Board Opacity Continues: A Call for Transparency at a Geneva Private School

Another list of school ‘Board’ names appears in a recent whistleblower judgement in an alleged malicious prosecution and some of them are former state representatives such as PASCAL EMERY and LIONEL EPERON. The new Board chair is on there, whilst his UN boss is listed for at least the third time in this whistleblower’s litigation. Some names have appeared before but the names MARK POOLE, LAURENT FALVERT and DAVID OGDEN keep popping up.

Here's the latest list, and the whistleblower has repeatedly asked the Board if any of those listed are defendants in the confirmed criminal proceedings related to her complaints which were in file P/17792/2021 first.

·? Nicolas Winssinger

·? Pascal Emery

·? David Ogden

·? Konstantin Koudriaev

·? Nick Thornton

·? Mark Poole

·? Jamie Williams

·? Lionel Eperon

·? Laurent Falvert

·? Viktoria (Wicky) Tuck (not my spelling, the court's)

·? Chitra Subrahmanian

·? Franck Moser (not my spelling, the court's)

In recent developments concerns about transparency and accountability have reached critical levels. Whistleblowers have been raising allegations including about the handling of child protection issues, its treatment of those who speak out, and the financial management of pensions. However, the Board's response to questions—or lack thereof—has left many unanswered questions, and deepens the shadows of opacity.

The Recent Letter from the Authorities

On October 1st, the whistleblower received a response from the Geneva Police, which confirmed that ongoing criminal proceedings related to their complaints are still active within the Public Prosecutor's Office. This communication further highlighted that previous concerns, documented in the criminal procedure P/17792/2021, are indeed under scrutiny, despite earlier denials made during a court hearing on September 2nd – by the judge.

The lack of transparency from the Board is troubling. The community deserves to know who the defendants are in these ongoing proceedings linked to the organisation and how the litigation is being funded. Is the school utilizing an ‘avoirs clients’ account, potentially covering fees for legal representation that could be perceived as a malicious prosecution against a whistleblower, on behalf of management and former Board members? These questions demand urgent transparency.

Handling of Sensitive Court Documents

Yet another concerning aspect of this situation is the mishandling of sensitive court documents. For example, correspondence from two school whistleblowers, which was addressed directly to the judge, was inexplicably made available to the school's legal representative. Such actions raise ethical questions about who has access to confidential evidence submitted by whistleblowers and why it is being shared without proper oversight. This apparent collusion only serves to undermine the integrity of the school’s legal representation and raises red flags about the Board’s commitment to transparency.

Financial Accountability and Transparency

Financial accountability is paramount, especially regarding how school funds are being utilized. The community deserves to know how alleged malicious prosecutions are being funded and whose interests these actions represent. With ongoing litigation, there is a growing concern about financial resources and if, why and how funds are being directed to cover costs. Parents and stakeholders must be informed about the financial implications of legal strategies that may serve to shield past and present members of the institution from scrutiny rather than uphold the safety and well-being of students.

Concerns have been raised about pensions, especially since one whistleblower was sent a shoddy procuration to sign over their pension to cover replacement costs. Another whistleblower is still waiting for confirmation that their pension rights are in order, with more suspicions raised after the same lawyer involved in their alleged malicious prosecution is now representing the pension fund in an apparent conflict of interests.

Moreover, the whistleblower's complaints about alleged legal corruption in a property development case have mysteriously found their way into the expanding file of criminal complaints linked to alleged ongoing retribution. This overlap raises serious questions about how such issues are being investigated and whether there is a concerted effort to dismiss or obscure legitimate concerns raised by those within the community.

As the situation unfolds, it is crucial for the Board to prioritize transparency and accountability. The community deserves clarity regarding the ongoing legal proceedings, the use of school funds, and the ethical management of sensitive information. Parents and stakeholders must advocate for an open dialogue about these issues to ensure that the school not only meets its educational mission but also protects the rights and safety of its students and staff. The continued opacity surrounding these matters only serves to heighten concerns about the school’s commitment to fostering a safe and supportive environment for all.

After all, if the conviction of a school whistleblower is public then so should all THIRTEEN files related to it be made available to stakeholders!

?