College of Nurses of Ontario Chapter - 15 (January 6th, 2004)
Complainant: Dr. Brian J. Lynch Complainant in Abstentia: Ms Marilyn Munro
Defendant(s): (a) College of Nurses of Ontario (b) Ms Anne Coghlan RN (c) Mr. Nick Coleman (d) Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (e) Ms Norma Johnston RN
Again I must apologize for taking so long in bringing you up-to-date. Much has transpired in the months since the last episode. Ms Marilyn Munro attended the oral reprimands as demanded (ordered) by the College of Nurses of Ontario. The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario did not respond to the latest letters that we sent. But then, we did not expect a response in that an election was scheduled and they, as anticipated, were soundly crushed by the Liberal Party of Ontario. Poor habits, if left unchecked, permeate throughout the entirety of an organization and are eventually noted by even the most inept. Even a generous public’s patience can only be stretched so far. Before we get into addressing our new Provincial Government and testing their willingness to carry their responsibilities, let us fill you in on what surprises (maybe they are not really surprises - we have seen the College in action over a goodly period of time) this College managed to throw at us in their efforts to complete these seemingly simple tasks. The tasks were, of course, to reprimand Ms Munro orally with respect to their decisions that Ms Munro conducted herself wrongly in two matters - the Kennedy and Terrick complaints. As the term suggests, we would expect that the goal in executing such reprimands is to verbally confront the perpetrator of the wrongs with a severe tongue lashing. It is without question an approved form of verbal assault. If the individual is guilty, it is taken that the evil wrong doer will be shamed into following a more righteous path. Though this most certainly seems like an antiquated form of punishment out of the dark ages, as a society, we have little difficulty in accepting it for those terribly, if not sinfully demonic, followers of evil itself. But, if the accused that was found guilty is in fact innocent, this is merely sanctioned verbal abuse. We understand that many individuals have faced the wrath of such a whipping and strong as they may have been upon entry, their knees have visibly buckled, their bodies have uncontrollably trembled, their eyes have tearfully flooded, and in some cases they have actually had a nervous breakdown. We all remember the little rhyme, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." Hopefully many of us have grown-up enough to take that little rhyme to heart. But the truth of the matter is that very few of us are strong enough within ourselves to do much more than recite the words as we hold back our pains when we are so attacked. We are social creatures and seek approval from our peers, if not from everyone. Before there is a distraction and a claim is made that we are now focusing on the barbarity of such a medieval form of punishment, we should clarify that when we did our own soul searching we found that we were no different than most. We had little conflict with, or more precisely, interest in, this form of punishment, as long as the recipient was unquestionably guilty. You will recall the Opening Statement, [EXHIBIT C-101], that Ms Munro prepared and that we published before the date set for the execution of the oral reprimands. You will also recall that from the start the College of Nurses of Ontario was informed of the publication of this wed site. You will also remember that for a very long period of time the College did not move with respect to these oral reprimands in spite of Ms Munro’s repeated statements that she would attend once ordered. In fact, prior to our writings beginning March 28, 2003, to the provincial government, the last word regarding the oral reprimands came from Mr. Nick Coleman in his letter dated May 3rd, 2002, [EXHIBIT C-57] until, of course, May 9th, 2003, when the College finally, for whatever reason, decided that they had to act. Now we take it that the College at least received a phone call from the Minister of Health once he received our letter. Of course someone at the College may have simply read about what we were doing and merely recognized that the reprimands had not yet been issued. We do not believe this second scenario is probable as the timing is all wrong. No! we believe that someone from the provincial government offices called. In either case that is not important. Let’s have a look at what transpired at the College during those oral reprimands. We asked Ms Munro to document the meetings as soon as possible if not immediately at their conclusion. She did so to the best of her recollection and so we are privileged to at least have her documented description. Beginning with the first reprimand, let us direct you to [EXHIBIT C-104]. Surprised? "Where is the reprimand?" you may ask. We most certainly asked Ms Munro. But her response remained the same. "That’s all there was." No wonder Dr. Howard and Mr. Zvaigzne reported that after this hour-long closed-door gathering, Ms Marilyn Munro immerged unscathed and awaited the second reprimand in good spirits. After the twenty (20) minute break, giving time for the first panel to converse with the second, Ms Munro was summoned and the next "oral reprimand" commenced. Here again Ms Munro documented the proceedings afterwards and we have her recollections, [EXHIBIT C-105]. Ah! This time the tone was somewhat different. There actually was a reprimand, at least to some degree. But here again both Dr. Howard and Mr. Zvaigzne reported that after this almost hour long closed door gathering, Ms Marilyn Munro immerged unscathed. Other than E. Norris’ (the appointed chair of the Terrick hearing and past President of the College of Nurses of Ontario) reading of a short written reprimand during the second reprimand and the following references;
There is no way of knowing that Ms Munro was being given an oral reprimand. To the contrary, if anyone was getting an oral reprimand it was both the panels and the College of Nurses of Ontario. This reversal of roles most certainly explains Ms E. Norris’ remarks listed above as items 2, 3, and 4. The statement, "We are not finished with you ..." coming from Ms Norris, the chair of the panel, is the strongest suggestion that this second panel at least had the intent of reprimanding Ms Munro. But the College’s latest statement dated October 23rd, 2003, [EXHIBIT C-103], coming well after these "oral reprimands", clearly indicates the contrary and would suggest, if not state, that they, the College, have accepted the oral reprimands that Ms Munro issued and that they, the College, overruled Ms Norris and insisted that the panels accept Ms Marilyn Munro’s stand of innocence and wrongful conviction along with the reprimand she, Ms Munro, issued to each. Let us also examine this second panel’s rebuttal to Ms Munro’s finding that the College’s expert witness had a employment history with the College and that this fact was keep away from her, Ms Munro, and her defence council. Keep in mind that Ms Taylor is a Registered Practical Nurse that has a position within the College of Nurses of Ontario and was appointed to the panel by this College.
From these statements, it is clear that both Ms Norris RN, the appointed chair, and Ms Taylor RPN were fully aware of Ms Johnston’s work history with the College. They would have also known that this vital information was being withheld by the College and Ms Johnston, the College’s expert witness. Ms K. Wetherall, on the other hand, a public panel member, questioned this practice, "I have sat on many disciplinary panel. How many other experts for the College are employed by the College?" Obviously she knew that such a practice is not acceptable and was not informed of this working relationship. But than why should she be? She was a public member added to make the panel appear impartial and thus give it some semblance of legitimacy. Both Ms Norris, the chair, and Ms Taylor are, or were, directly associated with the College at the time of the hearing. With the revelation that both Ms Norris, the chair, and Ms Taylor knew that Ms Johnston had a working history with the College of Nurses of Ontario at the time that they sat in judgement of Ms Munro, you may wonder why the first panel chaired by Ms. Elizabeth Haugh, the past president of the College (an appointment she received after ruling against Ms Munro), denied having any knowledge of the working history between Ms Johnston and the College. Could it be that Ms. Elizabeth Haugh and her panel members were aware of the serious impropriety such an undeclared relationship between the College’s expert witness and the College itself would in fact be? Most interesting! Ms Elizabeth Haugh, the chair of the first panel (the Kennedy query), appears to be very much in line with Ms Munro’s position. Remember that little, if anything, is presented by her that could be seen as a reprimand. Utilizing a defensively supportive role, she seemingly is more interested in drawing out Ms Munro’s positional strengths, weaknesses, strategy, and intent. Basically, Ms Haugh could be described as fishing far more easily than flogging. Let’s note the bait and technique she may be employing to make her catch by reviewing Ms Munro’s recall of some of the questions and statements Ms Haugh, past president of the College makes. E. Haugh: What do you mean you have your license back, you are not suppose to have your license back until we have given the oral reprimand and consent to such. I do not understand. E. Haugh: I have some questions and concerns. What do you mean by Norma Johnston was an employee for the College? What lie are you referring to? E. Haugh: How do you know this? E. Haugh: I certainly have some questions for Gail Siskand and Anne Coghlan. E. Haugh: Oh no! you are joking. E. Haugh: Have you informed Anne Coghlan of these matters? E. Haugh: I have some more questions for Anne now. E. Haugh: You do not have to answer this question if you do not wish to, but I would like to know who the expert was in the Terrick case for the College? (And again) E. Haugh: Oh no! you are joking. E. Haugh: You have notified Anne Coghlan of all this? E. Haugh: Not anymore, my tenure was over a few months ago. There is a limit to the president’s tenure and none of us are on the discipline committees either. E. Haugh: Work in this place and with these people, I don’t think so. (all three panel members laughing) You do know Anne Coghlan was appointed by me. E. Haugh: We have no power to over turn a decision, no access to the information of the case. We had a job to do. E. Haugh: We could have another trial. Contrasting this with the reprimand that followed twenty (20) minutes later and was chaired by Ms Norris by revisiting some of the statements made by this chairperson and Ms Taylor a member of this same panel. Remember, Ms Norris did read a prepared reprimand to begin this session. E. Norris: There were serious and grave concerns that after this length of time I had no remorse, no acknowledgement of guilt or wrong doing, no comprehension of the understanding of the misconduct they all found me guilty of . Raised serious concerns with my fitness to continue as a nurse in this profession. M. Taylor: Ms Johnston was a quality assurance educator for the Kingston area under contract to the College she was not employed by the College. M. Taylor: She was not an employee, she was under contract to the College. E. Norris: Her employment did not matter. She was qualified and accepted by us as an expert. M. Taylor: Her employment is not the issue, your misconduct is and again she was not... E. Norris: You have no right E. Norris: I have serious concerns about you. E. Norris: This is not over. We are not finished with you... Even though this second reprimand, conveniently set to come on the same day as the first, was much more in line with what might be expected at such a disciplinary function, it was a far cry from what would normally be expected. Mind you, Ms Norris’ last two noted remarks, and we once more repeat; E. Norris: I have serious concerns about you. E. Norris: This is not over. We are not finished with you... do set a forebodingly ominous expectation. What will the College of Nurses of Ontario do with Ms Munro’s firm stand against the damaging actions against her? Low and behold, a white flag appears to be the order of the day. Let us quote the official and final stand of the College of Nurses of Ontario as it is presented to Ms Marilyn Munro in their letter dated October 23, 2003, [EXHIBIT C-103]. This letter serves to confirm that you have complied with the orders of the panels. This concludes the matters between the College Nurses and yourself. So much for Ms Norris’ paraphrased final statement, "We are not finished with you...". As to the opening sentence of this official conclusion, [EXHIBIT C-103], by the College: On August 27, 2003, you met with the panels of the Discipline Committee to receive your oral reprimand. we will let you be the judge as to who received the oral reprimands. You undoubtably recognize the similarity of the statements in this letter, [EXHIBIT C-103], and Ms Coghlan’s statements in her June 16th, 2003 letter, [EXHIBIT C-93], ordering Ms Munro to appear before these panels wherein she states in her 2nd paragraph: If you comply with the direction and attend and receive the oral reprimands you will have fully complied with the order of the panels and no further action will be taken with respect to those matters. Mr. Zvaigzne, a major contributor to this website, stated to us that Ms Coghlan’s letter was the College’s white flag. With this October 23, 2003, letter and reading what was presented by Ms Munro in her opening statements, [EXHIBIT C-101], and her written recall of these reprimands, we can now only concur with his assessment. Surrendering after you have unleashed your most devastating weaponry against your victim and inflicted the greatest harm you could possibly conceive and then finding that your prey remains standing may be the fairy tale conclusion that the College of Nurses of Ontario would like. However, surrender after a wrongful and destructively crippling attack without taking proper responsibility for such a wrongful action is not reasonable. If such a surrender was accepted, that acceptance would only serve to encourage the perpetrator to justify their wrongful deeds in these instances and to employ such mischief in the future. No dear College of Nurses of Ontario, you may be frantically waving your white flag of surrender, but until you accept responsibility and act to correct your wrongs and the damage you have caused, such a casual surrender can not and should not be accepted. Now as promised, we will return to the political realm. In October 2003, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario was soundly swept from power and no longer holds the reigns. Perhaps they were aware of their own demise as early as March 28th, 2003, and choose to retain the friendship of the executives within the College of Nurses of Ontario rather than take the bit by the teeth and steer a proper course. Such a failing only indicates that they, the Progressive Party of Ontario, have not learnt much from the bitter demise of their federal counterparts. Before we close the chapter on the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, we must add that we did receive a letter from the then Premier, Ernie Eves, [EXHIBIT C-102]. This letter, though dated August 14, 2003, was only postmarked August 28, 2003, and received by us on September 5th, 2003. [EXHIBIT C-98], [EXHIBIT C-99], and [EXHIBIT C-100] were sent by us on August 19th, 2003. We did not receive so much as a whimper before they met their ruin and we most certainly do not expect anything from them now. This leaves us to now address the Liberal Party of Ontario. They, like their federal partners do in Canada, are the political authority in Ontario at this time. We recognized that the newly elected Liberals needed a little time to get their bearings as they have not held Ontario for quite some period. We have also recognized that their predecessors probably did not pass copies of our communications, and thus this issue, onto their victorious competitors. So we have forwarded copies of every letter, yes we included all of the excuses the Progressive Conservatives used to avoid their then responsibilities, that we sent or received regarding these issues to the new political heads here in Ontario, [EXHIBIT C-106], [EXHIBIT C-107], [EXHIBIT C-108]. We can only trust that we the citizens of Ontario have made a wise move and have elected a provincial government that will take their responsibilities to heart. Many of you, our loyal readers and jurors, may wonder why we did not simply address the Federal Government and avoid this repetition. To that we can only answer by saying that it would be irresponsible for us to "jump the gun". Health care is a provincial matter and the College of Nurses of Ontario is given its authority of governance by way of the Minister of Health in Ontario. Yes, we realize that some of the issues go beyond health care; but, at the same time we must acknowledge first that it, the College of Nurses of Ontario, and this College’s conduct directly effect the citizens of Ontario. It would only be misconduct or lack of corrective action by the provincial government that should be brought to the federal level. In the same course it should only be misconduct (active or passive) on the part of the federal government that should be brought to the attention of an international body once all other avenues have been exhausted. No one wishes to embarrass their own elected officials if the matters can be internally resolved. Yes! We will admit that we were very near to moving these issues to the next level, but now we must, in fairness, give the newly elected Provincial Liberals their opportunity. We will exercise patience and trust that they, the Liberals, will take on their responsibilities without avoidance. Hopefully you have all had a Merry Christmas and may we wish you all the best for this New Year. Keep your eyes on our website as the next publication could come at any time. |