I don't wish to leap into the debate, but I would like to clarify an
inaccuracy that is getting some comment.

Kersti Krug wrote:

>Though there is much of interest and value in the book, most notably the
>inclusion of ten staff essays, the individuals selected (or willing) to
>write still remain with the Glenbow (sometimes in better positions).
>Where, I wondered, are the voices of "those who have left"?  This would
>have been a far richer case study had we been able to read the other side
>of this "success story."

and Lynn Teather wrote:

>There were mistakes made at the Glenbow, there were mistakes made by
>Dr. Janes and there are maybe failings in the work, one of which is
>the lack of the voices of those who have left (but how do you suggest
>he in this book could have included their tales?). Please note however
>that of the staff who are included the comments are not all positive
>nor are the comments of all of the outside critics, i.e. Julian
>Spalding of Glasgow.

In fact, of the ten staff essays, two were written by staff who were laid
off in 1992.  Of the two, one did return to Glenbow  later in a different
capacity.  And, as Ms. Teather states, the remaining essays are candid, not
all positive,  and certainly address the human side of change.

I felt I had to respond and address this error.

Thank you.

Christina Simpson
Co-ordinator of Evaluation/Results Monitoring
Glenbow
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

[log in to unmask]