OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Wednesday, September 10

#19746

OMG: Just saw Counselling Services reposted an Associate Director job . That's where the counselor found guilty last year of sexual harassment is still working unpunished by UW. As the sign says, no pants required.

43 comments

  1. Then they found their man.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't talk about findings of a Human Rights Tribunal as though it's REMOTELY the same as an actual court with a real judge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you saying he didn't do it?

      Delete
    2. I'm saying I'm not making assumptions, or using condemning language like "found guilty of," because I don't really know what happened.
      I'm also not making assumptions about the University's response to the issue. This is the sort of thing an HR department needs to handle delicately according to the needs of the individual(s) involved - a knee-jerk response assists nobody. I believe that the most appropriate response to the situation will be delivered by the University in the end - and if it isn't, I have faith that the matter will be dealt with by ACTUAL courts.

      Delete
    3. Followed a link and then another. It looks like Waterloo police got involved.

      Delete
    4. Waterloo Regional Police Services asked to meet counselor Dave to caution him against repeating what their police investigation found he did.

      Delete
    5. 2b. You had me until "I have FAITH".

      Delete
    6. 2d, ... and he's still on campus why??

      Delete
    7. 2f, nobody was arrested or charged with anything under the criminal code. That essentially leaves this issue to management and HR to deal with, taking ALL the facts into account.

      Delete
    8. From the write-ups on other omg's and outside links:
      The police investigated him for sexual assault under the criminal code.
      Based on their investigation into that offense they asked the victim if she wanted them to proceed with criminal code charges against him or to issue him an official warning.
      She chose to have them issue the warning to him.

      Delete
  3. USG 15?! Holy sassafrass that's a lot of money!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Between $91989.50 and $137984.25 this year.
      https://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat-general-counsel/sites/ca.secretariat-general-counsel/files/uploads/files/2014-2015_staff_salary_scales.pdf

      Delete
    2. that's some coin. Attract the best or reward loyalty and keep it in the family if you can?

      Delete
    3. 3c, University Policy says that they advertise it internally (to staff who have been working full-time for at least 1 year) for some time before they post it publicly. For this to be outward-facing now, they didn't get sufficient applications (or sufficient-quality applications) from within the campus community.

      Delete
    4. 3d do you know where that policy's stated?

      Delete
    5. https://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat-general-counsel/policies-classification

      Should be a Class S Policy. Or you can just do what I did, and talk to literally any staff member on the campus about internal hiring practices, and they'll explain how it works. It's a pretty straightforward system.

      Delete
    6. https://uwaterloo.ca/my-career/internal-applicants

      "The internal posting period is 7 business days."

      Delete
    7. Can someone check my conclusion:
      3d's info is contradicted by 3f's policy links. UW can post at the same time - no waiting period. For a USG15 UW can accept external applications but can't review them until after qualified internal staff interviews . From 3g's link, I think internal staff have only 7 days to apply.

      Support for the above:
      3f's link from General Counsel Class S Staff Employment link to policy 18 part 2:
      "All positions, new or existing will require approval and follow standard recruitment processes."
      Then follow Internal Posting and External Advertising. Under the "Internal Posting and External Advertising" heading its says
      "To ensure a timely recruitment process, all positions may be posted internally and advertised externally concurrently."
      "Advertising will occur under the following conditions: ... Positions Classified at USG 1 to USG 5 (...skipped)
      Positions Classified USG 6-15
      Internal posting and external advertising may take place concurrently; however, all internal applications will be reviewed by Human Resources and the hiring Manager, and qualified internal candidates interviewed prior to any external applications being reviewed."

      Delete
    8. 3h - sounds about right.

      Delete
  4. The first job posting (not repost) for Associate Director was referred to here under the question "Anyone heard anything new about the sexual harassment at Needles Hall's counselling services?" at comment 6a made in January 2014.

    The poster wondered if the guy would apply for the promotion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so why didn't they hire last round, anyone know?

      Delete
    2. My guess? The hiring committee was likely leaning towards not the preferred candidate of the Counselling Service Director, as he didn't have strong enough influence over a majority of the panel.

      This was not an acceptable outcome.

      So the process was halted and some time passed. It can now be reset with a slightly different hiring committee members with the hope that it produces the outcome he wants.

      This scrap/wait/reset process can repeat until the desired outcome is achieved. At which point they'll say it was a fair and open process.

      Watch for how many panel members are internal to Counselling Services this time. Since these report up to the Director these are his proxy votes. The panel make up may not be publicly available.

      Delete
  5. 4b, you say that like it shouldn't be up to the CS Director to choose his own direct subordinate. Whoever takes this job will be working directly for him - in most places it's standard practice for the manager to have final say over which employees they hire. Really, a hiring panel is just there to advise him anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does anyone have the written mandate and authority of the hiring committee compared to the CS Director, either for this one or for the prior round?

      Delete
    2. 5, I don't think any of your sentences are right.

      Delete
    3. 5b, explain. Whoever gets this job will be directly subordinate to the Director of Counselling Services, yes? The University hierarchy is a pretty uncomplicated thing. So it stands to reason that if the Director of CS says "I don't want to work with this individual in a management capacity," then hiring them into that role would be a bad decision. Likewise, if the Director says "this person will be the best fit for me and my team," then that should hold great weight with the hiring committee.

      If there is a flaw in my logic here, please go ahead and point it out, because this just feels like common sense.

      Delete
    4. @5a:

      There is no official university policy governing the hiring of an Associate Director. This means the process is likely overseen by the Director of the department itself (Counselling Services in this case), and/or the relevant Associate Provost (CS is responsible to the Wellness Director and the Associate Provost, Students, IIRC). So if there is a written rule governing the composition of the hiring committee, and how it's set up, it's probably in an e-mail somewhere from one of the higher-ups.

      You can obtain such a thing if you're willing to pay to submit a Freedom of Information Request to the University. Or you can just e-mail Chris Read (AP Students), that'd be cheaper.

      Delete
    5. Hiring committees/processes are basically up to each department, but they're given a set of guidelines to go off of:

      https://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat-general-counsel/policies-procedures-guidelines/guidelines/staff-hiring-committeepanel-interviews

      Delete
    6. 5d, it's governed at a wider scope. Follow 3f's link to policy 18.

      5e, thanks. That guideline's 17 years old. Isn't there a 5 year maximum mandatory review period or is that only on policies? The language can be tightened up. Phrases like "may or may not" don't offer much guidance.

      Delete
    7. IIRC guidelines aren't subject to review the same way policies are - partly because there's no requirement that departments adhere to guidelines (they're generally considered to be far more flexible than formal policy). But don't quote me on that.

      Your best option is always to go to Needles Hall and stop in at the Office of the Secretariat and General Counsel, since they'll not only have a clear knowledge of what is written, but also how it's being applied in practice (which can sometimes be strikingly different than you might expect).

      Delete
  6. 5c I'll give it a try. Ways 5's sentences are wrong:
    1st sentence: 4b didn't say what 5 said. 4b just guessed at the behind-the scenes actual process. They didn't say "should" anything.

    2nd sentence: First, unless they get their paycheck signed by the director, they'd work for UW. Staff work for their employer.
    Second, the "most places, standard practice" bit sounds unfounded and inaccurate. There can be more differences than similarities in practice. A big company can hire an employee centrally and assign them to a manager.

    3rd sentence: This depends on the employer. Hiring panels can have authority to make hiring decisions. This can be independent of the reporting manager. If it were for advise only it'd more accurately be called an advisory panel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6 I understand where you're coming from now. But it seems like, aside from your first comment (I admit, I made assumptions about 4b's stance based on a combination of my own personal biases as well as the - loosely - implied context) we're largely debating semantics at this point, no?

      Delete
    2. Maybe 'semantics' is the wrong word. The point is that 6 is nitpicking minor facts that ultimately have little-to-no effect on the big picture argument, and really only serve to draw 5a into an argument which must be won by 'attrition,' - overcoming frustration to nitpick the other person for the longest amount of time. One of the more insidious trolling tactics out there, since the way it gets dressed up in pretty language makes it so hard to detect... at first.

      Delete
    3. 6c, 6 looks on-topic, clarifying, and their explanation was requested by 5/5c. So troll? No.
      This has potential importance and impact. Didn't notice pretty language.

      Delete
    4. But 6 wasn't picking apart anything of substance - on balance, 5 was still generally correct, despite the inaccuracy of some specifics.

      Delete
    5. Uh, 6 picked apart everything 5 said. Nothing left to be generally correct about.

      Delete
  7. Was following along but I have to say sorry 6e, 5 got their ass handed back on a platter.
    In 3 piece specifics or generally, you have just nothing of substance left after the inaccuracies were sliced off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^assumes anything of substance was being discussed to begin with. Which by all appearances, it wasn't.

      Delete
    2. Only hiring policy compliance at the most controversial department on campus.

      Delete