|
BOONDOGGLE |
||||||
|
New Appeals Process
Research and experience show how government and bureaucracy are offensive largely because of the manner in which they exercise the authority conferred upon them. Application for benefit is consistently denied and forced into a costly protracted appeals process. Win or lose, the bureaucrat managers avoid responsibility of their positions by referring critical decisions to an appeals tribunal thereby forcing sick or suffering or otherwise marginalized persons to seek remedy elsewhere. Regardless of the short-term fiscal appearance of this type of income maintenance, the result is punitive economically, physically, and mentally. Government tries to apply some kind of accessibility and accountability to programs and the bureaucrat ends up entangling the process in ever more complex and expensive ways. Although both government and bureaucracy appear responsible, they are not responsAble. Therefore, remedy through the existing process and appeals has no effective consequence for politician or bureaucrat because outcomes remain the same. The system as it now operates only serves to increase the tax burden, decrease effectiveness of service, and continues to marginalize the most needy in punitive ways. So what can be done and who can do it? Obviously government and bureaucracy are entangled in means of marginal economic and social returns. The first thing that can be done is to vote differently. A different vote means to vote for anyone, any party, but the existing member of government or party. Not because they are any more or less responsible, responsable, or capable, but for the simple reason of change until the party can get the job done right. Another way the democratic concept can be expressed is through Political Demand Theory. Similar to the idea of consumer demand having an effect on what products are being brought to market, Political Demand Theory should have the effect of responsability in both government and bureaucracy. Since the existing system relies on selling sizzle but delivers no steak, the option here is to continue trying to vote different, vote for change, vote for anyone but the sitting member of parliament. Demand a solution not a promise, not an excuse. WHO WOULD YOU TRUST AFTER 14 YEARS? It appears my Charter Rights continue to be improperly withheld, this time with the help of ARCH, “A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities” allegedly dedicated to defending and advancing the equality-rights of persons with disabilities. ARCH claims to have understood that a response to a legal question asked by an appeals tribunal was required by January 9. Not only did ARCH refuse to offer an opinion, they also waited until their case load was too heavy before letting me know. Alternatively, if the ARCH case load was already too heavy, then their tardy reply indicates a different approach with the same result. My life clock continues to tick down. I continue to be treated differently and my rights continue to be improperly withheld. A variety of organizations like WCB, ODSP, CPP, their tribunals and now ARCH claim to “help” persons with disability. Each and every time my case is presented, the facts are accepted, and the remedy is handed off to someone else to deal with but they don’t! The fact remains that my disability and circumstances have been known since 1991. Now the continuing denial of appropriate help for more than 14 years indicate another problem, a pattern of dysfunction, a contradiction, a punitive effect, a cruel and unusual treatment. Since 1991, I am awfully sick and suffering. This condition is compounded by “due process” treating me in peculiar ways for being injured, impaired, and asking for help. Although I appear to win my appeals, I continue to be treated differently than other persons with disabilities who get protection of the law, appropriate compensation for workplace injury, and appropriate medical treatment. If you believe there is no right way to do a wrong thing then prove it. You are either part of the problem or the solution. From: Arch Student 2 <> Dear Ms. Balmer, I am sending this email at Phyllis Gordon's request, to acknowledge your fax of November 25, 2005. We understand that you have been instructed by the Social Benefits Tribunal to consult with legal clinic counsel specializing in disability law on the advisability of presenting Canadian Charter of Rights arguments before the SBT or in an alternative forum. We regret that due to our current heavy case load and other clinic activities, ARCH does not have the resources to provide a legal opinion or advice on the Charter issues in this case. However, if you would find it helpful, we can provide you with statutory and case law materials that relate to the jurisdiction of the Social Benefits Tribunal as to Charter issues. If you wish to receive these materials, please let us know as soon as possible, as we understand that you must reply to the SBT by January 9, 2006. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, _____________________________ Amy Wah, Student-at-Law Email: Tel: 416-482-8255 XT235 or 866-482-2724 Fax: 416-482-2981 or 866-881-2723 TTY: 416-482-1254 or 866-482-2728 Web: www.archdisabilitylaw.ca
|
||||||