What happens when you make a complaint to the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission ( CMC )?
Will the CMC actually investigate your complaint?
First, some facts:
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."
Now - the real-life experiences on which these conclusions are based:
In December 2000 I was spending many hours every evening searching the internet, trying to find some information on the Diminished Work Performance Process ( DWP - now called MUP - Managing Unsatisfactory Performance ).
12 December 2000
6:18 PM I emailed Human Resources at Education Queensland Head Office.
"Subject: Help
I am a LOTE (Indonesian) 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 days 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?"
(One month later, in January 2001, an Education Queensland industrial officer mailed me a copy of the Grievance Policy. )
Later that same evening I emailed Human Resources at Education Queensland Head Office 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 (now called CMC - Crime and Misconduct Commission) liaison person.
Who would be the CJC liaison person in the Cairns area?"
Nobody ever answered this second email.
Because the Queensland Teacher's Union ( QTU ) organiser had told me that there was no hope at all of justice, that he had never known a Queensland teacher's Grievance to be supported, this silence from the CJC liaison officer seemed very frightening to me.
It seemed to support the QTU organiser's advice to me that the whole Education Queensland Grievance process was corrupt.
But a few hours later...
On the afternoon of Wednesday 13 December 2000, I phoned another QTU organiser in Brisbane ( I have been asked by Macrossans, the QTU solicitors, to conceal the name of this QTU organiser ) from a phone in my office at school.
This particular organiser was, I understood, supposed to support women teachers and LOTE (Languages other than English) teachers.
The local QTU organiser had warned me that I should not say anything that I could not prove, so I was afraid to discuss the political situation at the school and the District Office with this QTU organiser in the Brisbane Office.
Mrs GR and I were both active members of the Labor party.
We had first met at a Labor party function in late 2008.
During the early months of 2009, Mrs GR and I would often sit together at lunchtimes and discuss our Labor party activities.
We worked on a stall together at the local "show" and joked about being the Lynch-Mob State College Branch of the Labor party.
Then Mrs GR organised a dinner for Judy Spence at the home of the Local Member.
I spoke to Judy Spence about a Body-Corporate issue.
I was not very happy with Judy Spence's response.
( She advised me to tell somebody else. )
For this and other reasons -
- the Republic was a big issue at the time, and it was presumed that if you were Labor, you were pro-republic and anti-Brit.
There was a level of Labor party hostility to the Queen and to middle-class British people, middle-class British values, etc.
This was quite upsetting to me because, having been born in England, I respected the Queen and I respected middle-class British values -
- I looked around the group of people at this event, realised that I really had nothing in common with them, and decided to become less involved with the Labor Party.
I told Mrs GR that I had decided to become less involved in the Labor party.
When I told her this, Mrs GR urged me several times to join her own branch of the Labor party.
She told me that they met in a pub, the meetings were very social, etc
But I didn't want to drive out to the beaches to sit in a noisy pub.
And I found meetings boring.
So I did not joined her branch, and Mrs GR's behaviour towards me became increasingly aggressive.
I had requested a transfer to another school in 2000 because I was worried by Mrs GR's increasing aggression.
I told the principal of my base school - White-Wash State School - that there were "problems" at Lynch-Mob State College and that I did not want to work there full-time the next year.
I did not explain the "problems" to him because I felt that it would be unprofessional.
He arranged for me to go to the District office and discuss a transfer to Brisbane with the Staffing Officer.
I wanted to move out of LOTE (teaching Indonesian) and back to ESL (English as Second Language) in which I had very good qualifications.
But the Staffing Officer told me that a transfer would be very difficult.
And Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL spoke to me twice, very charmingly, and persuaded me to stay at Lynch-Mob State College in 2000.
He assured me that he would deal with the problems at the school.
During one school lunchtime in early 2000, I was rabbitting on about Judy Spence -
- there is a possibility that I may have been rabbitting on about Judy Spence rather too much at this time -
- when Mrs GR suddnly turned on me in a very, very aggressive manner.
She told me what Judy Spence thought about the situation.
I was startled to realise that Mrs GR seemed to know exactly what Judy Spence had said to me.
I was very, very shocked to realise that my acting principal had been discussing me - and presumably the fact that I had been rabbitting on about her at school lunchtimes - with Judy Spence, a Queensland government Minister.
I was very shocked by Mrs GR's aggression.
I decided on the spot never to discuss anything to do with the Labor party with Mrs GR again.
And I never did.
When Mr EL went on leave during Term 4 2000, I felt very exposed to Mrs GR's aggression and to (what seemed to me to be) her irrational and impulsive behaviour.
Unsupervised groups of Grade 7 students had been roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes, for at least the past two terms.
During Term 3 2000 I had discussed the problem with usual principal Mr EL.
He told me that several other teachers had complained to him about the number of children who were wandering about the school, disturbing their classes.
He spoke to the staff at a staff meeting, asking teachers not to send so many students around the school on "messages".
During Term 4 2000, after usual principal EL had gone on leave, it became clear to me that the Grade 7 teachers were not actually sending these students "on messages".
The students were simply roaming about the school in unsupervised groups.
And when I arrived at the Grade 7 classrooms to take LOTE, many students were missing from some of the classrooms.
I had no real way of knowing where they were.
I did not know who was responsible for their safety.
I asked Lynch- Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR for her support in dealing with the situation.
She advised me to discuss the situation at a staff meeting on 10 November 2000.
She put it on the white-board agenda for the staff meeting.
She moved it to the top of the Staff Meeting agenda.
But Mrs GR spoke before me at the staff meeting.
Mrs GR seemed to defame me to the staff - at considerable length.
This had not been on the Staff Meeting agenda.
Mrs GR made me ill with the shock of her irrational comments to the staff concerning me.
I had never had to deal with such irrational and unprofessional behaviour by a school principal.
I was advised by the QTU and the District Office Staff Welfare Officer to ask for a mediated meeting with Mrs GR.
But when I asked for mediation, Mrs GR refused to meet me for mediation.
She "span" the mediated meeting ( that I been advised by the QTU and the Staff Welfare Officer to request ) into a meeting to discuss putting me on Diminished Workplace Performance.
And two days after this "mediated meeting", Mrs GR gave me a letter to advise me that she had spoken to the usual principal, Mr EL -
- who was on leave at the time, and who had not discussed the situation with me -
- and that "he is in agreement that the ( DWP ) process is warranted".
No principal had ever spoken to me with the malice that Mrs GR spoke to me during the "mediated meeting".
Her behaviour towards me seemed to be totally irrational.
The only reason that I could think of that would explain Mrs GR's feelings of malice towards me, was that she felt angry with me because I would not join her branch of the Labor party.
I told the local QTU organiser that I was going to make a Grievance that "she is doing this to me because I would not join her branch of the Labor party".
The local QTU organiser had told me that I should be careful not to say anything that I could not prove.
So I was afraid to discuss the political situation in the school and the District Office with the QTU organiser in the Brisbane Office ( whose name I have concealed at the request of Macrossans, the QTU solicitors ).
I just described the bullying itself and asked this QTU organiser in the Brisbane office if I could make a complaint to the CJC ( now called the CMC ) because I had been put on the DWP for trying to discuss the number of children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms, roaming around the school.
The QTU organiser in the Brisbane office advised me that I could not complain to the CJC that I was being victimised for being a whistleblower.
She advised me that I needed to make a Grievance about the situation in the next few days.
Because once the DWP process actually began, I would not be allowed to make a grievance.
The local QTU organiser had not explained this to me.
And I had not been given a copy of the Education Queensland Grievance process.
Or of the DWP process.
In 2004 I found a FOI document - the scribbles on sticky-note 2421 F 60 - that suggest to me that the specialist teacher in the next room listened-in to my conversation with the QTU Organiser in the Brisbane office, and that she may have thought that I was making a complaint to the CMC.
Her phone number is on this sticky-note.
I had the impression, after my phone call to the QTU organiser in the Brisbane office, that this teacher was discussing me with somebody on the phone.
And I kept noticing her staring at me in a wide-eyed, amazed sort of way.
Or maybe the QTU organiser in the Brisbane Office herself rang the Lynch-Mob State College to "tip off" the acting principal that I was thinking of making a CMC complaint or a Grievance about her abuse of the DWP process.
Anyway, somebody must have "tipped off" the usual principal, because the next day, -
- the day after my "I believe this may be a public interest disclosure ... Who would be the CJC liaison person in the Cairns area?"email to Human Resources and my phone call to the QTU organiser in the Brisbane Office -
Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL (who had been on leave all term and who had not yet discussed acting principal Mrs GR's behaviour with me) 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 alerted Mr EL to the fact that I was trying to make a disclosure?
Or had Mr EL been sent to me by the CMC Liaison officer so that I could make a disclosure to him?
But Mr EL's own behaviour seemed to be part of the problem.
In her letter to me dated 29 November 2000, Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR had written:
"I have spoken to him (usual principal Mr EL) about the matter and he is in agreement that the (DWP) process is warranted."
I had no idea what to make of acting principal Mrs GR's claim.
How could the usual principal Mr EL -
- how could Mr EL possibly have agreed that I should be put on DWP, before discussing the situation with me?
It did not make sense to me.
I presumed that acting principal Mrs GR must be lying about Mr EL's behaviour.
So I had no idea what to make of Mr EL'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.
5 February 2001
I met Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL to listen to him read his Report on his investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance about acting principal Mrs GR's abuse of the DWP process.
Mrs GR was also at this meeting.
During the meeting, acting principal Mrs GR threatened five times that "action would be taken against me" if I continued to complain about her behaviour.
The real purpose of the meeting seemed to be to provide Mrs GR with the opportunity to threaten me.
So I was afraid to try to contact the Education Queensland CMC Liaison officer again for several months.
I had no real idea if the bullying was a Public Interest Disclosure ( PID ) at this stage.
I just wanted to ask the advice of the CMC Liaison officer.
6 July 2001
I phoned the CMC advisory line.
CMC officer Diana Mulcahy made a "record" of the phone call.
I did not disclose the political situation to Diana.
Diana Mulcahy's notes seem to be an honest "record".
Document 1 attached to CMC letter to me dated 6 July 2006.
9 July 2002
I retired on the grounds of ill health.
I was very, very grateful to be able to escape the corruption.
I respected and trusted the District Director absolutely.
On the day that I retired he twice assured me that he had the bullying under control.
I believed that we had dealt with a very difficult situation - Mrs GR's abuse and the political relationships that were affecting the situation - informally but effectively.
Monday 15 July 2002
Six days after I had retired on the grounds of ill health.
4:49 pm I emailed Mrs GN, Principal Personnel Officer in The District Office-
"Anna Bligh has asked me to contact the Director-General by email to discuss the problems with the union response to bullying.
I will make it clear that I am happy with the District response to the situation. ...
I have no further problems with Education Queensland, the District or the school.
The grievance system gave me the opportunity to "have my say" and so, in my opinion, it worked well."
At this stage I believed that the abuse was over.
It was a very great relief.
I felt like my life was beginning again.
I had no idea that I was being tricked.
And that the abuse was going to continue to this date, 25 January, 2010.
6:05 pm Principal Personnel Officer Mrs GN sent my email to the District Director.
"FYI"
6:24 pm The District Director emailed Mrs GN and Ms CHR, Principal Advisor - Regional Services, The District Office.
"We should frame this one.
Well done all."
And on Tuesday 16 July at 7:06 am, Ms CHR, Principal Advisor - Regional Services, sent a copy of the District Director's email to Bill Jeffs, the Education Queensland / CMC Liaison officer.
So -
were "all" congratulating each other.
2469 File G Human Resource Services Branch document 202, number at top right hand corner of document.
2733 File M Administrative Law Services Branch document 7, number at bottom of document.
Why?
What was so funny?
Why did my email need to be framed by "all"?
Because, of course, I had been comprehensively tricked.
I had been assured - twice - that the bullying was under control.
But actually -
2875 File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit document 221, number at bottom of page.
30 September 2002
When Mrs GR had attacked me, I had immediately dropped out of all Labor party activities.
I did not want to cause problems for the two Labor Local Members, both of whom I respected and trusted.
I did not hold the Local Members responsible for Mrs GR's behaviour.
I knew that they had difficulty in finding people who were willing to become actively involved in local political activites, and that they had to 'do their best" with quite a "mixed bunch" of supporters.
But, in September 2002 I believed that the situation had been resolved at last and that I could now enjoy my retirement doing voluntary work, helping around the office of Local Member B.
So I went along to an evening meeting of Local Member B's branch, the Branch that I had been a member of for several years.
During this meeting I said how grateful I was that I had been able to meet Anna Bligh, the Minister of Education at that time, at the Community Cabinet meeting and that a problem that I had discussed with the Minister had been sorted out.
Wasn't the Labor party wonderful?
But during the meeing Local Member B's behaviour towards me seemed to be very strange.
She seemed to hint to the group two or three times that my application to re-join the Labor party would not be accepted by "Head Office".
I was bewildered.
Why wouldn't my application be accepted?
I had tried to deal with Mrs GR's bullying in the best way possible for the Labor party.
And the situation had now been resolved informally.
So why would the Labor party refuse to accept me back as a member?
My application for membership of the Labor party was then "lost", twice.
And all invitations to local Labor party events stopped.
This was when I began to suspect that something was "going on".
One of the members of the Labor party who was present at that meeting later began to stalk me -
http://www.badapplebullies.com/victimimpactstatement.htm
10 January 2003
I spoke to an officer on the CMC advisory line.
I did not disclose to her the political situation at the school or the District office.
I just explained that I had been bullied, and that on the day of my retirement I had been assured - twice - by the District Director that the bullying was under control.
But that I now realised that the bully had actually been given a significant promotion opportunity, as acting principal of a large local school, a few days after my retirement.
And I had just been told that this promotion had been "confirmed".
I said that this promotion of the bully was not what the District Director had led me to expect during our meeting.
And that I felt that I had been significantly tricked.
The CMC officer said that the situation could be "marginal misconduct".
I rang Bill Jeffs, the Education Queensland CMC Liaison Officer.
I explained the situation to him.
Bill Jeffs said that it was not misconduct.
I said that that seemed strange, because a CMC officer had just advised me that it might be misconduct.
Bill Jeffs asked me if the CMC officer had said that it was the behaviour of the District Director that was misconduct.
Bill Jeffs said that the Education Queensland Ethical Standards Unit would "take a look at it".
20 January 2003
I rang the CMC advisory line again.
I spoke to Linda.
When I told Linda my name I was disconnected.
When I rang back again I was connected to Eve Gardiner.
Eve read out a list of the dates on which I had contacted the CMC.
She seemed to be very annoyed with me.
I was shocked.
I had rung the CMC for advice.
I had not anticipated that the CMC would be keeping records of my phone calls and that they would become annoyed with me for seeking their advice on how to deal with the situation.
Eve said that I could send a complaint to the CMC but the Ombudsman's department was the department that reviews decisions.
Eve advised me to complain to the Ombudsman.
26 February 2003
5:44 PM
I emailed Peter Beattie at The Premier's Office.
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 (Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR) (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.
28 February 2003
I flew to Brisbane and spoke to John Ryan, Director, Human Resource Operations, about my concerns.
I did not disclose the political situation at the school or the District Office to John Ryan.
I explained that I had made a grievance about the systemic abuse of the DWP process and Grievance process to bully classroom teachers.
The District Director had met me on the day of my retirement and had twice assured me that the bullying was under control.
But actually the bully seemed to have been promoted a few days later.
And now the promotion had been confirmed.
What was going on?
Who could possibly have given the bully a reference?
I was so stressed by the situation that the right side of my face was continually twitching.
I had to hold the right side of my face still so that I could speak to John Ryan.
John Ryan promised to investigate.
23 April 2003
John Ryan wrote to me, making various offensive statements concerning me.
His opinions concerning me seemed to be based on malicious gossip:
"I have enquired into the background surrounding your grievance ...
I am advised ...
I am further advised ...
I am of the view ...
I am satisfied ...
I now consider this matter to be finalised and I have instructed that all correspondence files should note this matter must not be discussed with you any further."
29 June 2003
2:06 PM
I re-sent the full 26 February 2003 disclosure to Peter Beattie to the Office of the Premier again.
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
Saturday 9 August 2003
4:21 pm I emailed a reponse to John Ryan's 23 April 2003 letter to me to The Premier.
I copied the email to -
the Ombudsman,
Education Queensland Human Resources,
Anna Bligh,
and the CMC.
Education Queensland have a copy of my response at 2606 File E documents 100-111 numbered backwards at the top right hand corner of the documents.
This file 2606 E seems to be the file of documents that the CMC handed to Education Queensland for investigation on 13 February 2004.
It is headed "Matters Assessed MI-03-0035".
I complained that John Ryan had told me that he would investigate my concerns about Mrs GR's promotion.
But he had "investigated" only in the sense that he had written down what the people who bullied me had told him to write.
I had not been allowed to respond to these new allegations before his report was written.
I had not been allowed Natural Justice.
The CMC "record" that they received my complaint MI-03-0035 on 9 August 2003.
But they did not actually hand my complaint to Education Queensland till 13 February 2004, several weeks after I had disclosed to Eve Gardiner - both in writing and during a phone conversation - the conflict of interest on political grounds that seemed to be affecting my case.
26 August 2003
Eve Gardiner and Peter Jones seem to have prepared the 3 September 2003 letter to me.
"Noted that matter has already been discussed with CP (i.e. the complainant - me) / Liaison Officer.
Action taken:
"no record of any contact between CMC and Ed Qld.
(Note the change of story here.
First these CMC officers say that the matter has been discussed with the Liaison Officer.
Then they say that there is no record of any contact between CMC and Ed QLD.)
CP (complainant - me) has discussed?
Letter drafted to CP."
Case Management Plan MI-03-0035
But there had been some contact between the CMC and Education Queensland.
Because during an earlier phone call Eve had said to me, "It wasn't bullying."
I had been bewildered by Eve's comment.
I knew that I had been bullied because of the malicious manner in which Lynch-Mob State College Mrs GR had spoken to me.
I told Eve that Mrs GR had not been into my classroom for twelve months, so how could Mrs GR possibly claim to have sudden "concerns" about me?
Eve said that somebody else may have been delegated to watch me teach.
I told Eve that this had not happened.
Nobody had been delegated to watch me teach.
Eve said that "in these cases the CMC believed the principal".
So I knew that Eve Gardiner had been in contact with the Department of Education, and she had been "fobbed off" with this untruthful story.
And Eve Gardiner told me about this before 26 November 2003.
Which gave me the impression that Eve Gardiner had either -
spoken to Mr EL and Mrs GR and been told this false story that somebody had been delegated to watch me teach.
And the records of this phone conversation are being concealed from me to this date, 13 April 2009.
or had seen a document in which this false claim had been made. (Possibly the "lost" Cairns District Office report discussed by Kim Newman and Ms CHR, Principal Advisor - Regional Services on 27 January 2006.)
And the document in which this false claim was made is being concealed from me to this date, 25 January, 2010.
When the 2469 documents (the file of falsified documents that Mr EL sent to the District office after my retirement, creating the false impression that they had been discussed with me during his investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance) were released to me after 12 July 2004 -
I discovered 2469 F Document 72 (number at the top right hand corner ), Lynch-Mob State College acting deputy principal Miss AL's falsified record dated 13 October 2000 .
The 2469 version of Document 72 had been re-falsified with a hand-written note by acting principal Mrs GR -
"Confidential request made to (Grade 7 teacher) Leigh to act as "supportive colleague" to (my name) to try to give her some positive BM ( behaviour management) strategies.
Leigh agreed to try to do this."
Which suggests to me that Eve Gardiner knew about this falsified claim, and possibly also about the mass of falsified records hidden on my Education Queensland files, before November 2003.
3 September 2003
Robert Walker, Executive Legal Officer, Receivals and Assessments Unit, Complaints Services, CMC, wrote to me in response to my 9 August 2003 letter to The Premier.
"It is not considered the behaviour described in your concerns could, if proved, amount to official misconduct as defined in the Act as the information could not, if proved, amount to a criminal offence or provide reasonable grounds to warrant dismissal.
Accordingly, the CMC is unable to deal with your concerns."
So, on 3 September 2003, the CMC did not intend to do anything about my complaint.
And there is no record in the "case management plan MI-03-0035" of my disclosure of the political situation to Eve Gardiner on 26 November 2003.
But after my 26 November 2003 phone call, the CMC officers were suddenly in a rush to send my complaint to the Department for investigation.
6 November 2003
I disclosed the political situation and the conflict of interest in the District office in an email to Ombudsman R.S.
I copied the email to the CMC at 12:40 (it is the second part of this document).
2606 File E Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, documents 135-180. This is the original document. The disclosure of the discrimination on the grounds of political belief / conflict of interest is at the end of this document.
"Email received addressed to (the ombudsman).
Allocated to MEG (Eve Gardiner).
MEG to discuss with (the Ombudsman)."
26 November 2003
I discussed the political relationships that were affecting my "case", including the conflict of interest in the District office-
a) with an Ombudsman
b) and with Eve Gardiner, CMC officer, during lengthy phone conversations.
This was the first time that I had discussed the political situation with a CMC officer.
It was not a good experience.
Eve Gardiner recorded the phone call in the Activity Register Report MI-03-0035, page 1-
" .. CP said she had been discriminated against for her political beliefs by Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR.
To support this allegation, CP said that both she and CP had been members of the Labor party, but that she (CP) left the Labor party and this is the reason for the discrimination."
It is very easy for a CMC officer to make your complaint sound ridiculous.
Partly because what has been done to you is so outrageous, that it seems to be ridiculous.
"She is not aware of any other non-Labor party person being discriminated against."
To the best of my knowledge, there was no other member of staff at the school who was a Labor party member and who had refused to join Mrs GR's branch of the Labor party.
"CP also stated that Mrs GR is the wife of the District Director of Education Queensland, so there is a conflict of interest."
This is not what I told Eve.
It is so easy for a CMC officer to carelessly or maliciously reduce the record of your complaint to gibberish.
Eve Gardiner seems to have made an undated and unsigned "record" of my phone call-
"Peter, re your message to remind you about what we'd discussed:
"CP (me - the complainant) complained that I had not understood her complaint / allegation.
(I'd used one of her headings 'This letter demonstrates the lack of effective leadership in Education Queensland. A "blind eye" has been turned to the workplace bullying'."
In these notes Eve is quoting from my 9 August 2003 response to John Ryan's letter to me 2606 File E documents 100-111.
But on 26 November 2003 I had discussed with Eve my 6 November 2003 full disclosure of the political situation.
Eve does not seem to have made any written record of my disclosure of the political situation.
"CP then complained that this was not what she was alleging."
Notice that Eve avoids actually recording my disclosure of the political situation.
"She has sent numerous emails since."
I had been very worried about Eve's behaviour during our phone call.
I was worried that Eve was not recording my disclosure to her accurately.
Notice that Eve avoids actually recording the contents of my emails.
Eve seems to "spin" the problem.
In Eve's "records" the problem becomes my emails.
"... as well as telephone converstions (I have entered them briefly into the activity register)."
Note the way in which Eve avoids actually recording the disclosure of the political situation that I had made to her during that phone call.
"The emails continue, and another one has been received today (I've just got the file back from Registry)"
Note the way in which Eve again avoids actually recording what my emails were about.
Eve again seems to "spin" my emails into being the problem.
"CP has made numerous allegations, including that she has been stalked by Mrs GR, and was discriminated (sic) by Mrs GR, however, CP has continued to send documentation and the allegations have been, to say the least, copious.'
Eve trivialises my allegation.
Note Eve's lack of respect for me as a complainant.
"CP's new email today lists 31 allegations."
Eve neglects to point out that during our phone call she had told me that I had to make allegations.
Eve told me that my letter of complaint to the CMC should have begun with a list of allegations.
I made this list in response to Eve's advice to me.
"It seems to be a workplace bullying and harassment issue, however, from the information in the emails and having spoken to CP, I would have doubts about her credibility."
Eve Gardiner would have had no doubts at all about my credibility.
Note how CMC decisions concerning you can be based on "feelings" that CMC officers claim to have about you, not on the facts of the situation.
And you cannot prove that the CMC officers did not have these "feelings" about you.
"When we spoke, you were going to consider the matter for assessment - if it's to be sent to Dept, can I suggest it's done so quickly for obvious reasons."
File No. MI-03-0035 Part 1 Document 4 attached to CMC letter to me dated 6 July 2006.
So, on 3 September 2003 the CMC wrote to me to tell me that they were not going to take any action on my complaint.
But after my 26 November 2003 phone call the CMC officers are suddenly in a rush to send my complaint to the Department for investigation.
And they have not made any written record of my 26 November 2003 disclosure to Eve Gardiner - presumably the reason for their change of heart.
" ... if it's to be sent to Dept, can I suggest it's done so quickly for obvious reasons."
What were the "obvious reasons" why Eve Gardiner wanted my complaint sent to Education Queensland quickly?
Because I had made an FOI application for the documents that explained the "secret reason" why I "had to be" put on DWP?
It would have been obvious to Education Queensland officers and CMC officers that I was going to discover the mass of falsified "records" that had been secretly placed on my Education Queensland files.
Were the CMC officers in a rush to get my complaint to Education Queensland before I found the falsified "records"?
So that the Education Queensland "investigation" into my complaint could be based on the falsified records?
So that "no evidence" could be found of the bullying?
Following the suggestions made to me by Eve Gardiner during our phone call, I edited my disclosure and emailed it to Eve Gardiner CMC again at 5:32 PM and to the Ombudsman at 7:03 PM on the evening of Wednesday 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.
31 December 2004
This is the first record on the Case Management Plan MI-03-0035 since 25 August 2003.
Kim Davies and Peter jones were asked to "examine latest correspondence from CP and determine whether any further assessment is required."
Still no mention of the disclosure that I made to Eve on 26 November 2003.
5 January 2004
"Matter is currently with MEG (Eve Gardiner) in view of ongoing volume of material provided by CP."
The CMC officers do not see the corruption as the problem.
They see your complaint about the corruption as the problem.
Eve Gardiner, CMC officer, stated:
"Rang CP (complainant - me) to advise of determination, however the number CP initially provided is the (Eve names Lynch-Mob State College 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 Lynch-Mob State College, the school where usual principal E.L. was working, on Thursday 5 February 2004?
Saturday 7 February 2004
The Labor party won the Queensland state election.
Monday 9 February 2004
Eve Gardiner emailed me and asked me to phone her so that she could discuss "the CMC's determination of your complaint".
She told me that the CMC were going to hand my complaint to Education Queensland.
25 March 2004
I called the CMC advisory line.
I spoke to Lee-Anne.
She switched me to Eve Gardiner.
Eve told me that Education Queensland could refuse to investigate my complaint and that the CMC could not intervene.
Ken Smith, the Director-General, was head of his department and neither the Premier nor the Minister could intervene.
I could appeal the decsision with the Ombudsman.
Eve told me that the CMC received many complaints.
There were problems in all workplaces.
My case was no different to any other case.
I had the impression that Eve was suggesting to me that she did not believe that I was being treated badly for political reasons.
26 March 2004
I received the first FOI 2421 documents.
11:12 am I reported to David Turner, the Education Queensland FOI officer that document 2421 F 61 had been falsified.
"What should I do about falsified documents?
Who should I report this to?"
11:18 am I reported to the QTU that one of my documents had been falsified.
3:00 pm I emailed Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland A/ FOI Co-ordinator:
"I notice that in File F 56 there is a note from a parent.
You have denied access to it because you state that it deals with the grievance process that I was involved with.
I was not told that a parent had complained / asked for their child to be withdrawn from LOTE.
I was never shown this letter.
In what sense was it part of the grievance process?"
I rang my solicitor.
I rang my Local Member.
I rang the QTU. I was told to ring back on Monday.
I rang Stephannie Kalas. I was told that she would ring back on Monday.
4:21 pm an email arrived from an unnamed person at Correspondence.EXECLEGL@qed.qld.gov.au
"Attached please find response to your email received on 19 February 2004.
If you are still unable to open the attachment please let me know by return email and I will post the original signed letter."
When I tried to reply to this email I was attacked by a backdoor subseven Trojan horse from computer no. 211 243 9 138 3586
The letter eventually arrived by mail.
It was dated 26 March 2004.
But the letter made no reference to my emails reporting that my documents had been falsified-
"I understand that you have lodged a complaint with the Crime and Misconduct Commission regarding your employment issues with Education Queensland and that these matters will be investigated in due course."
So, on 26 March 2004, the Education Queensland official records stated that my complaint was going to be investigated.
"As previously advised, Education Queensland will not be corresponding with you any further in regard to the employment matters you have raised.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Whittaker
Assistant Director-General, Shared Services."
Note the hidden message in the letter, the answer to my question -
"What should I do about falsified documents?
Who should I report this to?"
was nobody - nobody in Education Queensland was going to read my letters and emails reporting that my "official records" had been falsified.
12 April 2004
11:08 AM I emailed Keith Hynes and copied the email to the CMC and Ken Smith.
"Hello Mr Hynes
I understand that you are liaising with the CMC and that an impartial investigator will investigate my complaint.
When the investigator is appointed I would appreciate it if you would advise him or her that I wish to discuss certain points-
One of the FOI documents that was finally sent to me has been falsified. It purports to be a note to me but it was never given to me or discussed with me. I was given a different letter. Another document has been changed.
Several of the documents that were refused to me were never shown to me and never discussed with me. I strongly suspect that they may also have been falsified.
I wish to detail my complaint that I was victimised because I disclosed child abuse. And that I was discriminated against.
I wish to discuss certain conflict of interest issues."
I received no receipt for this email from the CMC, so I re-sent it on Tuesday 13 April at 8:14am and the CMC sent a receipt at 6:06 pm.
15 August 2004
2:30 pm Helen Couper of the CMC emailed Eve Gardiner.
She copied this email to Peter Jones, Diana Mulcahy and Linda Trewin.
"Subject: Complaints of (my name) MI-03-0035 & 04-1824
Morag,
The relevant files - or parts thereof - are on their way back to you, with the draft letter.
before we send the letter to (my name), can we ascertain from Ed Qld where their investigation is at."
So, on 15 August 2004 Helen Couper -
a) still seems to have believed that Education Queensland were conducting an investigation into my complaint.
She had not yet been told that the "investigation" had been down-graded to an "internal review" by a junior employee of Education Queensland.
And that is what is still on the official CMC records concerning me - that my complaint was being "investigated".
b) had not yet sent a certain letter to me - presumably a letter to advise me that my complaint that my Education Queensland "records" had been falsified was being investigated.
"If, for example, the investigation is complete and the allegations unsubstantiated, and / or they have decided that it is an unjustifiable use of resources to deal with the complaint any further, I do not want to exacerbate the matter by referring the further allegation to them to deal with."
So the "further allegation" - that my files had been filled with a mass of falsified documents - had still not been referred to Education Queensland to deal with on 15 August 2004.
The CMC officers knew that the Education Queensland "investigation" was being based on this mass of falsified documents.
But they did not want to "exacerbate" the situation by drawing this fact to the attention of Education Queensland.
You might find this CMC decision very, very strange.
"Please have a chat to me about the matter once you have spoken with Ed QLD.
Thanks
Helen"
Document 20 attached to CMC letter to me dated 6 July 2006.
18 October 2004
I phoned the CMC and spoke to Diana Mulcahy.
She seemed to become angry with me when I told her that the "investigation" was not an investigation, it was an "internal review", and that it was being conducted by an Education Queensland employeee under the direction of John Ryan.
Diana repeatedly told me that the CMC had been advised in May that there would be an external investigation.
I told Diana the name of the "internal reviewer".
I asked Diana to look up his name on the Education Queensland website.
Eventually Diana found the "internal reviewer"s name on the Education Queensland website and she had to acknowledge that he was an Education Queensland employee.
She told me that she would take the matter up with senior officers.
19 October 2004
I spoke to Diana Mulcahy again by phone.