The next morning, designated College spin doctor Twylla Kreuger was inundated with 21 calls raising conflict of interest questions, such as:
"Curious how 2 outside mainstream media GM's (such as ) Golden West radio stations have that much input over a campus radio station. as someone who listened and financially supported GCTS and also 92.9KickFM by buying advertising, I'm thoroughly disgusted and embarassed to be an alumnus of RRC"
and other calls expressed disbelief that Red River College would have arbitrarily silenced a community platform:
"This is a really sad day for free speech in Winnipeg and please, it's very very bad for public relations of RRC - it's really horrible, so please pass this along to people who make that decision. They made a very bad decision not just for RRC and CreComm but for radio listeners in Winnipeg. This is incredible and unbelivable."
Krueger, who has never had any actual connection to the radio station, threw in the towel after 3 hours.
That resulted in College PR experts crafting the infamous Stephanie Forsyth approved "statement" for the supposedly independent stations' website, about a "reorganization" ... "giving students more opportunity."
Dean of Business and Kick-FM Board member Graham Thomson took over Krueger's gatekeeper role, giving anyone who asked the pro-forma reply:
"Your email was passed on to me, as the programming change was made by KICK FM, and not by Red River College. In case you haven't seen it, a statement is available on the station's website, at www.kick.fm. We appreciate your comments, and I will be communicating them to the board. To provide a bit more information, the core purpose of the station - in fact, the reason it was created - is to train students in the Creative Communications program. The purpose of the change is to provide better on-air opportunities."
Thomson ordered the statement removed the next month, and official records show the outraged comments of listeners and their demands for truthful answers, were never tabled with the Board of the station by Thomson.
A lady listener, 'H', didn't trust Thomson's stock answer, and challenged his giving her the official brush-off.
"You'll have to excuse my bluntness, Mr. Thomson, but I am not interested in a cookie cutter response from you; I want a timely response from Ms. Forsyth and not a second-hand spokesman.
The coincidence that CFRW, with a new sports talk format, picked up the second most popular program, Illegal Curve, the same week they used their vote to kill the most popular talk show on 92.9 KICK FM is a conflict that Ms. Forsyth herself must address as the college funds the station, as I understand it. To summarize: Ms. Forsyth has some explaining to do.
Hiding behind this poor excuse that you want to give students more training time is completely absurd as everyone knows students were getting on-the-job training with The Great Canadian Talk Show. That, Mr. Thomson, is the best "on-air opportunities" KICK FM could have provided for their students. No one is buying into the "official reasons" given for cutting The Great Canadian Talk Show and I am sure most people can see right through it.
I would then ask for a timely response from Ms. Forsyth and not you or some other lackey.
Regards,
'H' "Her scepticism about Thomson was well-founded, for only one week later, the National Post reported that there was more to the cancelation than the station wanting to better the student on-air experience:
"Graham Thomson, the college’s dean of business and applied arts and a non-voting executive member of the board that canned the show, acknowledged that the Winnipeg Free Press contacted president Stephanie Forsyth, but denied any outside influence."
"H" went right back with more questions for Thomson and Forsyth, which Thomson again tried unsuccessfully to deflect (in red).
-----Original Message-----
From: H
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:21 PM
To: Graham Thomson; Stephanie G Forsyth; marty; bjudt@osbornehouse.ca
Subject: Re: FW: The Great Canadian Talk Show and Marty "Gold"
Well, Mr. Thomson, Ms. Forsyth appears to have even more explaining to do following the National Post's article. Her silence on this topic speaks for itself on a deafening level and I am sure that you, as the person put on the frontline, are being bombarded with questions and demands for explanation such as:
1. Why you only told half the story in your news releases and didn't mention anything about Ms. Forsyth, a known NDPer, speaking to one of the board members about the Free Press contacting her.
(Thomson reply) Please don't assume that the National Post reported with complete accuracy. The change in programming was made by the executive alone, based on the core mandate of the station. Comments to any directors, from ANY outside sources was of no consequence.
2. What was in the communication between Ms. Forsyth and the Free Press, and why was it not put in writing and sent to the station manager?
I don’t know the content. It would be up to the Free Press, or anyone else to comment directly to the station manager, but I think that, from time to time, comments have been passed on to the station manager.
3. Why were students and faculty not asked about the change?
There’s no mandate for this in the bylaws or anywhere else. The station is separate from the college, although it’s purpose is to provide training.
4. Why were no alumni who advertised or appeared on the show contacted?
Again, no mandate for this. The decision was made to increase on-air opportunities for current students.
I still have questions about your reply, Mr. Thomson. I will start with this aspect of part one of your response:
"Comments to any directors, from ANY outside sources was of no consequence."
Are you saying that the executive had no communication with the college president? Think carefully before answering.
- H
Such a simple question.
Ten days later, she reminded Thomson, and even tried to help prompt a response by suggesting what the National Post might have misunderstood about his explanation.
Monday, November 29, 2010 9:36 AM
According to details attributed to you in their story, the RRC President did indeed have contact with at least one KICK FM executive committee member, who is also an employee (Vice President) at RRC. That Vice President was, again according to you, made aware about "concerns" the Winnipeg Free Press had concerning TGCTS which they told Ms. Forsyth about.
That same Vice President, and (at least) one other RRC employee on that Committee, went into a meeting and suddenly voted to cancel Mr. Gold's program after four years without any discussion or consultations with the station manager or Mr. Gold.
Correct me if I have gotten the wrong impression from the National Post story, but wasn't that "other" employee of RRC on the KICKFM Executive Committee also made aware of the Free Press "complaint" to Ms. Forsyth before voting to cancel the show?
In other words, did both RRC reps know about the Free Press having contacted Forsyth, or only one of them? The story reported only one of the RRC reps, the Vice President, was aware of it and I was wondering if that was the inaccuracy you referred to.
'H'
Thomson wanted no part of backing up his claim about the National Post report, or explaining the role of Creative Communications chair Larry Partap on the "Executive Committee" - having already had to admit Partap's participation to Osborne House director Barb Judt that same day, after Partap clammed up when she had asked him about who the "Executive Committee" was.
Thomson kept his fingers away from the keyboard, so a few days later, 'H' sent a reminder that she did indeed, expect transparent answers from RRC.
Am I going to get a response to my e-mail of November 29, 2010 (below for your ease of reference) any time soon?
'H'
The stalling tactic was again maintained by RRC for 12 days, to no avail. A loyal listener, "H" was simply not going away. Her next reminder to Thomson and Forsyth on December 15th ramped up the pressure by asking a simple question:
" I note I still have not received any reply from either of you. You must be thinking very carefully before replying.
Let me ask you, Mr. Thomson, another question that I am sure you can answer much more promptly: Who do I complain to if I find out you have been lying to me?"
It must have alarmed President Forsyth that the public dared to expect accountability and honesty from her College officials.
Because as the use of exemption code FIPPA 27 to blank-out part of the email below proves, before Thomson could be allowed to answer the question about the College complaint procedure he would be investigated under, Forsyth ran to Krueger and College lawyer Robert Buisson with some sort of, um, legal issue.
Three days of silence later, the gloves were off, and 'H' went over Thomson's head and straight to his boss for the answer.
I am disappointed that after waiting almost a month for you to think carefully about how to answer my last question, you could not be bothered to take 30 seconds to answer my simple inquiry about where I would direct a complaint if I find out that you, as a spokesman for the College, have lied to me. Your unprofessionalism when it comes to avoiding answering my e-mails is both aggravating and insulting.
I guess answering emails isn't such twisted fun for you anymore.
So once again I turn my attention to you, Ms. Forsyth. I am asking you directly:
Who will I file a formal complaint to about Mr. Thomson if I learn he lied to me on behalf of the College?
Can you tell me if is there a form for me to fill out or another avenue I have to take?
Regards,
'H'
Forsyth fired off an email that Saturday morning to her minions and made clear her contempt for 'H''s notion that the College President - of all people! - had to be accountable to provide information about the College's formal complaint process, and tried to pass the buck.
"Obviously I am not responding, but perhaps we should have our lawyer respond?" she wrote to Krueger, Buisson, and incredibly, the man under the proposed investigative microscope, Thomson.
A week before Christmas, Robert Buisson for some reason, had to apply his lawyers' hat to the simple question about the public wanting to know how to complain about a College official.
But Section 27 of the FIPPA legislation doesn't allow us to find out what his rather lengthy legal advice was that day, to Thomson and Forsyth.
His advice, however, can be deduced quite simply from the facts.
1) The concerned listener wanted to file a complaint about Graham Thomson for trying to mislead her that "comments to any Directors (of Kick FM) from ANY outside sources was of no consequence", after he admitted to the National Post that Forsyth - an outside source - had a discussion with the College representative on the radio station Board (Cathy Rushton) about the Free Press speaking with her about Marty Gold.
2) Buisson had replaced Cathy Rushton, on the Kick-FM Board on December 14th.
3) Which hat (Director on the Board of the non-profit radio station? College lawyer?) Robert Buisson was wearing at any particular moment is hard to know. However, complaints filed under the College Ethics Policy would usually be investigated by Corporate Counsel - the same Robert Buisson who apparently gave Forsyth and Thomson advice in December about 'H' asking for a complaint process that would also involve him.
Publish Post
4) To this day, 'H' has never received an answer from Red River College about the formal complaint process, so she could have Dean of Business Graham Thomson held accountable.
FIVE emails asking simple questions of Stephanie Forsyth and Graham Thomson of Red River College. (Nov. 19, 29, and Dec 3, 15 and 18.)
She has heard only silence in response.
