More on the Bondil saga
Someone was asking whether public money goes into the Museum of Fine Arts. This piece on how Nathalie Bondil was told her contract would be renewed, shortly before she was sacked, mentions the museum gets $14 million a year from Quebec.
La Presse’s Marc Cassivi gets into the museum’s toxic atmosphere as a workplace and asks whether Bondil’s firing was a brave gesture against workplace harassment, or a clearing of the decks to replace her with a patronage candidate, and concludes it could be both.
Update: Bondil denies the allegation of a toxic workplace.
Another update: More from Bondil in Le Devoir; on CTV; CBC’s account of the situation.
Blork 15:33 on 2020-07-14 Permalink
I don’t know anything about this specific situation, but I know that I have never, not once, heard of a toxic workplace in which the source of the toxin ever admitted it.
Kate 16:32 on 2020-07-14 Permalink
Oh I know, Blork. I simply posted the link, not implying I believe or disbelieve it.
jeather 17:15 on 2020-07-14 Permalink
There may also be a toxic workplace and it may be her fault and I’m sure that’s a good excuse but there is no way that’s the actual reason. The actual reason is that she refused to hire one of the Desmarais clan, wanting instead to hire someone with sufficient qualifications.
GC 19:49 on 2020-07-14 Permalink
I’m with jeather. She was hired in 2007 and it took fourteen years for her to make the workplace toxic? She might have made it toxic, but I highly doubt it would take that long. So, if she did, it’s been like that a really long time and the board has been looking the other way until now.
Ian 21:36 on 2020-07-14 Permalink
Let’s say there really was a toxic work environment, that Bondil only got shown the door after making waves about a scion of the Desmarais clan is rather telling.
Seems like a lit of virtue signalling when they were really just looking for an excuse.
Sim 07:58 on 2020-07-15 Permalink
I’ve heard from an inside source that Mary-Dailey Desmarais was the best candidate for the job there was and that Bondil was not happy about her choice/friend not getting the job.
Chris 10:28 on 2020-07-15 Permalink
>it took fourteen years for her to make the workplace toxic? She might have made it toxic, but I highly doubt it would take that long.
It took longer than that for Harvey Weinstein to get shit-canned.
JP 10:39 on 2020-07-15 Permalink
It can take years and years from the genesis of a toxic environment to whispers of what might be going on to it being widely known but nothing happens to something finally happens. I can believe that.
It’s incredible the power some people can yield, and the type of harassment people are willing to inflict on other people.
MarcG 10:44 on 2020-07-15 Permalink
@Chris: I think what GC’s saying is that if person = bad it won’t take 14 years to make workplace = bad, rather than “I doubt it would take 14 years for a bad person to be fired” as it seems you understood.
Kate 10:46 on 2020-07-15 Permalink
Sim: every report says Desmarais came fourth among the people vying for the job.
Su 10:59 on 2020-07-15 Permalink
Wondering if the Desmarais’ donate more annually to the museum than the ~$15 000 000 that Quebec contributes.
Sim 11:06 on 2020-07-15 Permalink
@Kate Yes she did, but my friend who works at the museum says she was better than the “first choice”. Maybe the hiring process was skewed.
What nobody seems to care about is that Bondil was having two conflictual roles as “conservatrice” and GM. This isn’t a good way to manage a museum as it poses a conflit of interest.
Kate 17:51 on 2020-07-15 Permalink
Sim, whose fault was it that the two roles were allowed to be held by the same person? Surely the potential conflict of interest should have ruled out giving both jobs to one person right from the top.
Alison Cummins 17:58 on 2020-07-15 Permalink
Sim,
I heard from an inside source that there was absolutely no way at all that Appelbaum was crooked. Also that the only possible reason that Robert Rousseau committed suicide after being interviewed by UPAQ was that they blackmailed him with something private – maybe he was gay or something – and he didn’t want to shame his family. Rousseau was a man of the absolute highest integrity and could not have been involved in issuing construction permits to the mafia.
My inside source was a city councillor. Should have been credible. Clearly was not. She was fed lines by friends who she chose to believe. They used her to protect their reputations.
When an “inside source” says that Number Four was the best candidate, you have to consider that your inside source is perhaps being fed a line. Maybe Number Four was the best candidate. But how did that happen? What is wrong with their hiring process that it evaluates candidates so poorly?
Who overruled the hiring committee’s judgement? On what basis? Did they know more than the hiring committee about all four top candidates? What does the hiring committee say about the way they were so misled?
GC 18:49 on 2020-07-15 Permalink
First off my math was terrible. Fourteen years? I should have proof-read that!
Yes, MarcG, you have my intended meaning about correct. All the same, Chris also made my point because in Weinstein’s case people were VERY definitely looking the other way for years and years.