Not much more on the Montgomery case
The Gazette promises more detail on the Sue Montgomery débâcle, but there’s not much more in this item. Whether there was the usual office drama going on (isn’t there always?) or whether the manager was a real monster is not clear, and probably never will be, as this will not get aired out in a court of law.
I think the oddest part about this story is the statement that neither of the people allegedly subjected to psychological harassment actually brought a complaint. If not – how did the process even get started?
Update: A little more from TVA, in which they quote Montgomery as saying “Demander à quelqu’un de faire son travail, ce n’est pas du harcèlement.”
Jack 21:08 on 2020-01-27 Permalink
I’ve been wrong before, often, but this case makes me think of this one. Career civil servants can bank on this strategy when they don’t like their political boss. https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/martin-patriquin-another-side-to-the-tamara-thermitus-story
Kevin 22:01 on 2020-01-27 Permalink
Montgomery asked for an investigation into another employee.
Sounds to me like a bunch of office workers hate each other and some are much more connected.
walkerp 07:18 on 2020-01-28 Permalink
So many questions.
Is Sue Montgomery taking this position because she hasn’t seen the report or because she doesn’t agree with its conclusion? If not, why did she call for the investigation? How does she not know what is going on with her direct report?
And on the other side, why did Plante go nuclear so quickly? Doesn’t she need Montgomery’s support and presence in her cabinet, given the size of NDG? Could they not have talked together and worked something out?
walkerp 10:06 on 2020-01-28 Permalink
Hmmm, reading through the timeline does give the impression that Montgomery had several chances. Feels like she is going to the wall to defend Harris. Either she is blind to her direct report’s behaviour or she feels there is a political motivation behind the report.
Blork 11:29 on 2020-01-28 Permalink
I haven’t read extensively on this, and I have no skin in this game, but my understanding is that Montgomery was ordered to fire the assistant that she had hired, but was denied access to the report that outlined why the person should be fired.
If it were me, and I hired someone, and my boss ordered me to fire them, I would most certainly want to know what the grounds for dismissal were. I have no opinion about Montgomery otherwise, but based on what I’ve read, I’d be in the same position as her.
Kate 13:19 on 2020-01-28 Permalink
Blork, that’s how I reacted as well, but Ian says in a comment earlier that it’s not unusual, in a hierarchical situation, to be told to fire someone without knowing why. I’ve never worked in highly stratified settings myself so I’ve never encountered this.
Blork 13:21 on 2020-01-28 Permalink
Kate, I did see that, but I’m not really buying it. Particularly with something like this (political bureaucracy) where everyone is always yelling about “transparency.” I know I for one would not do it so easily, even if it was the norm in my workplace.
walkerp 16:16 on 2020-01-28 Permalink
It was Montgomery who ordered the investigation in the first place, so she must have known or at least heard something was up. The reason she isn’t getting the report is because the investigation itself accuses her of turning a blind eye to what was going on. Still, does seem weird. They should just show her the report to make her un-blind about what is going on, if there is actually some real harassment going on.
But again, I she should have already known what was going on. It is her direct report. I am totally speculating here, but I wonder if she ordered the external investigation as a stalling/avoiding tactic and it ended up blowing up in her face.
The other suspicious factor is that Harris’ first action (from what I have read) was to fire Daniel Sanger, who I guess was a Projet loyalist of some older guard. So this “harrassment” could be she is having conflicts with existing staff who were loyal to Sanger.
But it also could be that she is not a good manager and was abusing her staff. That kind of behaviour seems almost endemic in older Quebec institutions.
Again, so many questions.
Jack 08:36 on 2020-01-29 Permalink
“Demander à quelqu’un de faire son travail, ce n’est pas du harcèlement.” Thats why Im getting the vibe that this was a unionized employee who did not like a political appointee.