Good evening, world, thank King You for being here. I am very excited to get into the details of My meet with the City of Ottawa last Thursday, so I Will waste no more time getting into it.
As I mentioned yesterday, the sentiment from the beginning was amicable, and this has been consistent with every meeting. Although ‘technically’ Geneviève represents My adversary in Law, I have never had any reservations about meeting with the city’s lawyer and/or any of the representatives of Housing Services. I have not always been entirely pleased with some of the statements made by Housing Services and/or some of the policies and requirements of some of their programs, and I was not shy about Voicing My concerns. I did not believe that Housing Services had any intention of following up on My complaint if I had not filed an application to the Divisional Court, and I confess that sentiment stuck with Me and influenced My interpretation of future correspondence from Housing Services over the course of their investigation.
The truth is, from the very first meeting, Housing Services was very receptive to My suggestions. In fact, I don’t remember who the two representatives from Housing Services were on the first conference call but neither of them said very much at all. It was as if they had been instructed to take notes – this was a resolution proposal, and I spent a Good portion of that meeting telling Housing Services what should have been done when I first filed the complaint. Housing Services was instructed to conduct a proper investigation into My complaint and ensure My application for Housing subsidy is approved ‘immediately’. Geneviève basically acted as an impartial magistrate and provided oversight of the Housing Services branch to ensure My demands were met on or before April 1st. These things were done.
The only detail from the first meeting that Housing Services contested, was the shelter’s decision to expel Me from the facility without cause, which they claimed was acceptable under the shelter’s ‘time out’ policy, “especially considering it was a ‘warm transfer’ and arrangements were made at another shelter.”
I literally ran back to My room that morning to grab a copy of the emergency shelter standards, a last thought as I was leaving the house. I was so glad I did. The ‘time out’ policy being referred to specifically states that it can only be used if the overall actions and behaviours of the client place the client, staff and/or other clients at risk. So I had the pleasure of casually leafing through the standards to find the policy and read it back to Housing Services… Silence, eventually broken by Geneviève, “So the city Will ask Jason Prevost to produce a Letter explaining why the client was removed from the facility, and We Will provide a copy of that letter with the city’s determinations on or before April 1st.”
That was that, Housing Services didn’t even respond directly to Geneviève‘s statement. I said that would be acceptable and also requested that Jason be required to produce contact information for a lady who had expressed interest in a $4000 grant related to My artwork and entrepreneurial ventures.
My next (second) meeting with the city was with Paul, who had Issues with some of My exceptions to their application forms. Again, this made Me feel as though ‘the city’ was fighting Me; and in reality, they were… The problem is, it wasn’t intentional. Paul genuinely didn’t think there was anything wrong with the application forms or as King of Me to waive rights to the enjoyment of My property in the acquisition of subsidy. I could have a $200 subsidy with no conditions attached to it (provincially funded), or I could have the city subsidy of $600, but it comes with terms and conditions. When I first said that I’m not Willing to Give up any of My rights, or any subsidy in My overall best interest.
“So You want the $200. provincially funded subsidy then?”
“No, I want the $600. subsidy without the threat of trespassing upon My rights.”
And once again, it was Geneviève who restored the peace. “I think Paul is just a little concerned that You don’t ever want to let a worker inside Your apartment.”
I know the story is a little drawn out, but I think it is important to go over some of these details, if only to defend how defensive I initially was (and more importantly, why).
“Would You consider one visit?” That was the moment I realized Paul’s opinion didn’t really Matter. I laughed out loud, and said I might even be kind enough to consider two, so long as Housing Services knows the visits are at My discretion.
What Geneviève was able to successfully communicate, is that ‘the city’ is not against Me. As defense council for the city, obviously Geneviève cannot say anything that would not be in the best interest of her client (the city). Geneviève can’t say to Me that the city acknowledges the harm that was done to Me in My time at the shelter, Geneviève can only stress that the city acknowledges My time at the shelter was extremely unpleasant and challenging… Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Now, it is also important for Me to communicate that all of this is just My interpretation of the meeting. The city made it very clear they do not Wish for Me to continue with My application to the Divisional Court. When they explained that they are not in a position to compensate Me financially but are hoping We can reach some alternate resolution, I said that the only reason financial compensation is important is not because I’m interested in money, but if there is no penalty for abusing the rights of individuals subject to poverty and or homelessness, it sets a precedent that suggests the lives of those individuals is worthless and their mistreatment acceptable – and that’s simply not true.
Geneviève emphasized the influence of her oversight into My complaint since I filed My application to the Divisional Court. It is true, there has not been one thing I have been as King of Housing Services to do that they have not done under Geneviève’s direction and oversight. Geneviève also tried to emphasize that Housing Services has never had any Willful intention to harm or insult Me, and that all comments I have perceived as attacks upon My character were exclusively the determinations made by the Salvation Army, Shelley was just the messenger responsible for the investigation into My complaint.
Geneviève also tried to assure Me that Shelley’s last email to Me was intended to be an apology. I have re-read it and to Me it still feels condescending but Geneviève was able to convince Me that no harm was intended. Also, it is important to note that I mentioned Shelley VanBuskirk’s memo to chair Deans and members of council, and was assured that Shelley VanBuskirk’s statements were not Willful. Once again, Shelley was just passing on information that had been provided to her and accepted responsibility for that information rather than reveal the source of it. I told Geneviève I felt that should have been made clear the moment the Issue was raised, otherwise it appears to be Willful fraud. It completely changes My perception of Shelley, as I admire someone who accepts accountability and responsibility for their errors.
Everything the city has done since Geneviève was appointed to this Matter, has been done almost exactly as I suggested it should. When Geneviève asked Me what the city could offer instead of financial compensation, I said that I really do appreciate everything that Geneviève has been able to facilitate, and everything that has been done is exactly what I was suggesting the city of Ottawa should have done in the first place, but it is a little frustrating for Me that it was necessary for Me to file an application to the Divisional Court before I was taken seriously. Then I addressed the whole ‘King thing’.
“You know, the other detail no one seems to Wish to talk about and even I find somewhat humorous, is the Elephant in the room, the whole, ‘King Sean, House of von Dehn, Hand of Stephen, Kingdom of God.’ I mentioned to Jason and others that the title actually means something, and if People would take My letters a little more seriously, We wouldn’t even be here today. That goes for the Mayor and city council as much as it does for the Salvation Army, a copy of My complaint was sent to each of them when I was not pleased with Housing Services response, and if they had Acted as they did when I filed My application to the Divisional Court, no application would have been necessary.”
“Yes. And I want You to know that You are being taken very seriously. I can’t tell You what is going on behind the scenes, but I can tell You that Your input regarding the standards has had a tremendous impact. You mentioned that the shelter standards were unacceptable, and city council have ordered that the shelter standards be re-Writ and Will be having a Committee meeting to discuss the matter shortly. They have asked Me to extend an invitation to You to speak before the Committee, You would have five minutes to express Your Ideas to the board. City council will oversee the creation of the new shelter standards.”
Honestly, I was a little in shock. Rewriting the shelter standards?! Seriously! And nobody is even blinking or flinching about the whole King thing? So bizarre. So I decided I might as well push the envelope a bit.
“Okay. Wow. Yes, I would like that very much. And with respect to the other, I have Writ the Attorney General, Registrar General, I’ve asked Chris Tuck from Social Services about the Trust they’re administrating, he claims there isn’t one. Is there anyone in Canada’s government who knows and understands the Trust and or the citizenship contract, or I am the only one?”
Geneviève smiled, shrugged her shoulders and said, “I honestly don’t know.”
Fair. And the one thing I did spend plenty of time thing King about, was what I really do Wish to accomplish. I have to break this into a third Edition, I told You I was gushing!!! And believe Me, there is plenty more Good to come!
Love and Blessings,