|
Bad Apple Bullies
|
What happens when you make a complaint to the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC)?
Will the CMC actually investigate your complaint?
3600 complaints were made to the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission in 2006-2007.
Of the 81% of complaints to the CMC that were 'referred back" to the public service department concerned -
(But how many of these public service departments allowed the public servant who had been complained about to control the investigation into their own behaviour? Because if you ring up the CMC and tell them that this is what is actually going on, they just say they have no problem with this. They will tell you that it is not their responsibility.)
(But was the "disciplinary or other action" effective? For example, if you find evidence of that public servants are abusing official polices in order to bully teachers, is it effective to change a few words in those official policies and then send out a Media Release to announce the development of a "new policy"? Has the public - and the whistleblowers who sacrifice their health and their careers to report corruption - the right to expect change? The right to expect that the corruption will actually stop?)
Mr Beattie said ... "This is about good administration and this is about implementing what Fitzgerald intended to do."
What sort of "crimes" do the Crime and Misconduct Commissioner actually investigate?
Former corporate taxation officer Chris Murphy was investigated by the CMC in October 2002 in connection with a false travel claim for $98.
Why did the CMC decide to investigate this allegation themselves?
Chris Murphy's name was on a document tabled in Parliament in 2002 which suggested he may have disseminated some Government-sensitive information via his computer.
Chris said that at 6:00 AM one day in October 2002, soon after the document was tabled, he heard a very loud thump on his door.
It was a dawn raid.
Three sergeants and a senior sergeant connected with the CMC went through his house searching for evidence of his crime.
His computer records were taken.
In November 2002 the CMC sent two officers to Melbourne to question his 80 year old mother.
They also interviewed her neighbours.
Chris pleaded guilty to the charge, was fined $300 and ordered to repay the $98.
The magistrate was so unimpressed with the gravity of the offence that he did not record a conviction.
What actually happens when you try to contact the CMC liaison officer in a Queensland Government Department?
One retired Queensland teacher explains:
In December 2000 I was spending many hours every evening searching the internet, trying to find some information on the Diminished Work Performance Process.
On 12 December 2000 at 6:18 PM I emailed humanresources@qed.qld.gov.au
Subject: Help
I am a (specialist) teacher and I tried to discuss some concerns I had about the lack of support at my school.
My principal has put me on diminished work performance.
I believe this is to prevent me from talking about my concerns.
(I asked how to make a grievance.)
One big difficulty that I have is that I cannot get access to information. The (grievance) material that I have been given can only be accessed from an administration computer. I do not know if it is the right information or if it is complete. I searched for information on my own computer and found none.
I was not even told that there was a policy on DWP till nine day after I had been told that I was on it.
It took another four days to get a copy of part of the grievance information.
Can you give me a link that will allow me to access more of the PREVENTING and RESOLVING GRIEVANCES material?
Later that same evening I emailed human.resources@qed.qld.gov.au again:
Wednesday 13 December 2000 1:12 A.M.
Subject: Further question
Further to my earlier query, I believe this may be a public interest disclosure.
I have a copy of the whistleblowers protection act and I see that I am supposed to report it to the CJC liaison person.
Who would be the CJC liaison person in the (I named my district) area?
Nobody ever answered this email.
(In January 2001 an Education Queensland industrial officer mailed me a copy of the Grievance Policy.)
Because the union organiser had told me that there was no hope at all of justice, that he had never known a teacher's grievance to be supported, this silence from the CJC liaison officer seemed very frightening to me.
It seemed to support the union organiser's advice to me that the whole system was corrupt.
A few hours later, on the afternoon of Wednesday 13 December 2000, I phoned a QTU organiser (Leah Mertens) from a phone in my office at school.
Because the local union organiser had told me that I should be careful not to say anything that I could not prove, I was afraid to discuss the political situation in the school and the district office with Leah.
I just described the bullying itself and asked Leah if I could make a complaint to the CJC because I had been put on the DWP for discussing the number of children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms. These unsupervised groups of students were roaming about the school and disrupting my lessons with other classes.
Leah advised me that I could not complain to the CJC that I was being punished for being a whistleblower.
The next day the usual principal E.L. (who was on leave) came bouncing into the school like Tigger.
He bounced over to me in the staff room.
I asked if I could have a word with him.
I was not really sure what to make of his sudden appearance.
Had the Education Queensland CJC liaison officer sent the usual principal E.L. to me so that I could make a disclosure to him?
But his own behaviour seemed to be part of the problem.
In her letter to me dated 29 November 2000, acting principal G.R. had written:
I have spoken to him (usual principal E.L.) about the matter and he is in agreement that the process is warranted.
I had no idea what to make of acting principal G.R.'s claim.
How could the usual principal E.L., a man I respected and trusted absolutely, the man who had repeatedly urged me to work full time at his school, the man who had assured me that he would deal with the problems at the school, how could he possibly have agreed that I should be punished, before discussing the situation with me?
It did not make sense to me.
I presumed that acting principal G.R. must be lying.
So I had no idea what to make of E.L.'s sudden appearance at the school.
Had the CJC liaison officer warned him that I was trying to make a disclosure?
Should I disclose the political situation at the school and in the district office to him?
Or was this a trap?
Would I be punished for discussing the political situation?
I did not feel safe.
February 5 2001
During a meeting with usual principal E.L., acting principal G.R. threatened five times that "action would be taken against me" if I continued to complain about her behaviour.
So I was afraid to try to contact the CJC liaison officer again for the next year.
I had no real idea if the bullying was a public interest disclosure at this stage.
I just wanted to ask the advice of the CJC liaison officer.
Thursday 5 February 2004
Eve Gardiner, CMC officer, stated:
Rang CP (complainant - me) to advise of determination, however the number CP initially provided is the (Eve names the school that I used to work at and where the usual principal E.L. was still working.) (CP has not been there for 2 years).
(Page 5 CMC ACTIVITY REGISTER REPORT M1-03-0035)
On February 5 2004 I had not been working at that school for a full three years.
I never contacted Eve Gardiner from the school, nor did I ever ask her to ring me at the school.
I always rang the CMC from home.
If Eve could not catch me on the phone, she could easily have sent me an email.
So why did Eve Gardiner, CMC Officer, ring the school where usual principal E.L. was working on Thursday 5 February 2004?
.....
Why do we have a Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commission Committee?
In his 1989 report into corruption in Queensland, Commissioner Tony Fitzgerald said parliamentary committees must be a "vital and energetic part of giving effect to the democratic process, particularly in respect of complex issues".
Tony Fitzgerald said that parliamentary committees "would increase the chance that misconduct, incompetence or inefficiency will be exposed".
"... Without information there can be no accountability. It follows that in an atmosphere of secrecy or indadequate information, corruption flourishes."
After the serious corruption his commission exposed in Queensland, Tony Fitzgerald's recommendations were welcomed by both sides of politics.
Now Queensland politicians pocket an extra $400,000 a year to sit on parliamentary committees that are doing next to nothing.
Government decision-making and spending are not being scrutinised by cross-party committees as advocated by Tony Fitzgerald.
Peter Beattie said that it was the responsibility of individual committee chairmen and women what they investigated, and that he would not like to interfere with their day-to-day running.
Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney said that the parliamentary committees were "an absolute joke".
What do the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commission Committee actually do?
One Queensland teacher explains -
On 16 July 2006 I wrote to the members of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC) -
Paul Hoolihan, Chairperson and Member for Keppel
Howard Hobbs, Member for Warrego
Liz Cunningham, Member for Gladstone
Jack Dempsey, Member for Bundaberg
Simon Finn, Member for Yeerongpilly
Christine Smith, Member for Burleigh
Dean Wells, member for Murrumba
I complained that, on 19 April 2005, Russell Pearce, Acting Director Complaints Services, CMC, had written to me to advise me that he had "accepted" the Education Queensland "internal review" of my complaint, despite the fact that -
A significant conflict of interest on political grounds in the District Office had affected my case -
but the "internal reviewer" had not been allowed to ask any questions about this conflict of interest!
26 February 2003
5:44 PM
I emailed ThePremier@premiers.qld.gov.au
I made a full disclosure to Peter Beattie of the conflict of interest (a political relationship) in the District Office that was affecting my complaint.
I did not copy this email to anybody.
Dear Mr Beattie,
... I have tried very hard for two years to deal with this situation in a way that does no harm to the Labor party. I have been an active Labor party member and an active union member for several years.
I do not want to do anything to harm the Labor party - but I do not want to suffer injustice just BECAUSE I am a member of the Labor party. ...
... both (school administrator G.R.) (the bully) and I were Labor party members when this all began. We both worked for (I disclosed the political relationship that had created a conflict of interest in the District Office) . Because I did not want to cause friction in the local groups I have dropped out of all activities with the Labor party since this all began two years ago. I have avoided involving the local members in the problem.
But it meant that I had to deal with it alone.
Because (of the conflict of interest) I was very reluctant to make a formal complaint to the Industrial Relations Tribunal with the resulting publicity. I tried very hard to deal with the bullying informally. ...
I feel that I have tried to "do the right thing" by the Labor party and I have suffered because of it.
And that other teachers have now been negligently exposed to a toxic environment....
Mr Beattie, the corruption (for lack of a better word) must stop somewhere.
Please show me that my faith in the Labor party was not misplaced. ...
have the integrity to deal with this bully. ...
If you, the Premier, will do nothing about this situation - well I will have to abandon all hope of the Labor party. ...
This email was received by Michele Rice, the Office of the Premier on Thursday , 27 February 2003 at 7:51 AM.
29 June 2003
2:06 PM
I re-sent the full disclosure to Peter Beattie dated 26 February 2003 to the Office of the Premier.
The Office of the Public Service Commissioner have a copy of this full disclosure. You can see the first part of the email at the bottom of OPS 70524 FOLIO 23
I also disclosed this conflict of interest in an email to Ombudsman R.S, copied to mailbox@cmc.qld.gov.au on November 6 2003 at 12:40 (it is the second part of this document).
And I discussed this disclosure again a) with an Ombudsman and b) with Eve Gardiner, CMC officer, during lengthy phone conversations on 26 November 2003.
The CMC obviously handed the disclosure to Education Queensland because Education Queensland have several copies of this disclosure in -
a) Administrative Law Services Branch FOI 2733 Files X and Y
and also in
b) Workforce Standards and Performance Unit 2606 files E and F.
But my disclosure of discrimination and conflict of interest on political grounds - my main disclosure to the CMC - was not provided to the Education Queensland "internal reviewer" of my complaint.
My responses to the falsified "records" were "not considered" by the "internal reviewer".
In view of the CMC's conduct in simply "accepting" this earlier Education Queensland "internal review", I asked the PCMC to support my request to be allowed to read the Verifact Commercial Investigation Report BEFORE the CMC accepted it, declared the investigation finalised and refused to allow me to respond to the report.
4 January 2007
The CMC advised me that ...
"the department considers that it has done all that it can to address your concerns. ... I would ask that you please refrain from sending any further emails or other correspondence to, and from telephoning, the CMC."
In making this decision the CMC are fully aware that -
(these real or imaginary "secret allegations" concerning me are described in more detail at http://www.badapplebullies.com/investigations.htm)
for the past six and a half years Education Queensland senior officers have refuse to show me the lot of allegations on lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened. or to explain what these secret allegations were.
to know what the allegations were that triggered acting principal G.R.'s and usual principal E.L.'s seemingly irrational series of decisions concerning me,
the opportunity to respond to the allegations against me,
the opportunity to have my responses to the allegations considered,
the opportunity to be found innocent of these allegations
and to have the decision to punish me officially struck off my file.
to this date, 2 June 2008, I have not been allowed to read the Verifact Commercial Investigation report or to respond to the report.
At no stage of this dysfunctional / incompetent / corrupt Education Queensland / CMC / PCMC "process" have I been allowed Natural Justice.
And on 23 February 2007 the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee finally replied to my letter dated 16 July 2006.
They said that they had no jurisdiction in relation to Education Queensland.
The CMC chairperson had reviewed my case and he had told the PCMC that the CMC officers had behaved appropriately.
And the PCMC had simply accepted the advice of the CMC chairperson.
Paul Hoolihan, Chairperson and Member for Keppel is paid $14,805 extra a year to chair the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee.
And each of the other committee members is paid and extra $7583 a year to sit on the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee.
In simply accepting the decision of the CMC to "turn a blind eye" to -
to bully Queensland teachers into ill health retirement,
these well-paid members of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee have passively facilitated the ongoing abuse of all Queensland teachers.
Queensland teachers are bullied at work because Education Queensland Bad Apple Bully-Mobs know that the dysfunctional / incompetent / corrupt Education Queensland / CMC / PCMC "process" will allow them to bully teachers.
These politicians have surrendered power to a bunch of unelected nobodies.
The nobodies who run the CMC and other such "authorities", administering billions in public money.
The actions of these nobodies are rarely scrutinised.
They wield enormous power.
Their decisions have a profound impact on our lives.
Politicians want to shield themselves from unpopular decisions.
So they appoint these nobodies.
Unbridled power in Australia now rests in the hands of a few commissions and authorities that are almost totally unaccountable to the people.
Many are overtly secretive and run by almost invisible men.
Invisible men who respond to your complaints with letters full of mysteries and riddles.
They put out obscure annual reports written in code.
Millions are spent each year without proper accountability in Queensland because the work is outsourced to private investigation companies not subject to Freedom of Information searches.
Politicians have outsourced decision-making.
Accountability is avoided.
Queensland politicians don't even need to have morals - they have out-sourced their own moral dilemmas by setting up an Integrity Commission.
Retired High Court judge, Ian Callinan, QC, commented -
"By the use of such authorities, (government) manages to deflect questioning and criticism to which it might otherwise be subjected."
In other words, gutless politicians have handed over our democracy to faceless bureaucrats.
Barrister Dr David Solomon lead a 2008 review into the Queensland Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.
Robert Needham, chairman of the CMC, made a submission to the review.
He said that information concerning some CMC functions should not be available under FOI.
Robert Needham said access to documents by third parties, particularly where allegations against a public official were not substantiated, "has the potential to cause serious damage to reputations and undermine public confidence in the CMC".
The Bad Apple Bullies webmaster has no confidence in the CMC now, Mr Needham.
Your CMC practice of allowing the people who are the subject of a complaint to investigate themselves - or to tightly control the investigation into their own conduct - is wide open to abuse.
The Bad Apple Bullies webmaster also made a submission to the FOI review, Mr Needham.
It can be found at-
"We have seen these internal investigations in the past. They're held, no result is ever known, no action is ever taken."
Why do the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission staff cut corners on investigations?
And
management consistently ignore bullying complaints.
And
The CMC - and other Queensland law enforcement and criminal justice agencies - don't seem to be getting enough funding to do their job properly.
And
The 2007 Organisational Climate Survey - an independent report into the culture of the CMC - was completed in August 2007.
It was damning.
"We don't have enough staff ... and we are often required to rush or cut corners," a staff member said in the report.
"(We are) way overloaded with work. .."
"Senior staff intimidate staff on a regular basis."
Staff retention is highlighted as a major problem, with one employee complaining that limited advancement opportunities were being hampered by questionable promotion decisions from management.
One of the worst areas was Witness Protection and Operations Support, where the 43 staff recorded the lowest levels of job satisfaction while distress and workloads were highest.
It must be pretty horrible to come to work every day and know that you are ruining the lives of decent people because you haven't got the time to do your job properly.
And it is even more horrible for the decent Queenslanders who are having their lives ruined by questionable CMC decisions.
The Crime and Misconduct Commission chairman Robert Needham's leadership team was slammed as being unable to inspire and poor role models.
But staff said that Mr Needham was "fearless in pusuing corruption" and was unconcerned about the politics of his position.
There was positive feedback for former commissioner Julie Cork, who quit last month.
When the CMC was the CJC (Criminal Justice Commission), it had a statutory obligation of -
'monitoring and reporting on the suitability, sufficiency and use of law enforcement resources
and
the sufficiency of funding for law enforcement and criminal justice agencies
including
the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Legal Aid Commission'.
But in 2002, when the CJC became the CMC (Crime and Misconduct Commission), there was bit of swifty pulled in the legislative reshuffle, and that power was not passed on to the new CMC.
So where did the review power move to in 2002?
In 2002 the Act was amended and this research and monitoring function was moved from the CMC's responsibilities to the Premier's Department.
The `independence' of any assessment - of the suitability, sufficiency and use of law enforcement resources and the sufficiency of funding for law enforcement and criminal justice agencies - should surely be seen as questionable, if not outright laughable.
Andrew Boe, the Brisbane solicitor who successfully forced the CJC to pull its finger out in this regard in 1993 (courtesy of an Appeal Court judgement in his favour) is appalled at this situation.
"I find it concerning that such an important responsibility was moved into the political wing of government. This must explain why funding shortcomings rarely reach the light of day," Mr Boe said.
But now that the matter rests squarely with the Premier's Department, don't expect any relief soon.
After all, it's only justice, it's not as though it is something really important, like a car race or the construction of a nice new footy stadium.
Let's deal with the bad apples!
