Final report on the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board review

Introduction

This is the report of my findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations arising out of my review of the allegations of governance, leadership, and fiscal accountability issues within the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board (the “BHNCDSB” or the “School Board”). My appointment was made by the Minister of Education, the Honourable Jill Dunlop, pursuant to subsection 3(1)(a) of the Provincial Interest in Education Regulation (O. Reg. 43/10) under the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2.

The review focused on issues such as board expenses, conflicts of interest, board accountability, and the events surrounding the trip to Italy taken by four of the School Board trustees. The report aims to provide observations and recommendations to ensure effective governance, transparent decision-making, and appropriate stewardship of public funds, to better maintain public confidence in the School Board and Ontario’s publicly funded education system.

To that end, the Minister directed me:

1. To focus my report on whether the Board’s stewardship of its resources supports and strengthens its ability to focus on student well-being and student learning to maintain public confidence in the School Board.
2. To provide an assessment of any discrepancy between the compensation structure of designated executives and the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014, S.O. 2014, c. 13, Sched. 1 (the “Executive Compensation Act” or the “BPSECA”).

To the extent that I was able to offer recommendations following the review, I was asked to focus on best practices for:

1. Fiscal responsibility through transparent and accountable management of discretionary expenses.
2. Transparent and accountable policy development that adheres to relevant ministry policies and any other relevant guidelines.
3. Fiscal responsibility and accountable management of executive compensation and any corrective measures to bring policies and practices into compliance with the Executive Compensation Act.

Mandate

On December 19, 2024, I was appointed by the Minister of Education to conduct a review of the performance of the BHNCDSB (as noted above) pursuant to the Provincial Interest in Education Regulation (O. Reg. 43/10) (the “Regulation”) under the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 (the “Education Act”). The relevant sections of the Regulation state:

2. (1) If the Minister has concerns regarding the performance of a board with respect to a matter described in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 of subsection (2), the Minister may provide for a review of the performance of the board with respect to that matter.

(2) The following are the matters referred to in subsection (1):

[…]

3. The level of co-operation among the board’s members and between the board and the board’s director of education in providing good governance to schools of the board including, but not limited to,

1. the mutual support among the board’s members,
2. the support between the board and the board’s director of education, and
3. the respect shown by the board and the board’s director of education for their respective areas of responsibility under the Act.

[Emphasis added]

My appointment was in response to concerns raised by recent media reports and information collected by the Ministry regarding the Board’s governance, leadership, expenses, conflicts of interest, and accountability. Generally, the review centres around the Board’s decision to amend longstanding expense policies, fiscal decisions on non-student related discretionary expenses, and recent staff departures.

As per the Terms of Reference, I am tasked with providing observations and recommendations in a final report to the Minister. The focus of the review includes examining the Board’s policies and procedures related to trustee expenses and travel, procurement, fund raising, accountability, and transparency particularly in relation to the trip to Italy taken by four trustees.

More specifically, the Terms of Reference direct me to focus the review on:

• BHNCDSB policies and procedures on/related to trustee expenses and trustee travel expenses; procurement; fundraising and school generated funds; fiscal accountability and transparency. In particular, the review will focus on the policies and procedures related to, but not limited to the trip to Italy and any other related expenditures (art and artifact(s)).
• The Board’s executives’ compensation, providing an assessment whether it is compliant with the Executive Compensation Act and making recommendations on corrective measures, if applicable. As directed by the Terms of Reference for the review, this includes the preparation of tables and the inclusion herein for the 2016-17 school year to the present. Namely:
  • The annual salaries paid to the Director of Education and Superintendents/Supervisory Officers, including Business Superintendents (i.e., designated executives under the BPSECA). In situations where the salary paid for a given position changed from year to year, the reason provided by the School Board is set out.
  • The compensation structure (salary bands / step rates and any other elements of compensation) applicable to designated executives under BPSECA. Where the annual salaries paid do not correspond to the compensation structure, the reason for the discrepancy provided by the School Board will be included as well as my assessment of the reasonableness of the reason provided.
  • The compensation of all direct reports at present for each of the Superintendent positions (including business Superintendents).
• Any other relevant issues that arise during the review, including key staffing changes related to the issues in question.

Although I am a lawyer, I did not conduct this review in my capacity as legal counsel but rather acted as a neutral and independent reviewer. As the appointed reviewer, I bring over 15 years of experience in regulatory compliance, governance, and legal analysis, with a focus on complex and sensitive matters. In my current role as Managing Director & General Counsel at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), I have led numerous investigations and reviews, and provided strategic guidance on compliance, risk management, and governance. My academic qualifications include a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from Columbia Law School, where I was recognized as a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from the University of Ottawa, with Distinction. Additionally, I hold a Master of Arts (M.A.) in International Affairs from Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) from the University of Waterloo, graduating as the Departmental Scholar in Political Science.

The Minister has instructed me to abide by the principles of procedural fairness throughout this review. While “it has long been established that the duty of procedural fairness applies to administrative proceedings generally […] the applicability of the duty to regulatory investigations has historically been subject to some debate. It is, however, now largely accepted that the duty of procedural fairness does apply to regulatory investigations.”^{footnote 1[1]}

In addition to the broader requirements of administrative law, in my view, ensuring fairness is critical to maintaining the credibility of the review process and fostering trust in its outcomes. To achieve this, I established a clear framework at the outset of the review that emphasizes transparency, thoroughness, and impartiality at every stage. There are several related aspects: 1) providing clear and timely notice; 2) facilitating the right to be heard; 3) conducting a thorough and focused review; 4) maintaining impartiality; and 5) implementing procedural safeguards.

Providing clear and timely notice

A fair review begins with ensuring that all individuals involved are fully informed. My objective has been to provide clear, detailed notice to those subject to the review, outlining the scope, purpose, and any specific allegations or concerns. I also undertook to update the notice promptly should the scope of the review expand or change. My aim has been to ensure that every participant understands the process and has sufficient time to prepare a meaningful response.

Facilitating the right to be heard

It is imperative that all individuals involved have the opportunity to present their perspectives. Therefore, I established a process that provided avenues for written submissions and, where appropriate, to conduct interviews (and follow up interviews when necessary) to allow for oral responses. This process was designed to provide participants with reasonable timelines and to allow for the detailed consideration of the submissions and interviews.

Conducting a thorough and focused review

In my view, thoroughness is central to procedural fairness. To that end, I undertook to review all relevant evidence and investigate key issues with the depth they warrant. This includes interviewing witnesses, reviewing documents, and following any material leads. At the same time, I have endeavored to make sure that the review remains focused, avoiding unnecessary overreach or any deviation from the defined mandate.

Maintaining impartiality

If thoroughness is central to procedural fairness, then the requirement to maintain impartiality is its foundation. At the outset, I agreed to approach this review with a neutral and objective mindset, ensuring that no personal biases or external influences affect the process. Any preliminary observations or findings are presented as being tentative and subject to further evidence.

Implementing procedural safeguards

It seems trite to say, but as a review progresses, things can change materially. As such, at the outset of the review process I also undertook to monitor the process to identify and address any procedural short comings. This included providing additional notice when required, offering further opportunities to respond to new evidence, and adjusting the approach when fairness demands it.

Summary

This Review was prompted by intense public and media scrutiny around the four members of the Board of Trustees’ trip to Italy, an event that quickly became symbolic of deeper structural problems within the BHNCDSB. While the Italy trip itself drew widespread criticism for questionable expenditures and insufficient oversight, the central finding of this Review is that the Board’s governance framework and practices are the core cause of the challenges facing the School Board. In other words, the Italy trip was the symptom, structural governance practices were the cause.

This review also uncovered a striking “tale of two boards.” On one side, under the leadership of the Director of Education, day-to-day operations were run efficiently and positively. Multiple interviewees praised the Director’s inclusive decision-making and open communication, with one witness stating, “He is the type of leader I aspire to be.” This sentiment underscores the trust and high regard in which senior staff leadership is held.

On the other side, the governance role of the Board of Trustees displayed notable dysfunction. Rather than providing broad strategic oversight, certain trustees (though not all) ventured deeply into operational territory, often bypassing established processes and failing to bring relevant decisions before all members of the board.

The contrast between these two approaches, one guided by a respected Director, and the other marked by trustee overreach, illuminates the core governance issues at hand. Going forward, it is essential for all trustees to reaffirm and respect their oversight role, avoid circumventing established procedures, and work transparently with each other and with senior staff of the board. By strengthening accountability structures, clarifying roles, and adhering to board-approved processes, the organization can ensure that the high standards displayed by the Director permeate all levels of governance.

Despite the governance issues identified, it was evident throughout this review that no trustee acted out of ill will. Rather, every trustee expressed a deep-seated commitment to enhancing educational outcomes and serving the community’s interests. Their shared desire to do good underscores the board’s collective dedication, although recent challenges highlight the importance of channeling these genuine intentions through effective governance structures.

Moreover, while media attention has been focused on the Italy trip and the negative fallout, there are many positive initiatives taking place within the School Board. Teachers are integrating innovative learning strategies, school leaders are fostering inclusive environments, and system-wide efforts are underway to address student well-being and mental health. The planning and construction of the new schools, modern facilities that will provide enriched learning environments and updated technology, is a significant step for the School Board, and the benefit of these schools will – no doubt – last much longer than memory of the trip and the decision making that went into it.

Key Observations

1. Governance Breakdown
   • Trustees frequently stepped beyond their strategic oversight role and into operational matters, micromanaging project details, negotiating external agreements, and intervening in Human Resources decisions.
   • This pattern of overreach created confusion about who holds final decision-making authority, undermining both staff autonomy and public confidence.
2. Financial Stewardship Concerns
   • Four trustees traveled to Italy in July 2024 to visit the workshop of a sculptor commissioned to create various religious statues for two new schools, incurring travel, accommodation, and ancillary costs in excess of typical board expenditures. Subsequent legal and public relations fees to manage the fallout pushed the total cost for the Board to nearly $190,000.^{footnote 2[2]}
   • The trip highlights significant weaknesses in BHNCDSB’s expense policies and approval processes. Trustees involved have begun repaying travel costs through scheduled deductions, but the impact on public trust remains considerable.
   • Audited financial statements show a generally stable financial position for BHNCDSB. However, the Italy trip controversy combined with public focus on a large surplus has undermined confidence in the Board’s commitment to use public funds in a manner aligned with student achievement and well-being.
3. Organizational Instability and Turnover
   • Multiple witnesses attributed significant staff turnover, especially in senior administrative roles, to a climate of tension and mistrust resulting from repeated governance conflicts and trustee interference.
   • Morale across various departments suffered as the lines between governance and day-to-day administration grew increasingly blurred.
4. Procurement and Contractual Anomalies
   • There were instances where trustees bypassed staff recommendations, arrived at through published RFP processes, without documentary justification.
   • Such deviations from standardized procurement practices raise concerns about fairness, transparency, and consistency in decision-making.
5. Chair’s Use of Independent Counsel
   • During the period under review, the Chair’s broad reliance on legal counsel, ostensibly authorized by a bylaw provision, extended well beyond the narrow scenarios contemplated for safeguarding unique Chair obligations.
   • This practice fueled internal debates over whether legal expenditures aligned with the Board’s collective interests or functioned more as crisis management and reputational support.
6. Executive Compensation Compliance
   • The Board’s executive compensation framework, including salaries for the Director of Education and Superintendents, generally falls within approved ranges under the Executive Compensation Act.
   • While annual increases have pushed some salaries near or into higher “Level” bands, the supporting documentation provided (i.e., new portfolio responsibilities) appears to align with BPSECA requirements. No corrective action is required beyond continued regular reviews to ensure alignment with provincial directives.

Conclusions

1. Governance as Root Cause
   • The Italy trip has received the greatest public attention, but the issues uncovered, ranging from trustee overreach to contract awards and frequent staff turnover, show that the real crisis is one of governance. Restoring public trust will therefore require a renewed commitment to proper role delineation, transparent financial management, and consistent adherence to established policies and procedures.
2. Need for Clear Role Boundaries
   • Trustees have a critical role in setting strategic direction, overseeing policy, and ensuring accountability. However, constant intervention in operational details weakens professional administration and distracts trustees from their core mandate of focusing on student achievement and well-being.
3. Importance of Accountability and Transparency
   • Whether through clear expense policies, open procurement processes, or appropriate oversight of legal costs, the Board must reaffirm its commitment to the highest standards of accountability. Establishing independent audits, adhering to competitive bidding rules, and enforcing rigorous conflict-of-interest protocols can help restore community confidence.

Recommendations

1. Reinforce Governance Training
   • Require ongoing, mandatory governance training for trustees to clarify the scope of their responsibilities and minimize operational overreach.
2. Strengthen Policy Framework
   • Revise and tighten expense, procurement, and bylaw provisions to ensure board members follow consistent guidelines.
3. Increase Transparency
   • Publish regular, detailed reports on trustee expenses and major contractual decisions, and formalize a disclosure process for significant legal expenditures.
4. Support Staff and Organizational Stability
   • Develop a retention and recruitment strategy that acknowledges the disruptive effects of governance disputes and fosters a stable, respectful workplace culture.

Ultimately, the Italy trip highlighted critical fault lines in Board governance, but the issues go well beyond a single event. Addressing these deeper governance challenges is essential for the School Board to fulfill its duty to students, staff, and the wider public with integrity and efficacy.

Background

4.1 The Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board

The BHNCDSB provides faith-based education to over 12,000 students. It employs over 900 teachers supported by a team of consultants, principals, and administrators and over 500 non-academic staff. The School Board covers the broad geographical area of the City of Brantford and the counties of Brant, Haldimand, and Norfolk. It is unique in belonging to three Dioceses: Hamilton, London, and St. Catharines.

According to the 2024-2025 Budget Report, the Board operates 28 elementary schools with an enrolment of 8,290 students and 4 secondary schools with an enrolment of 4,219 students. The classroom staff includes 757.5 teachers, 182 educational assistants, 52 early childhood educators, and 26.5 library teachers/guidance counsellors. The support staff includes 98.6 school support, 100.2 facility services, 57.6 central administration, and 55.7 full time equivalents for student/school support.

The governance structure consists of 6 trustees and 2 student trustees.^{footnote 3[3]} The trustees of the BHNCDSB are as follows:

• Carol Luciani, Chair of the Board, Norfolk County
• Dan Dignard, Vice Chair of the Board, County of Brant
• Dennis Blake, Norfolk County
• Bill Chopp, City of Brantford
• Rick Petrella, City of Brantford
• Mark Watson, Haldimand County
• Riley O’Brien, Student Trustee, Student at Assumption College
• Ryan Toft, Student Trustee, Student at Holy Trinity

The senior administration of the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board includes the following members:

• Mike McDonald, Director of Education, responsible for Leadership and Strategic Planning, and Communications
• John Della Fortuna, Superintendent of Education, responsible for Family of Schools and Student Support Services
• Kevin Greco, Superintendent of Education, responsible for Human Resource Services and Indigenous Education
• Rajini Nelson, Superintendent of Business, responsible for Business Support Services and Facility Services
• Lorrie Temple, Superintendent of Education, responsible for Faith Formation and Student Achievement
• Phil Wilson, Superintendent of Education, responsible for Family of Schools and Special Education

4.2 Media Reports

Media reporting on the Italy Trip has been extensive.^{footnote 4[4]}

It started on October 15, 2024, when the Brantford Expositor published an article by Michelle Ruby titled “Catholic trustees travel to Italy to buy $100,000 worth of artwork for new high school.”^{footnote 5[5]}

This report indicated, inter alia, that:

1. Four school board trustees, Bill Chopp, Dan Dignard, Rick Petrella, and Mark Watson, travelled to Italy to purchase $100,000 worth of artwork for a new high school under construction in Brantford as part of the plan to make the new St. Padre Pio Secondary a “flagship” school for the board.
2. The artwork will be put in the chapel at the new high school.
3. Purchases also included a bust of Pope Francis to be installed at the new Pope Francis Elementary School in Caledonia.
4. The then Board Chair, Rick Petrella said he personally bought a new hand-carved crucifix for the boardroom at the school board office and donated an outdoor statue for the courtyard of St. Padre Pio, with a combined value of about $6,800.^{footnote 6[6]}
5. The trip cost $45,000, including airfare, accommodation and food.
6. The reasons offered to justify the trip were: 1) nothing “off the shelf […] stood out”; 2) due diligence; 3) the trip would allow the finalization of the designs and to “have something tangible”; and 4) wanting to make sure the School Board was “getting value for the money.”
7. Separate, but related, justifications were: 1) that the School Board was able to “negotiate better pricing due to the volume of items we were purchasing”; and 2) the “school board’s positive financial standing.”
8. Finally, it was also claimed that: “[e]veryone who went (to Italy) is directly tied to this and all needed to be part of the planning,” and that “[i]t was fully in line with the trustee expense policy.”

Following this, on October 17, 2024, the Brantford Expositor published an additional article by Michelle Ruby which quoted a public statement by Rick Petrella that said:

We take responsibility and ownership for this and are committed to addressing and remedying the situation. Each trustee, including myself, who participated in the trip has agreed to repay all the expenses incurred to the board. I want to personally assure everyone that such incidents will not occur again.^{footnote 7[7]}

That same article quoted an interview that Mr. Petrella gave to The Expositor in which he indicated he wanted to clear up misconceptions about the trip. Stating “We are transparent,” that “We have nothing to be ashamed of.” That the board is “exploring other non-board funding options” to help offset the cost of the art.

On October 30, 2024, it was reported in the same outlet that “[Mr.] Petrella said donations are being collected to pay for artwork purchased in Italy.” Following this, on November 7, 2024, the Expositor reported that Carlo Fortino, the acting president of the Brant Haldimand Norfolk unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, had issued an open letter calling for the resignation of the trustees (who travelled to Italy) which said, inter alia, that:

Recent revelations surrounding your inappropriate spending practices as trustees have significantly eroded confidence in your ability to make sound, responsible decisions that reflect the needs and values of our school community.^{footnote 8[8]}

On November 15, 2024, it was reported that Carlee Bond and Paul Rusyn, representing District 23 of the Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers’ Federation issued a letter calling for the trustees to resign. That letter said:

The decision for this trip to Italy is not simply a misstep, it betrayed the trust that our students, families, educators, support staff and community members have placed in you.

[…]

You boastfully shared that there is a $33-million (school board) surplus, yet, instead of using your influence to change policies that would help to fund more supports for student and staff needs, new equipment and resources, you changed policies to fit your needs.^{footnote 9[9]}

On November 25, 2024, it was reported that a petition with over 800 signatures was being circulated demanding the resignation of the four trustees. According to the article, that petition said:

These actions are ethically and morally wrong, showing a blatant attempt to deceive the public. As leaders of our Catholic school board, we elected you with the faith that you would make decisions that align with our Catholic values. These mistakes are irreparable and cannot be undone.^{footnote 10[10]}

On January 24, 2025, it was reported by The Expositor the School Board has “spent more than $63,000 on a team of lawyers and a public relations company to help the board manage the fallout after details about the $50,000 trip became public.”^{footnote 11[11]}

4.3 Relevant Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks

Several statutes, regulations, and directives form the framework within which Ontario school boards operate, particularly concerning governance, accountability, and finances.

4.3.1 Education Act

The Education Act outlines the mandates, duties, and powers of school boards and trustees, ensuring accountability, stewardship, and alignment with provincial standards for public education. Properly understood and applied, the Education Act ensures that trustees govern effectively, responsibly steward public resources, and focus consistently on promoting student achievement and well-being.

Trustees are locally elected officials who represent their community’s interests within the broader public education system. They must bring forward concerns of their constituents, engage with parents and other stakeholders, and advocate for student needs.

Trustees collectively set the board’s strategic direction through policies and a multi-year strategic plan (s.169.1). This includes shaping the board’s vision for student achievement, overseeing resource allocation, and ensuring alignment with Ministry of Education directives. The Education Act also clearly outlines trustees’ responsibility to ensure effective stewardship of the board’s finances and assets. Trustees must approve balanced budgets (or seek Ministry approval for any deficit) and monitor expenditures to ensure alignment with student achievement and well-being.

Under s.283, the board employs a Director of Education who acts as the board’s Chief Executive Officer, responsible for day-to-day operations. Trustees must hold the Director accountable for implementing board policies, managing staff, and delivering educational services effectively.

The Education Act draws a clear line between policy governance (trustees) and operational execution (Director and administrative staff). To that end, s. 218.1(f) states that trustees shall “entrust the day to day management of the board to its staff through the board’s director of education.”

Individual trustees, unless specifically authorized, cannot make unilateral decisions on the board’s behalf. Board motions and resolutions are passed by majority vote, ensuring all significant governance decisions reflect collective input.

Trustees must conduct board business publicly, except for a limited set of confidential matters (i.e., litigation, personnel, property transactions). This ensures transparency, fosters public trust, and aligns with open-meeting requirements under the Education Act and related legislation.

The Education Act, along with common law principles, imposes on trustees a fiduciary duty to act honestly and in good faith in the best interests of the board and its students. This duty underscores loyalty, care, and the priority of public service over personal gain.

With respect to the reimbursement of trustee expenses, s. 191.2 the Education Act states:

Travel expenses to attend board and committee meetings

191.2 (1) In respect of travel of a member of a board to and from his or her residence to attend a meeting of the board, or of a committee of the board, that is held within the area of jurisdiction of the board, the board may,

(a) reimburse the member for his or her out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred or such lesser amount as may be determined by the board; or

(b) pay the member an allowance at a rate per kilometre determined by the board. 1997, c. 31, s. 97.

Other travel expenses

(2) A board may by resolution authorize a member, teacher or official of the board to travel on specific business of the board and may reimburse the member, teacher or official for his or her out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred or such lesser amount as may be determined by the board. 1997, c. 31, s. 97.

Other expenses

(3) A board may establish a policy under which a member of the board may be reimbursed for all or part of his or her out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred in connection with carrying out the responsibilities of a board member. 1997, c. 31, s. 97.

Same

(4) A board may, in accordance with a policy established by it under subsection (3), reimburse a member for his or her out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred in connection with carrying out the responsibilities of a board member.

[Emphasis added]

Collectively, these provisions allow boards to establish clear policies on allowable costs (i.e., travel to board meetings or conferences, meal allowances) and to set out the process for submitting claims. Trustees are collectively responsible for ensuring effective stewardship of resources; therefore, any expenses reimbursed must directly relate to legitimate board business and reflect a prudent use of public funds.

Finally, although the Education Act does not exhaustively prescribe the chair’s functions, sections 208 and 218.4 provide guidance on the role. Under s. 208(4), boards must elect a chair from among their members at the first meeting in each year of their term, and s. 218.4 clarifies that the chair, in addition to fulfilling the general responsibilities of a trustee, presides over meetings and ensures they are conducted according to board policies. The chair also acts as the official spokesperson for board decisions, coordinates agenda-setting with the Director of Education, and facilitates the effective operation of the board. Notably, despite these added responsibilities, the chair remains an individual trustee subject to the same requirement of collective decision making, conflict-of-interest rules, voting procedures, and code of conduct obligations as every other board member.

4.3.2 Municipal Conflict of Interest Act

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50 (the “MCIA”) applies to school board trustees in Ontario. Under s. 5(1) of the MCIA, if a trustee has a direct, indirect, or deemed pecuniary interest in a matter before the board, the trustee must disclose the interest and abstain from both discussing and voting on the matter. A “deemed pecuniary interest” can arise from certain close personal relationships (such as a trustee’s spouse, child, or parent having a financial stake in the matter) pursuant to s. 3. Moreover, a trustee must not attempt, before, during, or after the meeting, to influence the voting on any question in which they have such an interest.

4.3.3 Broader Public Sector Accountability Act

The Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 25 (the “BPSAA”) extends accountability and transparency requirements to a wide range of publicly funded entities in Ontario, including school boards. Under s. 1, school boards are a designated broader public sector organization and a publicly funded organization, making them subject to directives on topics such as expense claims, procurement practices, and perquisites.

Pursuant to the BPSAA, the Management Board of Cabinet may issue binding directives (s.10) and guidelines (s. 11) that set out rules for travel, meal, and hospitality expenses. These directives emphasize accountability, transparency, and value for money, requiring school boards to adopt policies mirroring the province’s own expense guidelines.

Likewise, the BPSAA empowers the Management Board of Cabinet to prescribe procurement directives (s. 12) or guidelines (s.13) aimed at ensuring open, fair, and competitive processes for purchasing goods and services in the broader public sector. School boards must comply with these directives by conducting competitive tenders above certain thresholds, documenting justification for any sole-sourced contracts, and enforcing conflict-of-interest declarations among evaluators.

4.3.4 Broader Public Sector Expenses Directive 2020

The Broader Public Sector Expenses Directive (the “Expense Directive”) sets out rules and accountability standards for travel, meal, and hospitality expenses incurred by employees, board members, and appointees of publicly funded organizations in Ontario, including school boards. Issued under the authority of the BPSAA, the Expense Directive aims to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used prudently and responsibly across the province’s broader public sector.

The Expense Directive establishes four guiding principles for reimbursing expenses:

1. Accountability: Organizations and individuals are answerable for their expense decisions, ensuring prudent use of public funds.
2. Transparency: Effective documentation and clear, publicly accessible processes regarding the nature and reason for expenses.
3. Value for Money: Expenditures must reflect responsible financial stewardship, securing appropriate and economical options for travel, meals, and hospitality.
4. Fairness: Individuals incurring expenses should neither profit nor suffer financially; reimbursement should match out-of-pocket costs as required for business purposes.

The Expense Directive details the types of expenses typically covered (such as accommodation, meals, and transportation) while excluding personal or recreational costs. All expenses require documented approval by an authorized individual who does not directly benefit from the claim (avoiding self-approval). Original, itemized receipts and explanations for the business purpose must accompany claims.

Hospitality is restricted to circumstances where it clearly supports public business. Expenditures must be approved in advance by a senior authority and must not be used to subsidize purely social or personal occasions.

4.3.5 Broader Public Sector Procurement Directive

The Broader Public Sector Procurement Directive (the “Procurement Directive”) outlines mandatory requirements for how publicly funded organizations, including school boards, must conduct procurement to ensure accountability, transparency, and value for money. Established under the authority of the BPSAA, the Procurement Directive came into effect on April 1, 2024, superseding certain earlier procurement guidelines.

The Procurement Directive applies to all designated broader public sector organizations. It requires compliance for the acquisition of goods, services, and construction above specified dollar-value thresholds. These thresholds trigger competitive procurement requirements, ensuring that public contracts are awarded fairly and that taxpayer funds are spent prudently.

The Procurement Directive emphasizes five overarching principles: 1) Accountability; 2) Transparency; 3) Value for Money; 4) Quality Service Delivery; and, 5) Process Standardization.

The Procurement Directive states that: “Organizations must segregate at least three of the five functional procurement roles: Requisition, Budgeting, Commitment, Receipt and Payment. Responsibilities for these roles must lie with different departments or, at a minimum, with different individuals [emphasis added].”

The Procurement Directive requires open, advertised procurements for goods, services, and construction above specific monetary limits (i.e., where the estimated value of procurement of goods or services is $121,200 or more). Below these limits, simplified methods like invitational competitions may apply, but the Procurement Directive still encourages competition wherever feasible.

Importantly, for “procurements below the procurement value of $121,200, BPS entities must give preference to Ontario businesses, wherever feasible.” This is a requirement of the Building Ontario Businesses Initiative Act (discussed below).

4.3.6 Building Ontario Businesses Initiative Act,

The Building Ontario Businesses Initiative Act, 2022, S.O. 2022, c. 2, Sched. 2 (the “BOBIA”) is designed to encourage broader public sector entities, including school boards, to prioritize Ontario-based businesses in procurement, while still adhering to principles of fairness, transparency, and best value.

Under s. 3, a “public sector entity shall give preference to Ontario businesses, in accordance with the regulations, when conducting a procurement process for prescribed goods and services the value of which are under the prescribed threshold amount.” The regulations set that amount at $121,200.

The Regulations go on to state:

For the purposes of section 3 of the Act, preference shall be given to Ontario businesses by,

(a) limiting eligibility to participate in the procurement process to one or more Ontario businesses; or

(b) if eligibility is not limited as described in clause (a), by allocating a 10 per cent evaluation advantage to Ontario businesses that participate in the procurement process.

[Emphasis added]

4.3.7 Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act

The Executive Compensation Act was introduced to manage executive pay in publicly funded institutions amid concerns about escalating salaries and uneven compensation practices. BPSECA covers executives in the broader public sector, such as school board directors and senior administrators. Each qualifying organization must establish a compliant Executive Compensation Program for relevant roles (i.e., Director of Education, Superintendents). In essence, BPSECA limits the extent to which boards may increase executive salaries.

4.3.8 The Trustee Expense Guideline

The Trustee Expense Guideline developed by the Ministry of Education and school board associations aims to standardize best practices in trustee expenses, emphasizing financial integrity, accountability, and transparency. This guideline, adopted by many boards, outlines that expense policies should cover the following aspects:

1. Eligible Expenses: Clearly define what types of expenses are eligible for reimbursement. This ensures that trustees are aware of which expenses can be claimed and helps maintain consistency across the board.
2. Spending Limits: Establish spending limits or per diem rates for various types of expenses. This helps control costs and ensures that trustees do not have a more lenient system than employees, promoting fairness and equity. In other word, expenses must be reasonable and “consistent with common values and accepted practices and are not perceived as excessive.”
3. Approval Processes: Implement a “verification and approval process” to minimize potential conflicts of interest and ensure appropriate segregation of duties. This typically involves a review and approval by a designated authority to ensure that all claims are legitimate and comply with the established guidelines.
4. Disclosure: Ensure transparency by requiring the disclosure of trustee expenses. This can involve regular reporting and making expense information publicly available, which helps build trust and accountability with stakeholders.

4.4 School Board By-Laws and Policies

4.4.1 Bylaws

The by-laws of the School Board outline the governance framework for the board’s operations, procedural affairs, and responsibilities. The document specifies the structure of the board, including the Board of Trustees, the Executive Council, and the Committee of the Whole. It details the officers of the board, including the Chair, Vice Chair, Director of Education, and Treasurer, along with their election process, roles, and duties. The by-laws regulate meetings, including inaugural and annual meetings, regular and special meetings, electronic participation, quorum requirements, and rules for delegations and public access. Importantly, the Chair has the authority to seek independent legal counsel when required to fulfill their duties: “The Chair in all matters related to the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board shall have the right to retain independent legal counsel when required to conduct his/her duties as Chair [emphasis added].” (s. 5.4.2(b))

The by-laws also include provisions for policy renewal. Policies and procedures follow a structured four-year review cycle (s. 16.1). Before revisions are finalized, they are presented to the Policy Committee and then circulated to stakeholders for at least 30 days to allow for feedback: “Policies and Procedures shall be circulated to all stakeholders for a minimum of 30 days, for input with respect to revision [emphasis added].” (s. 16.5). If extensive changes are made based on stakeholder input, the revised policy returns to the Policy Committee before moving to the Committee of the Whole for discussion and approval: “If the policy or procedure has been modified to a large degree as a result of the consultation process, the policy or procedure will be brought back to the Policy Committee before going to the Committee of the Whole.” (s. 16.7). Once finalized, all updated policies and procedures are posted on the Board’s website.

4.4.2 Procurement Policy

The School Board’s Procurement Policy adheres to five core principles: accountability, transparency, value-for-money, quality service delivery, and process standardization. All procurement activities must comply with relevant laws, including the Procurement Directive, the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The policy mandates open and fair competition, with clear guidelines for bid evaluation, contract awards, and supplier performance management. It also includes provisions for procurement thresholds, emergency purchases, sole and single-source procurement, and environmental sustainability.

The administrative procedures define specific approval authorities based on the total procurement amount and outline the competitive procurement processes required at different financial thresholds. For goods and non-consulting services, purchases under $5,000 may be completed through verbal or catalog pricing, while those between $5,000 and $49,999 require an invitational competitive process, with at least three vendors invited to submit bids. For purchases between $50,000 and $99,999, a more formal competitive process is required, involving Procurement Services in soliciting at least three bids, while any procurement exceeding $100,000 mandates an open competitive process (RFP/RFT). There is explicit guidance on segregation of duties, stating that different staff members must handle different procurement stages (Requisitioning, Approval, Purchase Order, Receiving, Payment), thereby reducing risks related to conflicts of interest or fraud. And, notably, it explicitly states: “Board staff shall conduct all procurement-related activity [emphasis added]” based on set out criteria, though trustees retain ultimate approval authority for high-value contracts (specifically, $100,000 or more), which positions them as final approvers rather than active participants in the procurement process.

4.4.3 Expense Policy

The Board’s Trustee Expense Policy underwent a scheduled update in February 2024, following the standard by-law processes and stakeholder consultations, with no immediate controversies arising from the revisions at that time. However, on June 7, 2024, the policy was amended once again during a specially convened board meeting, a session called primarily to address the Italy trip.^{footnote 12[12]} Given the unusual timing and context of that second amendment, this report will examine the June 7 changes separately to assess their broader implications for financial accountability.

The Expense Policy was amended again on October 28, 2024, to ensure greater transparency, fiscal responsibility, and compliance with provincial directives. In its current form, trustees of the School Board are entitled to reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred while conducting board business, provided they adhere to established guidelines. Travel, accommodations, meals, and hospitality expenses must align with cost-effective practices, and trustee expenses are published annually. Notably, international travel now requires ministerial approval, while North American travel must be approved by the Board.^{footnote 13[13]}

Review process

As noted above, I was appointed by the Minister of Education to conduct a review of the performance of the BHNCDSB pursuant to the Regulation on December 19, 2024. The review process that ensued was a Part I – Standard Review, by an individual reviewer appointed under section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation. I was mandated to produce a final report with recommendations to the Minister, with a copy to the BHNCDSB, by March 15, 2025.

The process for the review is set out in the Regulation. Once the review is completed, I am required to prepare a draft report. This draft report must describe the School Board’s performance concerning the matter reviewed and, if deemed appropriate, recommend measures to improve the School Board’s performance. These recommendations can apply to one or more schools within the board and may include various measures such as providing professional development opportunities, adopting successful administrative practices from other boards, retaining consultants, or implementing new or existing programs and resources.

After the draft report is prepared, it must be provided to the BHNCDSB, giving them a reasonable opportunity to comment on it. Following this, I must consider any comments provided by the School Board and take them into account when preparing the final report.

The final report, along with an outline of any comments from the School Board that were not incorporated, must then be submitted to the Minister. A copy of the final report and the outline must also be given to the BHNCDSB. Following this, the Minister will review the final report and provide the School Board with comments, which may include recommendations for improving the performance of the BHNCDSB.

The BHNCDSB is required to give full and fair consideration to the final report and the Minister’s comments, taking them into account in carrying out its duties under the Education Act, including with respect to the board’s multi-year plan. Additionally, the School Board must submit reports to the Minister detailing how they have complied or intend to comply with their duties, any steps taken to implement the recommendations, the basis for their decisions, and any observed or anticipated improvements.

5.1 Procedural Fairness

5.1.1 Providing clear and timely notice

On December 23, 2024, I wrote to the Chair of the School Board and the Director of Education informing them of my appointment by the Honourable Jill Dunlop, Minister of Education, to conduct a review of the School Board pursuant to the Regulation. In particular, I noted that “[t]he objective of this review is to assess and provide recommendations concerning good governance, transparent and accountable decision-making, and the appropriate stewardship of public funds. Particular attention will be given to the events surrounding the trustees’ trip to Italy, as well as an evaluation of the School Board’s policies and procedures related to expenses, procurement, and other fiscal practices.”

I proposed arranging preliminary meetings to outline the review process, clarify the overall mandate, the expected outcomes of the governance review, and address any initial questions or concerns. To that end, preliminary meetings were held with:

1. Michael MacDonald, the Director of Education, on December 31, 2024.
2. Carol Luciani, the Chair of the Board, on January 3, 2025.

In these discussions, the Chair of the Board and the Director of Education emphasized their commitment to transparency and willingness to cooperate fully, including providing documentation related to board policies, past and current expense claims, and recent policy amendments. We also spoke about the historical context that led to the review – specifically, concerns raised by the Italy trip – and the measures already taken by the Board to address emerging public and stakeholder questions. Both parties underscored the importance of robust governance structures and acknowledged that any recommendations would guide the Board’s efforts to restore and maintain public confidence.

5.1.2 Facilitating the right to be heard

Throughout the review process, I endeavoured to ensure that all stakeholders, including all trustees and relevant staff, had a fair opportunity to provide input and clarify any issues related to the governance concerns under examination. I accepted written submissions from individuals wishing to share relevant information or perspectives and offered reasonable accommodations – such as flexible scheduling – to remove barriers to participation. For witnesses attending interviews, I permitted the presence of a support person and asked each witness to review and sign off on interview notes to confirm accuracy. In addition, I provided the School Board with one week to review and comment on the draft version of this report, allowing for the correction of any factual inaccuracies or misunderstandings prior to finalization.

5.1.3 Conducting a thorough and focused review

This report seeks to answer only the questions that are being asked under the review mandate and not to explore matters unrelated to the mandate. Whenever possible, I have endeavored to provide concise, focused, factual findings and determinations. The report has been designed to give the necessary facts to the Minister, with accuracy and sufficient detail, so that the Minister may make decisions based on the report’s conclusions and recommendations.

From the outset, the review was structured to balance comprehensive inquiry with a clear focus on issues of governance, accountability, and financial oversight. A systematic methodology guided the process, beginning with an examination of key documents (board policies, relevant legislation, and historical expense reports) followed by interviews and written submissions from trustees, senior staff, former staff, and other stakeholders. This allowed me to receive information from multiple sources, ensuring sound factual findings. By concentrating on the central areas of conflict of interest, procurement, and trustee expenses, the review remained manageable in scope, yet sufficiently detailed to uncover systemic or procedural shortcomings.

5.1.4 Maintaining impartiality

Throughout the review process, I took deliberate steps to remain neutral and objective in all interactions, findings, and recommendations. No party or individual was given preferential treatment, and all inquiries were pursued with the same level of rigor and independence. In collecting evidence, I adhered to established standards of procedural fairness, gathering information through multiple avenues – document reviews, interviews, and written submissions – to mitigate potential biases or one-sided accounts. Where conflicts of interest or sensitive allegations arose, I employed clear protocols (such as full disclosure, confidential note-taking, and independent corroboration) to ensure that any conclusions were based solely on reliable, verifiable sources.

In practical terms, “full disclosure” meant that at the commencement of any interview or request for information, I clearly explained the scope, purpose, and potential outcomes of the review, as well as my role and any relevant parameters set by the Minister in my Terms of Reference. I disclosed how the information provided might be used or referenced in the final report, and clarified that any evidence submitted – whether in writing, verbally, or through supporting documentation – could be used to support conclusions in the report. By being transparent with participants, I aimed to eliminate misunderstandings and reassure individuals that my conclusions would be rooted in all available evidence, rather than selective sources.

5.1.5 Implementing procedural safeguards

From the outset of the review, I initiated a schedule of weekly meetings with the Director of Education to maintain open lines of communication and efficiently address any emerging issues. These meetings provided a forum for clarifying documentation requests, discussing relevant background information, and identifying potential witnesses or areas requiring deeper inquiry. By meeting on a consistent basis, the Director and I were able to track the review’s progress, ensure the timely provision of materials, and resolve procedural questions that arose in real time. This routine engagement promoted both transparency and collaboration, supporting the thoroughness and focus essential to a successful governance review.

5.2 Witness Interviews

The process for interviewing witnesses and ensuring fairness in this review involved several steps. First, a list of relevant witnesses was developed based on their roles and potential knowledge, with input from the Director of Education and Board Chair. When scheduling interviews, the purpose and specific topics to be covered were clearly outlined. A letter was sent to witnesses introducing the review process, confidentiality expectations, and arranging interviews at mutually convenient times, ensuring sufficient notice to avoid rushing witnesses.

Confidentiality was emphasized throughout the process. Information shared during interviews was used only for the specific review and not for unrelated matters. Witness identities are anonymized in documentation and reporting, and information has been stored securely with restricted access. Witnesses were requested to refrain from disclosing their participation or the content of their interviews to maintain a neutral review process and safeguard privacy.

Interviews were conducted without recording to ensure witnesses felt comfortable sharing information. A dedicated note taker was present, and witnesses reviewed and signed off on the detailed notes to confirm the accuracy of the notes and their understanding of how the information would be used.

Witnesses were also informed of the limits of confidentiality, including potential legal disclosures. This process was meant to ensure fairness by maintaining confidentiality, providing clear communication, and allowing witnesses to review and confirm their statements.

5.3 Materials Reviewed

On December 27, 2024, I requested a significant number of documents from the School Board to facilitate the review. The requested documents span various categories including governance policies, bylaws, board minutes, financial records, human resources information, legal documents, and training materials. The time period covered is primarily from January 1, 2020, to the present, with some requests extending back to 2016.

A significant portion of the request focused on obtaining the current and historical versions of policies and procedures governing the Board’s operations. This includes bylaws, trustee codes of conduct, conflict of interest guidelines, expense policies, procurement practices, and communication protocols. The request also sought documentation on any amendments made to these policies, along with the rationale, meeting minutes, and decision-making processes.

The financial aspect of the request was comprehensive, seeking annual budgets, audited financial statements, expense claims and reimbursement records for trustees and executives, and procurement records for significant expenditures such as the purchase of religious artifacts. Additionally, contracts and agreements with vendors related to these purchases were requested.

Given the extensive scope of documentary material requested, on December 31, 2024, I agreed to outline the priority documents for the review and to accept documents on a rolling basis. This would allow me to begin the documentary review phase of the review process in a timely manner, while also allowing for the provision of additional records to ensure a thorough and complete review.

Between January 8-11, 2025, I was provided an extensive number of the documents requested. They were well organized and responsive to my request. As the documentary review progressed, additional requests for specific documents were made on an ongoing basis.^{footnote 14[14]} All requested documents that existed or were within the possession of the School Board appear to have been provided and in my opinion the School Board has discharged its duty to co-operate fully with the review and to take all necessary steps to facilitate the review.

Factual findings

6.1 Timeline of Events: The Italy Trip

The events leading up to and including the trustees’ trip to Italy illustrate serious weaknesses in BHNCDSB’s governance, expense oversight, and procurement practices. The rapid policy revisions, the absence of competitive sourcing, the high-end travel choices, and the large legal expenditures that followed all contributed to a breakdown in public confidence and trust.

Initial Concept and Early Communications (February–March 2024)

• February 11, 2024: Rick Petrella, then Chair of the Board, first contacted the Saint Pio Foundation inquiring, among other things, about securing a life-size statue of Padre Pio.
• February 20, 2024: The Board’s Policy Committee considered revisions to the existing Trustee Expense Policy. Notably, these changes still kept meal and travel reimbursement aligned with standard public-sector guidelines: airfare was required to be economy class, and daily meal allowances were capped. This policy procedure was circulated for stakeholder feedback from October 16, 2023, to December 18, 2023, as per the Board’s policy renewal process. This revision was approved by the Committee of Whole and then by the Board of Trustees on February 27, 2024.
• March 2024: Rick Petrella continued email exchanges with an Italian sculptor, Guido Goller, seeking additional details such as price, size, shipping costs, and customization options for the sculptures. Initial quotes for the statues and crucifix ranged in the tens of thousands of euros.

Refining the Project Scope (April 2024)

• April 1, 2024: The BOBIA took effect, requiring broader public sector entities (including school boards) to give preference to Ontario-based suppliers for qualifying procurements under $121,200 CAD. Around this time, BHNCDSB’s Procurement Policy also mandated at least three competitive bids for purchases in the $50,000–$99,999 range.
• April 16, 2024: An ad hoc meeting was scheduled by the former Board Chair. Rick Petrella, Michael McDonald (Director of Education), Lorrie Ann Temple (Superintendent of Education), and Keri Calvesbert (Religion & Family Life Consultant) are in attendance. The minutes of the meeting state: “Meeting took place for the Chair to share concepts and finalize design of the statues from an Italian sculpture. Different slides were shared, and conversation took place with regards to sculptures for St Padre Pio, the Virgin Mary, a crucifix and depictions of stations of the cross and them being acquired from sculptors in Italy. Conversation focused on other aspects of the Chapel design and the importance of the space being accessible and inviting to all secondary students.”
• April 17, 2024: Rick Petrella writes to Michael McDonald, Lorrie Ann Temple, and Keri Calvesbert, detailing the proposed costs of the religious statutes in the amount of €46,200.00.
• April 20, 2024: Scott Keys, the School Board’s Superintendent of Business (SBO), departed from the BHNCDSB. His sudden departure preceded significant financial transactions, leaving a gap in the finance team that would later become relevant.
• April 22, 2024: Rick Petrella writes to Guido Goller to begin planning the trip, and notes “I would suggest starting the contracting process now and sending any deposits you require so we can formalize a schedule.”
• April 22, 2024: Rick Petrella writes to the Padre Pio Foundation and states: “We have also retained ARS SACRA Giuseppe Stuflesser fornitore Pontifico [sic] from Italy to create our crucifix, statues of La Madonna, St Padre Pio, and the Via Crucis.”

Travel Planning and the Emergence of a New Expense Policy (Late April–June 2024)

• April 23, 2024: Rick Petrella requested quotes for four business-class flights to Munich, luxury car rentals, and high-end hotels in both Munich and Ortisei. This request initially conflicted with the Board’s then-current Trustee Expense Policy, which capped airfare at economy class and set moderate reimbursement rates for meals and accommodations.
• May 10, 2024: Guido Goller sends Rick Petrella a contract in the amount of €48,000.00 (approximately $72,000 CAD).
• May 10, 2024: Rick Petrella circulated a draft trip itinerary to three other trustees – Bill Chopp, Dan Dignard, and Carol Luciani.

Late May 2024:

• May 28, 2024: Travel invoices were finalized for airfare, luxury car rental, and upscale hotels for Trustees Petrella, then Chair of the Board, and Trustees Chopp and Dignard (Trustee Watson joined slightly later).
• May 29, 2024: Mark Watson’s inclusion brought total flight and hotel expenses higher. Emails confirmed that these bookings were placed under a single invoice, with partial deposits charged on a corporate purchasing card (P-Card).
• May 31, 2024: Rick Petrella amends the Trustee Expense Policy and sends it to Michael McDonald for a June 7, 2024, Board meeting.

June 7, 2024, Special Meeting: Policy Amendments

• Policy Changes to Accommodate the Trip: On Jun 7, 2024, the Board convened a special meeting to revise the Trustee Expense Policy again. Unlike the February policy, which upheld economy class travel and capped daily meal allowances, the June amendment was noticeably more lenient. This amendment aligned more closely with the trustees’ already-booked business class flights and higher hotel expenditures.
• Interviews and supporting documents indicate that this special meeting was called with no public notice and did not follow the usual multi-week consultation process for policy updates.

The Italy Trip Itself (July 8–15, 2024)

Departure and Initial Stay in Munich

• July 8, 2024: Trustees Petrella, Chopp, Dignard, and Watson took Toronto Taxi & Limousine service to Toronto Pearson Airport, costing $230.52.
• July 8–9, 2024: Trustees Petrella, Chopp, Dignard, and Watson departed Toronto Pearson Airport for Munich via Lufthansa business class tickets. The total airfare cost $28,206.28.

July 9, 2024

• 3:17 PM: The four trustees pick up a rental car. Luxury Car Rental: A Grey Volvo XC90 PHEV was rented, with additional tolls and cross-border fees since the group traveled from Germany into Austria and Italy.
• Westin Grand Munich (July 9–11): Upon arrival, the group checked into the Westin Grand Munich, booking rooms in the upscale “Deluxe” and “Superior” categories. The hotel rooms were $834 per night for Petrella, Chopp, and Dignard ($5,006.52) and $841.25 per night for Watson ($1,682.50). According to those interviewed, dinner was included in the price of the rooms.
• Rick Petrella submitted a receipt for €142.60 for “Dinner at hotel and Parking”, which converted to $219.60 CAD. According to Bill Chopp, the group had chicken wings and nachos (there is no itemized receipt). It is also unclear how this receipt accords with the price of dinner being included in the room rate.
• 6:43 PM: The group then took an Uber trip (€35.60) to Carl-Wery-Strasse 35 to an Octoberfest Hall, though the trustees interviewed noted that they paid for their rounds of beer and did not submit those expenses for reimbursement. They arrived at 6: 58 and departed at by Uber at 8:24 PM (€30.00). They arrived at the Westin Grand Munich at 8: 39 PM.

July 10, 2024

• 11:28 AM: An expense receipt was submitted for two 500ml beers, two 750ml bottles of sparkling water, and one sausage. The receipt was in the amount of €40.20, but the beers were not claimed as expenses, with the amount submitted for reimbursement totaling (€27.60).
• According to interviews with the attendees, the activities on July 10 included a tour of the downtown area and religious churches in Munich. Dan Dignard indicated that he spent most of the day with Rick Petrella touring these churches. Mark Watson “did his own thing” as he was a fast walker, and Bill Chopp was also present but not fully with them due to the pace of walking.
• In the evening, they had dinner at the hotel, which was included with the room.

Ortisei (July 11–14, 2024)

July 11

• 10:09 AM – The group check out of the Munich Hotel. 
• 10:21 AM – An expense receipt shows the purchase water and Fanta at the Westin Hotel (€8.88).
• 12:29 PM – The group stops to purchase fuel at Mag. Maximillian Hilgarth, Inntalautobahn. 6114 Weer. Tankstellen (€50.00)
• Hotel Angelo Engel: From July 11 to July 14, the trustees stayed in Ortisei, a resort area. The cost of the rooms for Trustees Petrella, Dignard, and Chopp was €4,296.00 ($6,538.20 CAD), and Trustee Watson was €1,216.00 ($1,850.69 CAD)
• One bill submitted described as “Dinner for trustees X 4 at hotel in Italy $150.60 Euro X 1.52 = 231.92 CAD”, was part of a larger bill. It only included two dinners (in the amount of €48.00 each). The alcohol on this bill was not claimed. But it is relevant because this was described as a professional trip. That bill included:
  • 3 Digestiv (usually a small serving of a strong liquor such as grappa or amaro)
  • 4 Bailys
  • 2 Campari Soda
  • 3 Havana 7 years (rum)
  • 2 Chivas 12 years (scotch whiskey)
  • 2 500 ml draught beers
  • 2 300 ml Stiegl Beer
  • 2 Mojitos
  • 4 Special Cubra Libre (rum and coke)
  • 1 glass of wine (Lagrein Turm)
  • 2 250 ml servings of wine (St. Magdalener)

July 12

• The group had breakfast at the hotel, which was included in the price.
• The evidence regarding how long they spent at the sculptor’s workshop on July 12 is somewhat unclear, but it appears to have been between approximately an hour and a half, according to one account, and up to three hours, according to another. Finally, according to another it took the full day, with a break for lunch – with the sculptor taking the group for lunch. During that time, there was an MS Teams call with School Board staff in Ontario, although much of the discussion took place in Italian, as the sculptor had very limited ability in English.
• That night, there is an expense receipt submitted by Rick Petrella from Hotel Gardena Grodnerhof, a gourmet hotel and spa. The receipt is for a restaurant bill from Ristorante Anna Stuben for the four trustees. The main items listed are four 4-course menus priced at €126.00 each, totaling €504.00. Additionally, there are three wine pairings at €72.00 each, totaling €216.00. There are also two bottles of water at €12.00 each. One Kettmeir Rosé Glas for €24.00. Total tax (IVA) applied is €76.91. Grand total: €846.00. Handwritten notes at the bottom suggest a 20% tip added, bringing the total to €1,046.00. A final amount of 1,610.84 CAD is handwritten, likely showing the approximate Canadian dollar equivalent. The full amount, including alcohol was claimed and was reimbursed.

July 13

• The group had breakfast at the hotel, which was included in the price.
• According to the participants accounts, on July 13, they spent the day as tourists in the town of Ortisei. Some took the cable car to enjoy the views of the surrounding Dolomite mountains and strolled around afterward, browsing through the local shops and boutiques.
• Bill Chopp submitted a receipt in the amount of €115.30 ($177.56 CAD) for two dinners at Hotel Angelo Engel.
• Dan Dignard submitted a receipt in the amount of €118.20 ($182.03 CAD) for two dinners at Hotel Angelo Engel. This included one glass of Valpolicella wine, which was not claimed for reimbursement.

Return via Munich Airport (July 14–15, 2024)

• The group had breakfast at the hotel, which was included in the price.
• The group drove back to Munich, stopping at the Shell Tankstelle Fichtholz 3 for fuel.
• The group stayed at the Hilton Munich Airport overnight. The cost of the rooms for Trustees Petrella, Dignard, and Chopp was $878.37 CAD, and Trustee Watson was $304.36 CAD.
• The return flight was on July 15.
• July 15 - Limo from Airport to the Board office: $316.24

Total Trip Outlays:

1. Travel agent invoices (flights, hotels, car rental) to approximately $45,862.80.
2. Plus, on-the-ground expenses Petrella ($4,000.07), Chopp ($177.56), Dignard ($172.25).
3. This figure does not include the cost of the artwork itself or subsequent legal and communications fees incurred once the trip became public knowledge.

Observations

1. Lack of Collective Board Approval: Despite the large cost outlays, there was no clear, formal motion at a Board meeting authorizing the trip and committing the Board to purchase the artwork. Much of the planning proceeded informally, led by a small subset of trustees.
2. Policy Inconsistencies: Changes to the Trustee Expense Policy (June 7, 2024) occurred after bookings were already made solely for the purpose of retroactively trying to legitimize expenses.
3. Potential Breach of Procurement Requirements: The Building Ontario Businesses Initiative Act, 2022 was in force, requiring preference for Ontario-based suppliers under $121,200 CAD. Although Board representatives claimed a desire for “unique” or “custom” works, minimal or no evidence has been provided indicating an attempt to source local alternatives.
4. The trustees’ direct involvement in acquiring religious artwork during their trip to Italy appears to represent clear non-compliance with the School Board’s Procurement Policy (Policy #700.01). Specifically, the policy explicitly mandates that all procurement-related activities must be conducted by Board staff, particularly Procurement Services, to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness. The Procurement Policy states:

The procurement of goods and/or non-consulting services with an estimated value greater than or equal to $50,000 (excluding taxes) and up to $99,999.99 (excluding taxes) shall be obtained using a Competitive Procurement, to offer the most favourable price consistent with reliability, delivery and service requirement. This process must be initiated and completed utilizing Procurement Services. At least three (3) vendors known to provide the required goods and/or non-consulting services shall be invited to submit a bid. Procurement Services shall prepare a report for the initiating department, accompanied by the quotations received indicating the selected vendor for purchase order issuance or other appropriate action.

[…]

All quotations received and rationale for selected file must be kept on file and maybe subject to a random review/audit by the Board’s external auditors or Procurement Services.

Given the personal engagement of some of the trustees, including bypassing the required staff-led processes and competitive mechanisms, the acquisition of the artwork violates the policy’s segregation of duties, approval authority schedule, and principles of transparency and fairness. This in turn raises concerns about the board’s adherence to internal governance requirements and responsible stewardship of public funds.

6.2 Repayment of Expenses

The School Board has publicly confirmed that the trustees who went to Italy have an established schedule for repayment of expenses connected to the trip. During the review, additional evidence was provided by the School Board to support these statements. I have included a copy of the spreadsheet with the calculations provided by the School Board as Appendix “A” to this report.

According to the Statement of Trustee Expenses filed at the December 17, 2024, board meeting, Trustees Petrella, Dignard, and Chopp agreed to repay $12,666 each, while Trustee Watson agreed to repay $12,370. The repayments accounted for to date are detailed in the provided repayment schedules.

Based on the provided repayment data, an amount from each trustee’s honorarium is being deducted from each bi-weekly payment. Based on this data, the forecast for the remaining repayments is as follows:

• Petrella, Richard: With a cumulative total repaid of $2,102.28 as of March 6, 2025, and a repayment amount of $182.16 per pay period, Petrella will continue to make repayments until May 27, 2027, when the total amount of $12,666 is repaid.
• Dignard, Dan: With a cumulative total repaid of $1,072.62 as of March 6, 2025, and a repayment amount of $129.83 per pay period, Dignard will continue to make repayments until August 17, 2028 when the total amount of $12,666 is repaid.
• Chopp, William (Bill): With a cumulative total repaid of $2,262.72 as of March 6, 2025, and a repayment amount of $251.67 per pay period, Chopp will continue to make repayments until October 15, 2026 when the total amount of $12,666 is repaid.
• Watson, Mark: With a cumulative total repaid of $1,216.71 as of March 6, 2025, and a repayment amount of $135.19 per pay period, Watson will continue to make repayments until May 11, 2028 when the total amount of $12,370 is repaid.

Given the current pace of repayment for expenses associated with the trustees’ trip to Italy, it is unlikely the full amount will be reimbursed prior to the next municipal election scheduled for October 2026. Considering the scale of the outstanding balance and the relatively limited payments being made, there remains a significant shortfall that will extend beyond the trustees’ current elected term. This timeline suggests unresolved financial obligations could persist into the subsequent board’s mandate.

6.3 Fundraising

To date, no evidence has been provided to confirm any donations toward the artwork planned for the new Brantford school. Despite assurances that the project would be funded by private contributions, the absence of named donors raises questions about the feasibility of this initiative and whether public funds may eventually be required. Transparency is crucial in matters of public interest, and without concrete commitments, concerns about the ultimate source of funds for the artwork remain unresolved.

Analysis

7.1 Whether the Board’s stewardship of its resources supports and strengthens its ability to focus on student well-being and student learning to maintain public confidence in the board.

7.1.1 Review of Staff and Trustee Expenses

A detailed examination of expense submissions and approval records for both staff and trustees from January 1, 2020, to the present indicates that most claims are unremarkable, covering standard operational expenses such as travel for board-related meetings, office supplies, and occasional meals tied to formal conferences or workshops. These expenditures largely align with what is expected of regular board operations.

However, two notable points emerged during the review:

1. Trustee Meal Gatherings: A number of meals were reimbursed for trustees meeting one another outside of official board or committee activities. While these gatherings may fulfill a networking or preparatory purpose, they carry the risk of public perception issues and may not reflect the most efficient use of public resources.
2. Alcohol Consumption: Alcohol consumption appears to be a routine occurrence at some of these trustee gatherings. Although the purchase price for alcohol is typically removed from expense claims and therefore not reimbursed, the frequency of alcohol consumption in a board-related context still raises concerns about optics. Even if alcohol costs are not claimed, hosting meals that regularly involve alcohol can create perceptions of impropriety or extravagance. Likewise, the consumption of alcohol at informal trustee gatherings can create unintended perceptions or concerns regarding the trustees’ readiness or clarity when conducting Board-related discussions. Maintaining clear boundaries around alcohol consumption helps uphold public confidence in the professionalism and judgment exercised by Board members.

7.1.2 School Board - Audited Financial Statements and Budget Allocations

A detailed review of the School Board’s audited financial statements (2016-2023) and budget allocations (2017-2025) was conducted to assess revenue growth, expenditure patterns, accumulated surplus management, debt obligations, and spending priorities.

The School Board has demonstrated financial stability but faces growing concerns about whether its resource management effectively prioritizes student well-being and learning. In my view, maintaining (or more properly restoring) public confidence requires greater transparency, efficient resource allocation, and a stronger commitment to reinvesting surplus funds into student-focused initiatives.

The findings indicate that while the board maintains financial stability and adheres to provincial fiscal policies, areas of concern include rising administrative spending and reductions in classroom-related spending. To strengthen public confidence, the board should enhance transparency, optimize spending efficiency, and align financial decisions with student-centered priorities – especially as it relates to the board surplus.

7.1.3 Italy Trip

Based on the evidence reviewed, it is my conclusion that the board’s recent stewardship of its resources does not support or strengthen its ability to focus on student well-being and student learning, thereby undermining public confidence in its governance. The board incurred nearly $190,000 in expenses related to the Italy trip – a cost that notably includes over $63,000 in legal fees incurred to manage the fallout. These expenditures, which extend well beyond the initial travel and religious statuary/art purchasing expenses, suggest that significant financial resources were diverted away from initiatives directly aligned with educational priorities. Rather than reinforcing its commitment to student achievement and well-being, the board’s decision-making process in this instance appears to have prioritized activities that did not directly contribute to its core mandate. Consequently, these actions have raised substantial concerns about the board’s financial management practices and its capacity to maintain public trust by ensuring that resources are used effectively to enhance student learning and overall educational outcomes.

The board’s decision raises significant concerns regarding its fiduciary duties and financial management practices. Furthermore, the duty of care mandates that directors act with the diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person. This includes being informed and making decisions based on adequate information. The decision to allocate significant financial resources to the Italy trip, without clear evidence of its alignment with the board’s core mandate of enhancing student learning, indicates a possible failure to exercise reasonable care.

The board is also responsible for ensuring accountability in the use of financial resources. The diversion of funds away from educational initiatives to cover travel and legal expenses undermines the board’s accountability and raises questions about its financial management practices.

Moreover, the decision to invest in art for the new schools raises additional concerns. It appears that the trustees lacked the necessary expertise to properly assess the quality and commercial value of the art being purchased. Without the specialized knowledge required to evaluate such assets, the board’s decision-making in this area becomes highly questionable and exposes the board to the risk of overpaying.^{footnote 15[15]}

Compounding these issues is the fact that these decisions were not made collectively by the board, but rather by individual trustees acting outside the established governance framework. This unilateral decision-making process circumvented the board’s protocols for collective review and oversight, further compromising fiduciary responsibilities and eroding public trust. Such actions highlight a significant departure from the principles of good governance, where decisions should be made collaboratively to ensure that resources are allocated in a manner that prioritizes student achievement and overall educational outcomes.

7.2 An assessment of any discrepancy between compensation structure of designated executives and Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act.

BPSECA applies to all Ontario public sector designated employers, including school boards. Under this act and its regulations, school boards were required to develop an executive compensation framework that is transparent, provincially consistent, and fiscally responsible. The School Board complied by collaborating in 2017 with all 72 Ontario boards (and compensation experts) to create an executive compensation program.

BHNCDSB’s Executive Compensation Program is publicly available on the board’s website, as required (see: https://www1.bhncdsb.ca/executive-compensation/). The board states that the program “has received approval from the Ministry of Education” and that the Board has adopted it as posted.

Under the approved framework, BHNCDSB’s designated executive positions, here the Director of Education and Supervisory Officers (Superintendents), each have defined salary ranges.^{footnote 16[16]} These ranges were standardized across Ontario based on school board size/complexity “levels”. BHNCDSB was initially categorized as a Level 2 board, and its executive salary bands were:

• Director of Education – Range: $176,000 to $218,000 (per year).

Other Executives (Supervisory Officers, e.g. Superintendents) – Range: $140,000 to $166,000.

In practice, BHNCDSB’s executive salaries fell within these bands. The BHNCDSB provided background documentation addressing how executive compensation was set and administered. In essence, executive compensation was initially at Level 2 in 2016 based on its operating budget, school count, enrolment and staff numbers. In 2023, after restructuring portfolios and increasing responsibilities, BHNCDSB’s compensation was raised to the Level 2 maximum based on a legal opinion. In 2024, with further restructuring, compensation moved to Level 3 amounts.

The document provided outlines the evolving roles and responsibilities of the Director, Superintendents of Business, Human Resources, Special Education, Academics, and Student Support Services from 2016 to 2024. This includes changes in direct reports, program initiatives, committee roles, and accountabilities restructured across these positions to justify the compensation increases.

The BPSECA permits restructuring for bona fide purposes beyond circumventing the compensation framework. BHNCDSB’s restructuring, portfolio changes, and corresponding compensation adjustments are presented as addressing legitimate operational needs rather than circumventing the framework.

The document provides the following salary details for each position year over year:

• In 2016, the salary of the Director of Education was $193,000, and the superintendents’ salaries were $154,000.
• In 2023, the salary of the Director of Education was $218,000, and the superintendents’ salaries were $166,000.^{footnote 17[17]}
• In 2024, the salary of the Director of Education was $228,000, and the superintendents’ salaries were $176,000.^{footnote 18[18]}

In sum, the reasons provided for the changes in compensation in 2023 and 2024 are based on the Accountability and Complexity Matrix and legal opinions. In 2023, the BHNCDSB restructured portfolios and responsibilities of the senior team, and the factors were very close to the threshold for level 3 compensation, leading to an increase to the maximum amount in Level 2. In 2024, further restructuring and responsibilities brought the factors to the threshold for level 3 compensation, resulting in an increase to an amount within Level 3.

7.3 The compensation of all direct reports at present for each of the Superintendent positions (including business Superintendents).

Select information has been removed to protect personal privacy. This is indicated in the below charts with an em dash (—).

7.4 Other relevant issues that arose during the review, including key staffing changes related to the issues in question.

7.4.1 Separating Governance and Operational Management in School Boards

The role of trustees does not include involvement in the day-to-day management or operational functions of the school board. This separation is crucial to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that trustees do not interfere with the professional responsibilities of school board staff. Trustees are expected to familiarize themselves with the board’s by-laws and the Education Act to avoid inadvertent violations and to ensure they act within their governance role.

School board trustees’ primary responsibilities include setting policy, ensuring fiscal accountability, representing the community’s interests, and overseeing the overall performance of the education system. Trustees are elected to provide high-level oversight and strategic guidance, not to manage daily operations. The operational responsibilities are handled by professional administrators, led by a Director of Education, who are trained and experienced in managing the complexities of school operations. Maintaining this separation helps ensure that each group can focus on its strengths: trustees on governance and policy, and administrators on efficient, effective day-to-day management.

Micromanagement can undermine the confidence and autonomy of professional staff. When trustees become involved in routine operational decisions, it may lead to conflicts with the management team, reduce staff morale, and ultimately detract from the focus on long-term strategic goals. Trustees are accountable to the public for the overall performance of the school board. Their role is to monitor outcomes, assess the effectiveness of policies, and hold administrators accountable, not to be involved in every operational detail.

Perhaps more importantly, involvement in operational matters can blur the lines between governance and management, potentially leading to conflicts of interest. Trustees must remain impartial overseers who can objectively evaluate the performance of the school board as a whole. When they step into the management realm, they risk compromising this impartiality, which can undermine trust and transparency within the school community.

As elected officials, trustees are expected to represent the interests of the community and ensure that the school board’s strategic direction reflects local needs and values. Getting involved in operational management can detract from this broader mandate, causing trustees to lose sight of the big-picture issues that affect educational policy and public confidence.

Over the course of the review, compelling evidence emerged that instances of trustee overreach, where elected officials became entangled in daily management, led to a range of negative outcomes, including diminished staff morale, operational inefficiencies, and blurred accountability lines. Several cases highlighted that when trustees interfered with routine decision-making, the necessary expertise of professional administrators was undermined, resulting in delayed responses to issues and a lack of clear strategic direction.

This evidence, in my view, underscores the importance of maintaining a clear separation between governance and operational management, ensuring that trustees remain focused on policy oversight and strategic leadership while leaving day-to-day operations to those with specialized expertise.

7.4.1.1 Procurement Irregularities 

During the review, I learned about a procurement process for which the School Board publicly released a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) that set out a multi-stage, merit-based evaluation process. Proponents underwent a thorough assessment of qualifications, experience, project methodology, and pricing, with staff ultimately recommending the highest-scoring bidder for award.

However, at the in-camera Board meeting where the contract was to be finalized, trustees disregarded the staff recommendation, arrived at through the RFP’s established evaluation framework, and unilaterally awarded the project to a different proponent. No relevant evidence was provided to support such a change. Despite the Board’s authority to make the final decision, the abrupt departure from the documented evaluation process raises concerns about fairness and transparency, particularly given the absence of any justification.

The Board’s unilateral action calls into question its commitment to following its own published criteria and procedures, potentially undermining public confidence in the fairness of its decision-making.

7.4.1.2 School Design

During the review, evidence emerged that individual trustees were directly involved in the design and building processes for the new school. Several documents and witness interviews indicated that rather than deferring these decisions to the designated project management team and the director of education, some trustees intervened by influencing architectural designs, construction methods, and material selections. This unilateral involvement blurred the clear lines between governance and operational management, raising concerns about accountability. The findings highlight the importance of maintaining a collective decision-making process, as mandated by the Education Act, to ensure that such operational matters remain within the purview of professional staff and established protocols.

The clear separation between governance and operational management is crucial. Trustees have no legal authority outside the meeting of the Board and must conduct relationships with school staff and the community based on this fact. By intervening in operational matters, the trustees blurred this separation, undermining the established protocols and accountability mechanisms.

7.4.1.3 Janitorial Services - Notre Dame Catholic Elementary School

During this review, significant concerns emerged about trustees intervening in custodial services at Notre Dame Catholic Elementary School, which is governed by an Operating Agreement between the BHNCDSB, the Grand Erie District School Board (GEDSB), and the City of Brantford. Under that agreement, GEDSB handles daily caretaking responsibilities, including routine maintenance and emergency responses, with costs shared among the parties.

Despite this clearly defined operational framework, trustees took steps to terminate the janitorial partnership early, passing a motion to end the arrangement at the close of its renewal term in February 2024. Although the Board formally approved rescinding the agreement, no evidence suggests they followed the established dispute resolution process set out in the contract. Instead, trustees addressed operational details that typically fall squarely within management’s purview, rather than high-level governance. Further exacerbating these issues, internal communications contained remarks referencing a desire to “take down” the other board and described legal correspondence from GEDSB as “total BS” – language that underscores the adversarial tone surrounding what should have been a routine administrative matter.

GEDSB subsequently took the position that the rescission was a “nullity,” having bypassed the agreement’s prescribed dispute resolution steps, creating additional legal and procedural complications for both boards. Collectively, these actions raise serious questions about whether BHNCDSB trustees overstepped their governance role by interjecting themselves into day-to-day operational arrangements. It also highlights a broader breakdown in following established protocols, reinforcing the need for clear boundaries between trustee oversight and administrative management.

7.4.1.4 Human Resources 

During the review, multiple stakeholders reported trustee involvement in day-to-day Human Resources (HR) activities, ranging from staff hiring decisions to personnel management. Although trustees carry a mandate to shape broad policy and hold the Director of Education accountable, the evidence suggests that several trustees took a hands-on approach to specific HR matters typically managed by professional administrators.

Such involvement included direct inquiries into individual employees’ performance and confidential employment matters, as well as attempts to influence hiring or promotion decisions outside the standard HR protocols. These actions go well beyond the governance role and can undermine both the integrity of established HR processes and the morale of professional staff tasked with overseeing them. Further, it raises critical concerns about confidentiality and impartiality, given that trustees do not have formal authority to direct personnel.

The result has been significant tension within the organization. Staff interviewed described a climate where daily operational decisions can be second-guessed by individual trustees, leading to confusion about lines of accountability and diminished trust among employees. In some instances, staff also felt obligated to accommodate trustees’ requests, even when those requests conflicted with standard policies, for fear of reprisal or reputational harm.

Collectively, these accounts point to a pattern of trustee overreach, reinforcing the need to reestablish clear boundaries that separate governance from administration. The Board’s role is to set the strategic framework for HR, not to direct the fine details of hiring, discipline, or individual employment relations. Absent this separation, the Board risks eroding staff confidence, compromising confidentiality, and ultimately distracting from what should be its core focus.

7.4.1.5 Direct Trustee Involvement with School Leaders 

During the review process, a recurring theme that emerged among school leaders was the perception of competing loyalties between the school board trustees and the Director of Education. Many respondents expressed concern that the current governance structure places them in a position where they must balance, and at times reconcile, conflicting directives from elected trustees and the Director. This dual accountability has raised questions about the clarity of roles and responsibilities within the district.

Several interviewees noted that decision-making processes have become overly politicized. The involvement of trustees in certain administrative functions, particularly those related to personnel decisions, has led to a sense that political considerations are sometimes prioritized over professional or educational imperatives. This politicization is viewed by some as detracting from the focus on student learning and educational outcomes.

There is evidence that, in some instances, principals and vice-principals have taken steps that effectively bypass the established chain of command. These “end runs” around the Director of Education appear to be a response to conflicts within the governance structure. Such actions, while often intended to streamline processes or advocate for local priorities,^{footnote 19[19]} may inadvertently undermine centralized oversight and accountability.

The ongoing governance challenges have also been identified as having a detrimental effect on staff morale. Many school leaders feel caught in a politically charged environment, which has eroded their sense of professional autonomy and job satisfaction. This negative atmosphere is not only affecting current leadership but is also posing significant challenges in recruiting qualified principals. Prospective candidates may be discouraged by the perception of a politicized and unclear chain of command, potentially impacting the district’s ability to attract and retain high-caliber educational leaders.

7.4.1.6 Chair’s Involvement in Police Resource Officer Negotiations

During the review, clear indications emerged that the former Board Chair directly took on the negotiation of a police resource officer arrangement, far beyond what is normally expected of a governance role. Typically, while school boards do collaborate with local law enforcement to enhance student safety, these efforts are coordinated through staff and guided by formal board policy. In this instance, however, documentation shows the former Chair actively negotiated specific terms and funding levels with the Brantford Police Service.

Notably, on December 19, 2023, the former Chair committed the school board to covering 50% of both the pilot program’s cost and any potential longer-term placement, without the matter ever going to the full Board for debate or approval. Emails and wage details from the police indicate that the chosen officer would likely earn between $97,410 (second-class constable) and $111,326 (first-class constable), suggesting a significant financial obligation for the board.

This unilateral involvement raises questions about whether proper governance practices were followed, particularly since there is no evidence that trustees collectively discussed or approved these cost-sharing commitments. The situation underscores the need for clear role delineation and adherence to board-approved protocols, especially on inter-agency agreements that carry both fiscal and community impact.

7.4.2 Legal Advice for the Chair: Scope and Parameters

The bylaws entitle the Board Chair to seek “independent legal counsel” when required to fulfill the unique responsibilities of that office, not to sidestep the Board’s usual legal channels or secure advice for purely personal matters. Yet multiple documents and billing records indicate the former Chair repeatedly consulted external counsel on a range of issues, well beyond the limited scope envisioned in the bylaws. These consultations touched on workplace investigations, procurement disputes, City planning matters, and, most conspicuously, crisis management following the trustees’ Italy trip.

While this bylaw provision recognizes that conflicts can occasionally arise between the Chair’s obligations and the Board’s position, the Chair’s broad and frequent reliance on the same counsel (as opposed to independent counsel) here raises serious questions about role boundaries and alignment with the bylaw’s original intent. Much of this legal work appears to have involved day-to-day board concerns, items that typically fall to staff or to the Board’s regular legal counsel. The result is significant confusion around when independent legal advice is truly warranted for the Chair’s office, and when the Board as a whole seek advice relating to legal matters through its standard processes.

Additionally, internal debates erupted after it surfaced that substantial sums were spent on external legal advice and associated public relations around the Italy trip. Unsuccessful motions brought by one trustee called for full disclosure of these costs and a halt to further spending on outside lawyers for crisis control, spotlighting what many saw as a governance breakdown. Absent clear policy clarifications or limits on the Chair’s authority to retain private counsel, the Board risks further undermining trust in its oversight of legal expenditures and drifting from the bylaw’s stated goal: ensuring the Chair can meet special duties set out in the Education Act.

7.4.3 Policy Amendments Inconsistent with By-laws

If School Board trustees amend a policy in a manner that is inconsistent with the board by-laws, the by-laws will take precedence over the policy. This means that any policy that contradicts the by-laws would be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

By-laws are considered fundamental governance documents that outline the framework within which the board operates. If a by-law provides for a specific matter, it will override any policy approved by the board that is inconsistent with it. This ensures that the governance structure remains consistent and that the board’s actions are aligned with the established rules and regulations.

Furthermore, any operating policy adopted by the board will continue to have force and effect until it is amended, repealed, or replaced by a subsequent resolution of the board. However, if there is a conflict between a policy and a by-law, the by-law will prevail, and the policy must be brought into compliance with the by-law.

In the immediate matter under review, the June 7, 2024, amendment to the Trustee Expense Policy breached established governance procedures by failing to provide any written notice and a period of stakeholder consultation. Without this, the change was procedurally invalid. Perhaps more importantly, skipping the notice process denies stakeholders the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes. The absence of transparency can erode trust in the decision-making process. Stakeholders perceived the amendment as secretive and unfair, damaging the board’s credibility and future stakeholder engagement.

7.4.4 Professionalism

During the course of reviewing board communications, I encountered several emails displaying language or tone that fell short of professional standards. In one instance, the subject line used was “wtf!!!,” and in another, a brief reply read “What the hell is this?”. Additional messages carried similarly terse or snarky undertones. These examples highlight the importance of maintaining respectful and clear language in all official correspondence. The choice of words and tone can undermine trust and decorum, thereby underscoring the necessity of ongoing training and reminders about effective, professional communication.

Recommendations

8.1 Fiscal Responsibility Through Transparent and Accountable Management of Discretionary Expenses

8.1.1 Strengthen and Standardize Expense Policies

• Ensure Trustee and staff expense policies adhere strictly to the Broader Public Sector (BPS) Expenses Directive. If current board policies permit broader or more lenient reimbursement rules than permitted for staff, they should be revised for consistency. Staff and Trustee policies should be equitable and consistent. 
• Require all expense claims – particularly travel, meals, and hospitality – to include original, itemized receipts and a clear statement of business purpose. Claims should explicitly confirm that no alcohol costs have been billed to the Board.
• Implement a formalized pre-approval process for high-cost or out-of-province conference travel and any “exceptional” expenses that fall outside routine Board activities. Pre-approvals should involve both the Director of Education (or delegate) and, if necessary, the Chair of the Board.

8.1.2 Publish Quarterly Expense Summaries

• Make aggregated and summarized Trustee and senior staff expense reports publicly available quarterly on the Board’s website. Summaries should include nature of the expense, total amount, and any rationale provided, with appropriate anonymization for privacy (where required).
• Present expense summaries at public Board meetings or committee meetings (i.e., Audit Committee) for discussion, further reinforcing accountability.

8.1.3 Implement Robust Auditing and Oversight

• Where feasible, appoint an external professional (i.e., a Chartered Professional Accountant) as Chair of the Audit Committee to strengthen perceived and actual independence.
• Conduct periodic internal or third-party reviews of Trustee and senior staff expenses. Include results in Board meeting agendas or Audit Committee reports.
• Require regular reviews of corporate purchasing cards (P-Cards) used by staff to verify compliance with policy.

8.1.4 Discourage Expenditures with Poor Optics

• While the Directive typically disallows reimbursement for alcohol, make it explicit in Board policy that Trustees and staff are strongly discouraged from hosting social gatherings involving alcohol under the auspices of Board business – irrespective of who ultimately pays.
• Encourage cost-effective alternatives for working sessions (i.e., on-site Board facilities or virtual meetings). Set meal reimbursement rates that mirror existing provincial or broader-public-sector guidelines, ensuring consistency across the organization.

8.1.5 Reinvest in Student-Centered Initiatives

• Where the Board’s financial statements show a sufficient surplus or contingencies, direct a portion of those funds to programs and resources that more tangibly support student well-being (i.e., special education, mental health supports, technology upgrades).
• Establish reporting mechanisms to demonstrate how any reallocated surplus spending (or cost savings) directly benefits student achievement and well-being.

8.2 Transparent and Accountable Policy Development

8.2.1 Formalize Policy Review Cycles

• Enforce a transparent four-year review cycle for all policies and procedures, as per Board by-laws, unless legislative changes or direction from the Ministry of Education require an accelerated schedule.
• Provide sufficient notice (minimum 30 days) to relevant stakeholders (i.e., unions, parent councils, parishes) for feedback on draft policies. Where significant revisions occur after consultation, reintroduce the draft to the relevant Board committee for further review before final approval.

8.2.2 Ensure Consistency with By-laws

• If a newly adopted policy contradicts existing Board by-laws, by-laws should prevail unless they themselves are formally amended. Review all policies to ensure alignment with core governance principles in the Board’s by-laws.
• For significant or potentially controversial policy amendments – particularly regarding financial expenditures, procurement, or trustee governance – obtain legal review to confirm compliance with the Education Act and relevant regulations.

8.2.3 Strengthen Procurement Policies

• Enforce a rigorous, competitive bidding process for major purchases, adhering to the Procurement Directive thresholds. All single- or sole-sourced contracts must be thoroughly justified, documented, and reported in a public forum.
• Ensure compliance with the BOBIA by giving local (Ontario-based) businesses preference for eligible procurements below the prescribed threshold, following either a limited-eligibility approach or a 10% scoring advantage as the legislation directs.
• Where exceptions to procurement rules are invoked (i.e., “urgent” cases), require a dedicated agenda item at an open or in-camera Board meeting (as permissible) to outline the rationale, financial implications, and mitigating steps for ensuring accountability.

8.2.4 Increase Accessibility of Board Policies

• Publish all current Board policies on a dedicated, user-friendly section of the BHNCDSB website. To be clear, they are posted there now. But, it could be more accessible and there could be summaries offered.
• Provide annual refresher sessions or toolkits for Trustees, senior staff, principals, and relevant stakeholders to ensure broad understanding of key policies and procedures.

8.3 Fiscal Responsibility and Accountable Executive Compensation

8.3.1 Maintain Compliance with BPSECA

• Conduct periodic reviews of executive compensation levels to ensure that any adjustments comply with the BPSECA and associated frameworks. Document and publicly disclose the justifications for any adjustments that move an executive into a new salary band.
• Where role expansions or reorganizations lead to higher compensation levels, provide transparent evidence of new responsibilities in open Board sessions, including any external or legal opinions relied upon.

8.3.2 Align Compensation with Board Performance and Student Outcomes

• Incorporate student achievement targets and strategic performance metrics into annual evaluation processes for the Director of Education and Superintendents. Ensure compensation aligns with how effectively these targets are met.
• At least once a year, the Director of Education should present to Trustees on key performance indicators (KPIs), including financial oversight, program success, and student well-being metrics.

8.3.3 Ensure Clear Oversight for Compensation Decisions

• Utilize or establish a specialized Board Committee – if not already in place – that reviews and recommends any major changes to executive compensation, ensuring decisions reflect provincial guidelines and robust market comparisons.
• Summaries of approved compensation structures and rationales should be accessible in Board reports and online, consistent with transparency obligations.

8.4 Other Governance and Organizational Recommendations

8.4.1 Clarify and Respect Governance Boundaries

• Provide ongoing training for Trustees, highlighting that governance responsibilities are strategic (policy oversight and accountability), while daily operations (hiring, procurement decisions, negotiations with vendors) rest with the Director of Education and designated staff.
• Reinforce that individual Trustees have no authority outside official Board meetings. Discourage unilateral action or direction to staff, ensuring all material decisions go through proper Board channels.

8.4.2 Implement Training on Fiduciary Duties and Conflict of Interest^{footnote 20[20]}

• Immediately upon election, require new Trustees to undergo orientation covering the Board’s Code of Conduct, Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and the ethical and legal dimensions of fiduciary duties.
• Provide periodic “refresher” workshops led by legal or governance experts, focusing on real-life scenarios (i.e., procurement conflicts, trustee–staff boundaries).

8.4.3 Enhance Board Culture and Professionalism

• Adopt and enforce a professional code of communication for Trustees and senior staff, especially in emails and other official correspondence.
• Formalize procedures (i.e., through the Board’s Code of Conduct or by-laws) to handle trustee disputes or instances of governance overreach.
• Encourage collaborative processes and supportive leadership styles that respect the expertise of principals, vice-principals, and professional staff. Foster an environment where staff are comfortable voicing concerns without fear of reprisal.

8.4.4 Improve Stakeholder Engagement

• Create user-friendly dashboards or summary reports to update parents, community members, and parish stakeholders on key initiatives, financial performance, and student achievement data.
• Hold periodic town halls or open forums to gather input on Board priorities, significant policy changes, or new school projects.

8.4.5 Establish Clear Protocols for Chair’s Use of Independent Legal Counsel

• Revisit and tighten the by-law provisions to clarify under which rare circumstances the Chair may seek independent legal counsel at Board expense.
• Develop a short, defined process where the Chair consults with the Director (and, if appropriate, the Board) prior to engaging external counsel. Briefly disclose in-camera the rationale for such engagement and associated costs—except in extraordinary circumstances involving legal privilege or conflict of interest.

8.4.6 Periodic External Governance Reviews

• Consider scheduling an external governance review every four years or at mid-term to evaluate how well the Board is adhering to best practices and its own policies.
• Require staff to report publicly or in a dedicated committee on progress made in implementing this report’s recommendations, as well as any subsequent governance-review findings.

Concluding Note

It is my hope that adopting these recommendations will help BHNCDSB strengthen governance, restore public confidence and trust, and reinforce its central focus on student well-being and achievement. By instituting clear guidelines on fiscal accountability, transparent policy development, compliant and fair executive compensation, and respect for professional boundaries, the Board can move confidently forward as an effective steward of Catholic education in the region.