Dear Friends and Colleagues, Yesterday Vicki Moretti from LAO circulated to the clinic system an email clarifying LAO’s position on the Transformation Project. As far as we know this is the first public clarification from LAO on this topic since the release of the Vision Report in late August. As clinics are aware, the KB Board met with LAO representatives on November 25, 2014 because LAO wanted to understand KB’s position as wishing to remain in the Transformation Project while rejecting the Vision Report. KB pointed out that our understanding of the GTA Transformation Project Partnership Framework Agreement, which all 14 Toronto general service clinics have accepted by signing the MOU regarding the Transformation Project, is that stable clinic funding is only guaranteed as long as they are a part of the Project. This was one reason to remain in the Transformation Project. There are others, including using our presence on the Steering Committee to promote a new model (other than the 3 mega-clinic model) for transformation. For those opposed to the Vision Report there is work to be done both within and outside the Transformation Project. We felt that that work started with a clinic declaring that it could not support the Vision Report. Following that meeting on November 28, 2014 KB issued a “News and Information” email where we reported: • No clinic will be defunded for rejecting the proposed Vision • LAO did not expect all clinics to buy into the Vision report • LAO does want to see clinics working together on some form of “transformation” to improve services to the community. We did not and have never indicated that our “approach” was endorsed by LAO. While LAO did not suggest at the November 25th meeting that clinics should take an alternate course of action, LAO is expecting that non-participating clinics would put forward an “alternative transformation plan” to address the challenges faced by these clinics. So while LAO may not want, or be happy to see clinics reject the Vision report, LAO does expect an alternative transformation plan from the clinics that do reject it. And that, of course, is a condition of stable funding. Much of the LAO clarification follows from a reading of the GTA Transformation Project Partnership Framework Agreement, clauses 6 and 7 in particular. A copy of the Agreement is attached. While neither the Vision Report nor the Framework Agreement use the term “clinic closure”, the term “realign” is used in the Framework Agreement. At the end of the day, any clinic continuing with the “transformation” must “transition” into a realigned clinic(s) to maintain ongoing funding (clause 7 d of the Framework Agreement). This provision, taken with the mega-clinic model of the Vision Report, necessarily means that over the space of one or two fiscal years, any clinic having endorsed the Vision Report and continued with realignment will be closed. As LAO notes, it is indeed a clinic board decision to participate in the Transformation Project. While to date two clinics have rejected the Vision Report, both of those clinics are still members of the Steering Committee of the Transformation Project. Although LAO correctly notes that a firm commitment to transitioning to the new model is not “required” until some point after the Vision Report, is it reasonable for any clinic to believe that having gone that far down the transformation road, a clinic can turn back? Noting the time, effort and funding involved to get that far, the pressures to move forward with the “transition” will be unbearable. It will be too late to come up with an “alternative transformation plan”. Without referring to the technicalities, this is the point that KB (with others) has been making for some time now: an endorsement of the Vision Report is a vote to close your clinic. We agree with LAO that it is important for LAO to understand the barriers to ongoing participation in the Transformation Project. Right now, that barrier is the Vision Report and the mega-clinic model. One of the ways to move forward in the development of “alternative transformation plan” that we feel will be very productive is with the conference scheduled for January 17, 2015. Since our last communication the Transformation Project working group issued Communiqué No. 9 in two instalments. The first one, authored by Jack Fleming repeated the point made in the Vision Report that clinics with 6-7 staff are too small to take advantage of team models and that larger clinics allow for standardized service delivery across the GTA. We have three questions: 1. Must all 14 general service community legal clinics in Toronto close for functional team models (which could involve cross-clinic linkages) to exist? 2. Is a 6-7 staff clinic likely to remain the norm given the new funding now available to clinics? 3. While the principle of seamless clinic law services is sound, is “standardized service delivery across the GTA” (delivered from 3 or 4 or 5 “head offices”) consistent with connection to the community through community Boards, local accountability, a commitment to community development, outreach and public legal education? The second instalment of Communiqué No. 9, authored by Ann McRae is a distinct departure from all previous communiqués. She presents a thoughtful pros and cons analysis of hubs (the Vision Report only presented a two paragraph cons analysis). We are left with the thought that small clinics located in hubs, like Rexdale (or Downsview) could remain as part of the “transformed” clinic environment in Toronto, but would benefit from being part of larger legal staff teams. Creative solutions to size limitations can be implemented without the need to start from scratch with the closure of all 14 general service community legal clinics in Toronto. This analysis is precisely the kind of analysis Kensington Bellwoods is hoping to promote through the January conference. And noting that this conference is happening we are circulating with this letter a copy of the speaking notes from Chris Brillinger’s (Executive Director, Social Development, Finance & Administration, City of Toronto) presentation on September 27, 2014 at the Osgoode Hall Law School’s forum “Exploring Ideas About Community”. His notes provide essential background for the discussion that we hope will take place on January 17th. In closing, we wish you all a safe and happy holiday and we look forward to seeing you in the New Year, Gary Newhouse Board Chairperson KBCLS To receive a copy of the attachments, please send us a message.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 20:35:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015