Internal emails obtained by Humber Et Cetera show that Humber Polytechnic President Ann Marie Vaughan resisted former board chair Akela Peoples’ call for in-camera meetings during escalating governance tensions last winter.
Humber Et Cetera obtained 45 documents through Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, covering correspondences between Humber and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities on governance concerns and board resignations from August 2022 to January 2025.
In a March interview with Humber Et Cetera after nine board members resigned en masse last January, Vaughan said she “did not oppose in-camera sessions.”
“Boards are, of course, able to have in-camera meetings providing that there are policies that exist to support them and they do not exclude members of the board unnecessarily,” Vaughan wrote in an email to Humber Et Cetera on March 26.
The 45 documents, including partly redacted emails between Peoples, former board members, Deputy Minister David Wai and Vaughan, however, reveal that the board’s desire to hold in-camera meetings was a sore point.
In one email exchange with Wai, Vaughan requested the deputy minister to take action, accusing board members of “ignoring policy and legislation,” citing the commencement of in-camera meetings that excluded internal members and herself, according to records obtained through the FOI.
The records show Vaughan leaned on Humber’s bylaws, which allow in-camera meetings but only under limited conditions, such as litigation, contract negotiations or collective bargaining. However, board members saw in-camera time as an essential tool for fulfilling their oversight role. Assessing the performance of the polytechnic’s president is one of the board’s duties according to the Humber bylaws.
In response to the newly public correspondence, Humber’s associate vice-president of marketing and communications, Andrew Leopold, wrote on behalf of the president in an email that Vaughan “supports in-camera meetings provided they are held in keeping with good governance, practices and policy, and that all governors are included.”
Leopold said in-camera sessions have been part of recent board meetings and have followed “proper governance, policy and structure.” However, he said that the in-camera sessions held by Peoples were improper.
“The in-camera meetings in question organized by the former board chair were held inappropriately, improperly executed, excluded board members and the president and did not follow policy,” Leopold wrote.
FOI documents show Deputy Minister Wai wrote to Peoples on Dec. 10, 2024, confirming that a third-party review of Humber’s governance practices would be launched after concerns were raised to the ministry, also by a third party. The government is not required to reveal the source of the concerns, and Leopold said Humber does not know who contacted the ministry.
The records show that three days later, board counsel Carol Hansell emailed Wai on behalf of the chair to request a meeting about the deputy minister’s letter and governance issues at Humber. The meeting, held on Dec. 16, was attended by Peoples, former vice chair Anne Trafford and former board member Ali Ghassi.
Vaughan then met with Wai, without the other board members, on Jan. 8 to clarify his December letter to the board. She followed up with an email attaching the letter she had sent to Peoples addressing “actions and requirements” arising from the deputy minister’s letter, which was also redacted.
Peoples replied that the board disagreed with Vaughan’s interpretation of Wai’s letter and would move ahead with a motion to create a Governance Task Force and hold an in-camera session at the end of the next public meeting.
“Ann Marie – as previously noted we disagree with your interpretation of the Deputy Minister’s letter and what you are suggesting is inconsistent with my phone call and our meeting with him,” Peoples wrote in her email, released in the FOI documents.
Leopold said in his statement this week that Wai’s letter was “clear and not open for interpretation.”
Peoples refused Humber Et Cetera’s request to comment.
As indicated in the FOI documents, Vaughan forwarded Peoples’ response to Wai and asked the deputy minister to confirm that he did not intend for a competing review to be undertaken by the very governors who were themselves subject to the ministry’s fact-finding exercise.
The president wrote that two reviews would “result in a significant effort and commitment from the Executive Team at Humber – impacting the work that we need to do on all other matters. It will also come at a significant legal cost to Humber.”
“The communications received detail that members of the Humber Board of Governors are operating in total disregard of the government directive for which they are appointed to be operating within,” Vaughan wrote to Wai.
Following this email, Wai, Vaughan and Peoples met on Jan. 14. That same day, the deputy minister sent a follow-up letter clarifying that the ministry would conduct a fact-finding review of Humber’s governance practices led by Linda Franklin, former president of Colleges Ontario.
Wai instructed the board to continue with its six-month performance review agenda of institutional goals, but to suspend any performance evaluation of the president and management team. He also asked Peoples to pause all governance-related activity, including potential changes to structures or policy.
And while he acknowledged that in-camera sessions are appropriate in “certain circumstances” and should eventually be codified, he ordered the board to refrain from holding any in-camera meetings during the review.
Peoples held an in-camera meeting with select governors on Jan. 16, urging them to resign, according to an email Vaughan sent to Wai after the resignations.
The next day, eight members of the board resigned within 15 minutes of each other. In their emails, they said the ministry’s restrictions had restricted them from basic functions, leaving them unable to serve the organization as board members.
“Thus, there is no option but to resign,” Peoples wrote in her resignation email.
“With regret, I feel I am unable to discharge my duty to provide oversight and guidance to Humber Polytechnic as a member of the Board of Governors,” former member John Breakey wrote. “As a volunteer I offer my experience and skill where I can contribute to the growth and success of any Board I have served.”
Vaughan also noted to Wai that she was seeking to meet with the student member of the board, Ana Downes, the following day. Downes submitted her resignation letter the next day at 9:55 p.m.
“The issues the Board is facing currently are complex. As the student representative to the Board, I find the time it now requires to wrestle with this complexity is interfering with my academic responsibilities,” Downes wrote in her resignation letter. “In addition, it has been causing me tremendous stress.”
Leopold said this week that the meeting between Vaughan and Downes did not take place.
Downes did not answer Et Cetera’s request for comments.
Franklin’s report, “When Governance Fails: Humber College Fact Finding Report,” concludes that a better relationship between the board and the president is essential to restoring trust, improving collaboration and ensuring effective oversight.
Leopold said Humber’s board has and continues to meet since the ministry’s report. He wrote that newly joined and remaining board members have an “acute” understanding and a commitment to “good governance practice and policy, along with support for Humber’s leadership and the direction of the institution.”
Humber’s Board of Governors’ website does not provide any information regarding the next board meeting, only stating “Update coming soon.”
