|
While this office generally does not investigate the merits
of public authorities’ decisions, it can investigate the process
leading to a decision, such as whether the consultation process
for a proposed school closure was handled in a fair manner.
Also, if it is in the public interest to investigate a matter,
the Ombudsman has the authority to initiate an investigation
into a matter to consider it from a broad systemic perspective.
This was the case when an Ombudsman’s investigation was
conducted into the process used by a particular school district
to consult with the public on a proposed school closure.
While school boards have the authority to close schools, they
are also required by the School Act to consult with the public
on any proposed closures. This office chose to investigate the
public consultation process for school closures to find out if
the process was fair and effective in providing the public with
an opportunity to express their views and if the process allowed
for their views to be properly considered when it came time to
make a decision regarding a school closure.
As part of our investigation, we asked the following questions:
Is the appropriate information being made readily available to
the public? Is a reasonable amount of time available to ensure
the opportunity exists for people to express their views and
opinions? And finally, does a genuine opportunity exist for
those affected by a potential school closure to take reasonable
steps to influence the decision?
In response to our investigation and recommendations, the school
district made a number of significant changes to its policies
regarding school closures. The new policy clearly outlines the
process that the school district will follow in consulting with
the public and opportunities for those who might be affected by
a decision of the board to make their views known. We concluded
that the revised policy provided clarity on how public
consultations would be conducted and would provide a consistent
approach to gathering public feedback and effectively using that
information as part of the decision-making process for proposed
school closures.
Balance of debt extinguished due to error and omissions
Ministry of Small
Business and Revenue
2006 Annual Report
Ms. T contacted
our office with a complaint regarding the repayment of her
student loan debt. She believed that she had an agreement with
Revenue Services of British Columbia (RSBC) and the Ministry of
Small Business and Revenue for a final settlement of her debt.
However, although Ms. T had made what she had been told was the
final payment on her debt, RSBC had notified her that she had to
pay an additional amount and it had garnished her income tax
refund in partial payment. Ms. T believed that this was unjust
and she wanted RSBC to honour the settlement agreement.
Our
investigation into this matter revealed that the Ministry had
not obtained clarification and acknowledgement from Ms. T about
the terms of the initial settlement agreement. As well, RSBC had
made an error in calculating the amount she owed and it had not
provided her with an explanation of its demand for additional
funds.
Under the
circumstances, the Ministry agreed to resolve the complaint by
accepting that Ms. T’s debt had been settled and by refunding to
her the amount that it had garnished from her income tax refund.
Student told
to repay educational grant
Ministry of
Advanced Education
2006 Annual Report
Ms. H contacted
our office with a complaint concerning the Student Services
Branch of the Ministry of Advanced Education. She told us she
had received a letter from the Branch advising her that she had
to repay a grant she had received approximately a year earlier.
Ms. H told us
she had completed her course of study and that she felt it was
unjust for the Branch to ask her to repay any portion of the
grant she had received.
As part of our
investigation, we reviewed existing information and discussed
the matter with both Ms. H and Branch officials. According to
Branch records, Ms. H had not followed the rules for receiving a
grant, as she had not negotiated the loan portion of her
financial assistance package. As a result, the Branch had
reduced the amount of Ms. H’s grant and informed her that she
had to repay the over award.
Our
investigation found that after Ms. H’s loan and grant documents
had been sent to her school, a school official had confirmed her
enrolment and Ms. H had sent her loan document to the National
Student Loans Service Centre (NSLSC) within the required 30-day
time period. However, the NSLSC subsequently notified Ms. H that
her loan could not be processed at that time because she owed a
small amount of interest on a previous student loan. Ms. H paid
the interest owing, but by the time her payment was received,
her loan document had become stale-dated. In order for the loan
to become negotiable again, Ms. H’s enrolment at the school had
to be reconfirmed. We were advised that the NSLSC is supposed to
contact both the school and the student if a loan document
becomes stale-dated and cannot be processed. In Ms. H’s case,
however, the NSLSC had no record or documentation to show that
these required contacts had been made.
During the
course of our investigation, Ms. H repaid the over award and her
school forgave the remaining tuition that she owed. However, our
investigation revealed that Ms. H had not been aware that her
loan had not been negotiated during her period of study.
Therefore, she had not had the opportunity to take any action to
correct the problem. The loan funds were supposed to have been
sent directly to her school and neither the school nor the NSLSC
had notified her there was any further problem with her funding
after she had sent her interest payment.
The Branch
accepted that it was not Ms. H’s fault that her student loan had
not been negotiated.
Accordingly, the
Branch agreed to resolve the complaint by reimbursing to Ms. H
the difference between the amount the school had forgiven and
the amount of the over award that she had repaid. The Branch
also reminded the NSLSC of the importance of notifying students
of any problems with their loan documents.
Student elections at University College prompt complaints
Kwantlen
University College
2006 Annual Report
Occasionally,
authorities notice that their practices do not match with their
policies and take action to bring the two into line with
another.
A candidate in a
student election complained that Kwantlen University College
(the University College) did not follow its appeals policy when
he raised concerns about irregularities in the elections to the
University College’s Board of Governors. The appeals policy in
place at the time called for appeals to be submitted to the
official in charge of administering the election for a hearing
by the University College’s Elections Appeal Committee. In this
case, the official in charge of the election had dismissed the
candidate’s complaint without referring the matter to the
Elections Appeal Committee.
When this
candidate complained that the appeals policy had not been
followed, the University College amended its appeals policy to
reflect what had actually occurred, instead of providing him
with the appeal option specified in its existing appeals policy.
The new policy enabled the official in charge of the election
the option of dismissing the complaint herself or referring the
matter to the Elections Appeal Committee. In other words, the
University College changed the rules after the fact to bring the
rules into alignment with what had actually occurred.
When we
investigated this matter we found that referring the matter back
to the University College’s Elections Appeal Committee for
further consideration was no longer a viable option, given the
passage of time. However, we did raise questions regarding the
fairness of the University College’s revised appeals policy. The
revised appeals policy enabled the official charged with running
the election to dismiss a complaint about his or her actions
without any other level of recourse. In effect, the amended
policy enabled the review of a decision by the same person who
had made the decision.
At our office’s
suggestion, the University College amended the appeals policy
again. The new policy ensures that a complainant has access to a
two-stage process whereby a third-party review of the matter is
provided by one of the University College’s Vice-Presidents,
removing any perception of bias that might arise where a review
of a decision is conducted by the decision-maker in the first
place. Our office was satisfied with this modification in the
appeals policy.
Stalled student loan relating to incident years ago
Ministry of Advanced Education
2006 Annual Report
We investigated one man’s complaint that Student Services Branch
denied his student loan because he had withdrawn from school in
1998, resulting in him receiving an over award.
The man told us he had informed
the Branch that his withdrawal in 1998 was due to medical
reasons. He said he had filed the necessary paperwork with the
Branch including his medical records. The Branch said it did not
have this information on its file.
The result was that the Branch
turned down his application for a student loan and rejected his
appeal of that decision.
We notified the Branch twice
about the complaint as they could not locate our initial notice
of investigation. Within four days of receiving our second
notification the administrator of appeals reviewed the file and
approved a new student loan. Consequently we ceased our
investigation on the basis the complaint had been appropriately
settled under section 14 of the Ombudsman Act.
Staff required to provide contact information for supervisor
Ministry of Advanced Education
2006 Annual Report
We received a complaint from a woman who was unhappy with how
she was being treated by Student Services staff conducting an
audit on her student loan application.
Ms. Q told us that she felt
staff had acted improperly by refusing on several occasions to
provide her with the name and phone number of a supervisor to
speak with about clarifying procedures used for the audit of her
student loan application.
Our office contacted Student
Services and spoke with a supervisor in the Verification and
Audit Branch. We were told that anyone being audited is free to
contact a supervisor with any questions they might have
regarding the process.
As a result of this
conversation, Ms. Q did eventually speak with the supervisor and
told us she was satisfied with the outcome of her conversation
and our efforts to assist her.
|
