Duties and responsibilties

Things went terribly wrong at the Prince Edward County Children’s Aid Society (PECCAS). For a long time. Defenceless children were put in harm’s way, by the folks entrusted to care for them. Repeatedly. Given over to deviant predators, the PECCAS knew, or had reason to suspect, would violate these kids in the most vile and demeaning ways. They were left there to be victimized over and over again for years. Eventually, five PECCAS approved foster parents from three different approved homes went to prison.

In 2012, Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society took over the governance and operation of the failed agency.

Now, the former executive director of the defunct County CAS, Bill Sweet, faces an array of charges including criminal negligence and failing to look after the children in his care. Over the course of his trial we may begin to learn what happened inside the walls of the agency—to begin to know what went wrong and why in this close community, it took so long for the crimes to be revealed.

Worryingly, it may reveal little, however, about the failure of governance of this agency. A Ministry of Youth Services investigation of the County agency found the board lacked the means to assure itself the agency was complying with “legislation, regulations, standards and other standards”. These questions may linger, unanswered.

Under the board’s watch the County CAS was falling well short of Child and Family Services Act requirements and had failed to detect a decline in compliance regarding the children in the agency’s care. This was its fundamental duty—its obligation to the children and the community.

The investigator reported that it was not clear the board was even aware of the conflicts with the agency, and that some board members only learned of allegations of sexual abuse through the media.

The investigator acknowledged that there must be a level of trust between a board and its executive director, but it “is also important that there be a logical system of checks and balances that provides the board with the objective information it requires to fulfill its responsibilities.”

The PECCAS Board failed its primary function— to oversee the management of the agency, to ensure it was doing what it what it was supposed to do, for the vulnerable children in its care. It failed to ask hard questions and demand answers.

Instead, when the allegations came to light, the board circled the wagons to defend its management and its own governance. Months after the Ministry’s scathing report, the PECCAS board chair complained in a letter to the editor that the story, as it had been reported, was overblown and that extensive safeguards were always in place and that no community is immune from ‘the possibility of such events’.

Of course, we now know, this simply wasn’t true. Which leaves only two explanations: either the chair and the board knew of the terrible dysfunction within the agency it governed and were hoping to whitewash the sordid mess, or they failed to ask the questions or pursue the means to ensure the agency was complying with its fundamental responsibilities. Neither speaks well to the diligence of the chair or the individuals on this board.

It may not be fair to tar the entire board with this stain. It may seem an overly harsh indictment of volunteer directors. Yet these folks were the last line of defence for these children, from an agency that had failed—utterly and miserably—to look after them.

This sad episode ought to be a caution for other boards, other directors, of other organizations. A stark message that the business of governance isn’t a casual endeavour. It isn’t to be undertaken lightly.

There are too many other governing boards in our community in which directors gather, seemingly, to rubber stamp the decisions made by management. There is far too little scrutiny. A few polite questions. Some grand and robust commendations. Some sandwiches and tea.

Some others view their governance duties as fundraising or public relations advocacy for the agency or organization they serve.

But if the board cannot, or will not hold management to account, who will do it? If they are not asking the tough questions, and demanding answers, who will?

The lingering wounds borne by the dozens of children victimized by this abuse—institutionally facilitated abuse—likely has no remedy. It is a trauma they must live with. Endure forever. It will inevitably shape their view of authority—forever mistrustful of the structures and agencies meant to protect them. Us.

It is our honour-bound duty to understand how these horrific events were allowed to occur. Even if it is painful to do so. Particularly so.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca