college of opticians of ontario registrar moves on to........

**gibson_star** · 05-04-2013, 02:48 PM

its time that the moh sent in a supervisor as the college of denturist got need a clean sweep they can stay there for life they can bend all the rules for their convenince

**norman kane** · 05-04-2013, 02:57 PM

fazal khan for registrar college of opticians of Ontario by popular demand... rumour mill has it

**gibson_star** · 05-04-2013, 03:04 PM

by popular demand bring in caroline as registrar and cathi as the new legal team bravo for the old team and a lot of partying

**idispense** · 05-04-2013, 04:19 PM

Maybe an investigative reporter should look at the aged discipline cases that were global news six years ago.

**gibson_star** · 05-08-2013, 11:54 PM

jay hakim an elected member was removed from the college on jan 28, 2013 they still kept his name on the website as an elected member. now 2 days ago they made an announcement of his removal and today removed his name and shows seat vacant. in canadaian history its the first time an elected member has been removed in democratic Canada seems the college of opticians operates in some third world country makes you wonder whats up

**norman kane** · 05-09-2013, 12:06 AM

is the ministry of health sleeping on the job, a supervisor in definitely needed at this college

**gibson_star** · 05-09-2013, 12:13 AM

definitely a supervisor is needed, first a lot of staff moves out than they remove an elected member and than the registrar leaves within 16 months[must be looking for a job for awhile] , what going on here

**norman kane** · 05-09-2013, 12:27 AM

maybe it has to do with the law suite, somebody said that the law suite legal proceedings started in sept 2012

**gibson_star** · 05-09-2013, 09:01 AM

on april 10, 2013 MOH made an appointment to replace Gloria Baltazar. the new appointment is a lawyer Hugh Corbett. there is no mention of him and website still shows Gloria. why are they holding back on info that is available on the internet must say its weird or what its getting bizzare

**idispense** · 05-09-2013, 12:05 PM

It's an old boys club. They don't want anyone seeing how it operates, least of all the membership.

If it operated the way it should then there would be Minutes of the Meetings available for the membership; there would be no in camera sessions; the meetings would be video taped and broadcast to membership log in. But none of that's available to membership, only secrecy !!!!

The MOH has had nothing but accountability and transparency issues of its own, so why anyone would want or trust the MOH to appoint their own supervisor would be a huge problem in itself with conflicts of interest, accountability and transparency. MOH still has a huge lack of credibility over the ORNGE affair, the watering down of cancer drugs and not inspecting that cancer drug facility. Accountability and transparency is all BS with these people.

This College will do nothing. Nor will MOH. Together they can't deal with a six year old discipline case.

An investigative reporter should start looking at that ancient discipline case on the books that went global on the news 6 years ago but has gone nowhere in the hands of discipline.

Best thing for membership is to show up at meetings en mass to change things by non-confidence or better yet , refuse to advance any more funding till they all quit.

Hopefully their lawsuits will become public info for all the newspapers to share with membership and the public.

These public and optician members that make up this council can't even update the Bergez case, on the web site never mind give us current Status on the College Registrar.

For that matter , why hasn't the Registrar updated the web site herself , isn't she still the Registrar and are we not still paying till she leaves ?

**Golfnorth** · 05-09-2013, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by idispense

It's an old boys club. They don't want anyone seeing how it operates, least of all the membership.

If it operated the way it should then there would be Minutes of the Meetings available for the membership; there would be no in camera sessions; the meetings would be video taped and broadcast to membership log in. But none of that's available to membership, only secrecy !!!!

The MOH has had nothing but accountability and transparency issues of its own, so why anyone would want or trust the MOH to appoint their own supervisor would be a huge problem in itself with conflicts of interest, accountability and transparency. MOH still has a huge lack of credibility over the ORNGE affair, the watering down of cancer drugs and not inspecting that cancer drug facility. Accountability and transparency is all BS with these people.

This College will do nothing. Nor will MOH. Together they can't deal with a six year old discipline case.

An investigative reporter should start looking at that ancient discipline case on the books that went global on the news 6 years ago but has gone nowhere in the hands of discipline.

Best thing for membership is to show up at meetings en mass to change things by non-confidence or better yet , refuse to advance any more funding till they all quit.

Hopefully their lawsuits will become public info for all the newspapers to share with membership and the public.

These public and optician members that make up this council can't even update the Bergez case, on the web site never mind give us current Status on the College Registrar.

For that matter , why hasn't the Registrar updated the web site herself , isn't she still the Registrar and are we not still paying till she leaves ?

I think you should put your name in to be our new Registar.
Also as I understand your place of employment has recently changed and has not been reflected on the College's website.
Did you forget to advise them?

Regards,
Golfnorth

**norman kane** · 05-09-2013, 04:51 PM

I second idispense as registrar of the college of opticians not only is he honest hes also very knowledgable.

**norman kane** · 05-09-2013, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Golfnorth

I think you should put your name in to be our new Registar.
Also as I understand your place of employment has recently changed and has not been reflected on the College's website.
Did you forget to advise them?

Regards,
Golfnorth

don't be sarcastic Golfnorth! are you supporting the COO for the coverup!

**Golfnorth** · 05-10-2013, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by norman kane

don't be sarcastic Golfnorth! are you supporting the COO for the coverup!

No

**gibson_star** · 05-10-2013, 09:28 PM

the website on college of opticians of Ontario says "council unanimous voted and determined disqualifying the elected councillor from sitting on the council " if the council are proved wrong will the council be responsible for not voting with their conscious but by being provided wrong information or pressured to vote for wrong reasons

**idispense** · 05-11-2013, 08:58 AM

If membership votes a resounding "NO" on the subject of delegation , then how can it still be accomplished without legislative change? Any takers ? Any creative thinkers here ?

**idispense** · 05-11-2013, 09:02 AM

If it's illegal to internet dispense eyeglasses into a licensed province then how can onliners grow , get a foothold , and flourish without legislative change ? Any takers ? Any creative thinkers here ?

**idispense** · 05-11-2013, 09:29 AM

If an elected official is elected not once but twice in a row , what message is the membership sending to administration ?

**idispense** · 05-11-2013, 09:36 AM

If administration continually holds incamera sesions to remove a twice elected, by membership, official then what message is administration sending to membership about accounatability, transparency and censorship of the voting process ? Is there a bylaw or regulation that says administration must like and approve of the memberships' choice ?

Membership, by the voting process, is telling administraion who they want administration to work with , membership is not voting and then seeking permission of administration to approve their selection , instead membership expects the elected to fulfill their term of office and administration to abide by the memberships decision.

Its called self governance.

**Golfnorth** · 05-11-2013, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by idispense

If administration continually holds incamera sesions to remove a twice elected, by membership, official then what message is administration sending to membership about accounatability, transparency and censorship of the voting process ? Is there a bylaw or regulation that says administration must like and approve of the memberships' choice ?

Membership, by the voting process, is telling administraion who they want administration to work with , membership is not voting and then seeking permission of administration to approve their selection , instead membership expects the elected to fulfill their term of office and administration to abide by the memberships decision.

Its called self governance.

I think you are jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts.
The fact that it was a unanamous vote tells me that the executive thinks they had sound reasons for the removal.
That may or may not be the case as the facts come to light but since this is a legal matter don't expect to be appraised of the situation
until the dust has settled.
Until all the facts become puplic domain (and they won't until after the court case is settled) your wild speculation is just wild speculation.

**norman kane** · 05-11-2013, 01:13 PM

wild speculation, we will all see, a member twice elected is that than membership wrong, I don't think so

**idispense** · 05-11-2013, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Golfnorth

I think you are jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts.
The fact that it was a unanamous vote tells me that the executive thinks they had sound reasons for the removal.
That may or may not be the case as the facts come to light but since this is a legal matter don't expect to be appraised of the situation
until the dust has settled.
Until all the facts become puplic domain (and they won't until after the court case is settled) your wild speculation is just wild speculation.

I fail to see where there might be any wild speculation.

Is it speculation that membership voted in the removed person not once but twice ?
Is it specualtion that administration removed a membership voted in person ?
Is it speculation that membership tells administration who they they want working with them in each district by the voting process ?
Is it speculation that when administration removes an elected official , then they are telling membership they do not approve of memberships' choice ?

Where is there any wild speculation ?

**idispense** · 05-11-2013, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Golfnorth

I think you are jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts.
The fact that it was a unanamous vote tells me that the executive thinks they had sound reasons for the removal.
That may or may not be the case as the facts come to light but since this is a legal matter don't expect to be appraised of the situation
until the dust has settled.
Until all the facts become puplic domain (and they won't until after the court case is settled) your wild speculation is just wild speculation.

I certainly don't expect to be appraised of the situation, certainly not by the College :

Did the College inform membership of the lawsuit or did they leave it up to the Hamilton Spectator to do that job for them ?
Did the College inform membership of the Registrar leaving or did they leave that up to the College of Denturists ?
Did the College inform membership of any possibilitiy of financial contingency regarding the lawsuit ?
Did the College inform membership about the final legal outcome in the Great Glasses case or did they leave that up to the TV and newspapers?

Expect to be appraised of the situation ??????? LOL , ROTFLMAO !!!

**Golfnorth** · 05-12-2013, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by idispense

I certainly don't expect to be appraised of the situation, certainly not by the College :

Did the College inform membership of the lawsuit or did they leave it up to the Hamilton Spectator to do that job for them ?
Did the College inform membership of the Registrar leaving or did they leave that up to the College of Denturists ?
Did the College inform membership of any possibilitiy of financial contingency regarding the lawsuit ?
Did the College inform membership about the final legal outcome in the Great Glasses case or did they leave that up to the TV and newspapers?

Expect to be appraised of the situation ??????? LOL , ROTFLMAO !!!

No nobody will be appraised of the situation because it is currently a legal matter.
What I'm saying is that for those people to be removed by the College unanimously that maybe there was just cause.
I'm not pretending to know the facts but it will be you and not me with egg on his face if the removal was just.
Your preference is to fear monger and rant and I guess we will be seeing alot more of this since you now have more time on your hands.

Regards,
Golfnorth

**HindSight2020** · 05-12-2013, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by idispense

I certainly don't expect to be appraised of the situation, certainly not by the College :

Did the College inform membership of the lawsuit or did they leave it up to the Hamilton Spectator to do that job for them ?
Did the College inform membership of the Registrar leaving or did they leave that up to the College of Denturists ?
Did the College inform membership of any possibilitiy of financial contingency regarding the lawsuit ?
Did the College inform membership about the final legal outcome in the Great Glasses case or did they leave that up to the TV and newspapers?

Expect to be appraised of the situation ??????? LOL , ROTFLMAO !!!

Today's excerpt from the 'iDispense Gazette'. The College doesn't care - nor does the MOH, the associations, nor its members. So consider it a free for all to operate however one wishes - its pretty much there now. Its about self survival mode for most at this point.