Bad Apple Bullies

Bad Apple school principals and departmental officers bully classroom teachers into ill health and out of work.

Anna Bligh's Right To Information about your Right To Information application.

The Queensland Government has the happy habit of dealing with problems by changing the name of the problem.

They dealt with the problem of workplace bullying by changing the name of the problem to workplace harassment.

And the problems with the Queensland government Freedom of Information process were similarly resolved by changing the name of the problem to Right To Information.

That's progress.

Meanwhile, in 2009,  Anna Bligh's ministerial staff in the Department of Premier and Cabinet ( DPC ) received weekly status reports outlining future Right To Information decisions. 

The Department of Premier and Cabinet  ministerial staff were then invited to discuss applications with the Right To Information decision-makers in Anna Bligh's department.
 
 
In 2010 The Courier-Mail has learnt that the DPC has now told independent Right To Information units in other Queensland Government departments to produce fortnightly reports detailing -
  • the names of applicants
  • and what potentially embarrassing information they are seeking.
 
So - if you make a Right To Information application - the Department of Premier and Cabinet has the right to know what documents you have requested!
 
And the right to "discuss" your Right To Information documents with the RTI decision-maker!

 

This new Queensland Right To Information strategy allegedly breaches your confidentiality and privacy rights.

It risks political interference before decision-makers decide to block or approve your access to your documents.

 

Opposition Leader John-Paul Langbroek described the new Queensland Right To Information plan as "intrusion, manipulation and political interference".

What happens when you make a Freedom of Information Application to the Queensland Department of Education?

 
  • Most Queensland Government departments do not 'work' in any normal sense of the word. They are useless. But Freedom of Information works a bit. Sometimes it works for you and sometimes it works against you. But, on the whole, it is worth giving Freedom of Information a 'go'.

 

  • You must get all of the FOI documents before you make a complaint to the Ombudsman, the CMC or the ADCQ about workplace bullying, harassment, etc.. It is really important for you to understand that the Ombudsman, the CMC and the ADCQ will not search for anything. Actually it is very, very difficult to get them to even read your letters or the documentary evidence that you have found to support your complaint.

 

  • Tell the Education Queensland FOI officers and the officers working in the Office of the Information Commissioner as little as possible about your complaint. If you tell them why you are searching for the documents, these officers may come under significant pressure to "lose" the documents that you need.

 

  • Workplace bullying is not part of the normal role of a Queensland public servant. It is personalIt is a breach of the Education Queensland Code of Conduct. So, in theory, you should be entitled to FOI documents related to workplace bullying free of charge. But you may be told that your application is not personal and that you are going to have to pay high FOI fees. This seems to be a strategy. The thought of paying the high fees may worry you enough to "scare you off".

 

  • Your FOI application can be declared closed by an FOI officer without your knowledge or consent. This strategy forces you to start the FOI application process over again. It can delay your FOI application for many, many years. This strategy seriously disadvantages you because, during these many years of delay, Education Queensland officers can change jobs and retire. Then your documents can be destroyed or "lost". Or the Bad Apple Bullies can claim to be unable to remember anything about the bullying because "it was all so long ago!"

 

  • The documentation of the Education Queensland "decision-making process", or any other process at all really, is of a standard that is so poor it would be beyond the imagination of any ordinary person. Unsigned, undated notes concerning you can be made on loose scraps of paper or sticky-notes. These loose scraps of paper can suddenly "appear" in your official record years after the event. In this way huge changes can continually be made to the official "story". So you can never prove yourself innocent of any allegation, because yet another scrap of paper or sticky-note will appear and the allegation will be changed. You may conclude that the FOI process is being abused to facilitate this endless "magical" appearance of new scraps of paper that disadvantage you.

 

  • When you make an FOI application, the Department of Education can simply claim that all copies of a document have vanished. Decisions concerning you may have been based on the contents of this document, but when you apply for a copy of the document, the department can simply calim that all copies of the document have been "lost" or destroyed.

 

  • The Department of Education can provide you with copies of documents that have been "fuzzed up" on a fuzzy photocopier so that the words on the document cannot be read. This often seems to be done to documents that have had comments hand-written on them by senior public servants. The Information Commissioner will refuse to ask the Department to provide you with a legible copy of the document because, they say, you have been provided with a copy of the document. And it is not their responsibility if the document has been "fuzzed up" so that the words on it cannot be read.

 

  • If officers of the Information Commission phone you up and ask you to agree to put your FOI application "into abeyance" do NOT agree to this, however charmingly they speak to you. They will refuse to take your FOI application "out of abeyance" for two years. Then they will immediately declare your application "closed". They never intend to give you those documents.

 

  • The Department of Education will sometimes release a document to you that makes reference to another, earlier document that has never been released to you and that you know nothing about. The Information Commissioner will refuse to ask Education Queensland to release this document to you because it was written at an earlier time and the FOI Review for that time has been "closed". But how can you apply for a document that you know nothing about? How can you prove to the Information Commissioner that a document exists when you know nothing about the document? This Queensland Information Commission practice is disgracefully abusive.

 

  • Or, years after you first receive a document, you may suddenly realise the hidden implications of the document - you realise that the wording of the document suggests that another document is being concealed. Officers of the information Commission will refuse to search for the missing document because they have already declared the FOI search "closed".  This "closing" of the application by officers of the Information Commission may be convenient for the Information Commission, but it does not facilitate Freedom of Information or accountability.

 

  • Documents will be dribbled out to you very, very slowly. Then, suddenly, the last "batch" are sent to you and you have one month to try to get a clear overall idea of all of the documents and to identify any missing documents. It may be possible to do this if you are dealing with a small number of documents but the time-line is impossible if you are trying to read and understand 5000 or more documents. It can take months or even years for you to realise the implications of a particular document, or that a document is missing. And then you can be refused access to a missing document because the FOI application has been declared "finalised". This " FOI application finalisation" process may be convenient for the FOI officers but it is abusive and does not facilitaite Freedom of Information or accountability.

 

  • After months and even years of delays, documents may finally be released to you or refused to you just days before a state election. You may think that this is abuse of the FOI process for political convenience.

 

  • Department of Education Officers and Information Commission officers describe you as a "vexacious applicant" if you make regular applications for documents. And they - mostly the men - put their bitchy and deeply unprofessional comments concerning you on your official records for you and other people to read - even when they know that the real problem is not you, the real problem is that a decision has been made not to release several files of documents to you, and this decision is being concealed from you.

 

  • But if you take the bitchy comments of the FOI officers to heart and try not to be a bother and wait till one application is declared "finalised" before starting the next FOI application, your FOI documents will be delayed for more than one and a half years. Then Education Queensland will claim that most of your documents have been "lost", "because it was all so long ago". And, by that time, the next lot of FOI documents can also be declared "lost" because you have waited so long before making your next FOI application.

 

The real-life experiences on which these conclusions are based:

On 9 March 2009 - just 12 days before the Queensland State Election - the Office of the Information Commissioner refused to direct the Queensland Department of Education to search for the following documents.

These documents existed.

Because decisions detrimental to me were based on these documents.

But, after making the decisions concerning me based on these documents, Education Queensland officers then claim to have "lost" all copies of these documents.

And officers of the Queensland Information Commission refuse to direct Queensland Education Department officers to search for the missing documents.

 

You might think that this situation faciliates systemic corruption.

And I might agree with you.

 

N.B. I do not suggest that any person named on this website is a "Bad Apple Bully".

I have concealed the names of public servants who seem-

  • to have been actively or passively involved with the bullying / mobbing,
  • or who may be at risk of "payback" because of their more ethical conduct.

 

1 )

On Monday 27 May 2002 The District Office Staff Welfare officer emailed me:

"At this office we hold two files on you: your Ďgeneral personnel fileí (that you can see with an appointment at any time, and photocopy anything out of it), and a confidential file with documentation pertaining to the investigation that took place last year.

This file is available for you to see under FOI (Freedom of Information), and yes, holds any response you might have made in this process.

This file will continue to be kept under lock in Principal Advisor - Regional Services Ms CHRís room."

 

I have never been clear what "investigation" this was that "took place last year".

 

On 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland State election, the Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to search for this "confidential file with documentation pertaining to the investigation that took place last year".

 

2 )

On 28 February 2003 I met John Ryan in Brisbane.

He told me that, if I ever applied to Education Queensland for employment again, there would be a note on my file that he - the Director of Human Resources at that time - should be contacted.

I have never understood why.

I would like to examine all documents concerning and related to me that are currently held by The District Office, including this "note".

I would like to copy those documents so that I can discuss them with my solicitor.

 

On 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland State election, the Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to allow me to examine these documents.

 

3 )

On 24 September 2003 I contacted InformationPrivacy@qed.qld.gov.au to ask,

"How do I go about finding out why I was put on DWP?"

This was FOI 2361.

I now realise that the 2361 documents should have been released to me free of charge by the end of November 2003, because a huge proportion of these documents were falsified "records" that had been put secretly on my files in breach of several Departmental policies.

This breach of several policies was not part of the normal role of an Education Queensland officer.

It was workplace bullying.

To this date I have received only two documents from 2361 - documents C 30 and C 31.

The Queensland Department of Education refuses to allow me to examine the rest of the 2361 documents. 

 

Similarly, on 3 February 2006, the Verifact Investigator noted, during a conversation with Kim Newman:

"Advised that 2361-2421 files will not be released."

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 969.

 

On 9 March 2009, twelve days before theQueensland State election, Officers of the Information Commission refused to ask the Department of Education to search for these documents.

 

4 )

On 30 September 2003 Matt Woodforth sent a  "SEARCH REQUEST AND RESPONSE FORM" to The District Office.

Matt wrote on this form-

"The applicant is seeking access to any and all documents concerning her being placed on diminished work performance Ö"

But this was not what I had asked for.

In my email to InformationPrivacy@qed.qld.gov.au dated 24 September 2003, I had written-

"Ö How do I go about finding out why I was put on DWP?"

 

This email was forwarded to Stephannie Kalas.

And in my email to Stephannie Kalas on 29 September 2003 I wrote-

 

"In her letter to me, Mrs GR said she had concerns about my relationship with children.

Seven teachers put their names on a list and met with Mrs GR.

They told her there was no problem with my management of children.

 

They had seen me teach.

She hadnít.

 

She told them (I understand) it was not my management of children.

There was another, secret reason for me being put on DWP.

The acting deputy (Miss AL) said, 'We want to change the way that (my name) is thinking'.

 

So I was not wanting "any and all" documents, I was wanting the documents that explained the "secret reason" or the real reason why I had to be put on DWP.

My feeling is that the documents that I requested in September 2003 have never really been searched for.

I would appreciate it if Mrs GR, Mr EL and Miss AL and each members of the The District Office staff who was "consulted" by Mrs GR during the process of deciding that "the (DWP) process is warranted" could be asked to provide me with all documents concerning and related to their "secret" or real reason for putting me on DWP.

And to identify any missing document and suggest where it / they might be searched for.

And if each personís documents could be provided to me in a separate folder.

 

Mrs GR gave me a letter dated 29 November 2000 which stated,

"I have spoken to him (Mr EL) about the matter and he is in agreement that the process is warranted."

So both Mr EL and Mrs GR must know what allegations / "secret reason" / "notes from Leigh to Desley" they had discussed before they made this agreement.

 

And, when Miss AL and Mrs GR met me on 29 November 2000 and gave me the letter to tell me that I would be in the DWP process in 2001, Miss AL said to me,

"We have to do it to you, (my name) , because you just keep denying it."

So Miss AL also felt involved in the decision to "do it to me" - to put me on DWP, and she must know what "it" was, and presumably "it" was recorded in the "lots of documents".

 

My concern is that Mrs GR seems to have been having many imaginary conversations concerning me during Term 4 2000.

It is possible that Mrs GR may have claimed to have "heard" a child, a teacher or a parent make a "confidential allegation" concerning me, and that she may have decided to hand this imaginary disclosure to another Queensland government department for investigation.

Or Mrs GR may have groomed a vulnerable parent or child to make such a real or imaginary "confidential allegation" concerning me to another government department.

If that is the case, I would appreciate it if Education Queensland - not the Information Commissioner, Education Queensland, would liaise with that department on my behalf to provide me with copies of the missing documents.

I was advised by an FOI officer some time ago that the Department could do this for me.

 

But on 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland State election, Officers of the Information Commissioner refused to direct the Queensland Department of Education to search for the "secret reason" why Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL and acting principal Mrs GR made their 29 November 2000 agreement that "the (DWP) process is warranted".

And Officers of the Information Commissioner also refused to direct Education Queensland to search for a "confidential disclosure" concerning me that may have been been made to any other Queensland Government Department.

Mrs GR would be able to tell them where she had sent any such real or imaginary "disclosure".

But pressure was put on Education Queensland FOI officers - by a very senior Queensland public servant - not to ask Mrs GR for the records of her behaviour during Term 4 2000.

 

5 )

On 27 April 2004 Lynch-Mob State College acting deputy principal Miss AL's "records" of the mediated meeting on 27 November 2000 were released to me for the first time.

Miss AL had recorded that:

"Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR then stated that there were a lot of allegations, and that she had lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened."

 2421 File F document 28-32, number at top right hand corner of this document.

To date I have been provided with lots of falsified "records" on sticky-notes and scraps of paper, but they seem to be largely supportive of my complaint.

I have not found any "lots of allegations" or any "proof" of "things" that "may have happened" in any of the documents that have been provided to me to this date.

To this day I have no idea what these "things" are that "may have happened".

I request that these "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened" be released to me.

 

On 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, Officers of the Information Commissioner once again refused to ask the Queensland Department of Education to search for copies of these "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened".

 

6 )

Between April 2004 and 27 October 2005 some of the 2421 documents were released to me.

2421 F is the file of falsified "records" concerning me that Mrs GR claimed, in 2006, that she had been secretly collecting in a "Private File".

Mrs GR's behavour was in breach of the Code of Conduct, the Public Service Regulations, Natural Justice, etc. etc.

Mrs GR also placed a slightly different collection of falsified "records" concerning me in 2469 File F.

This file was placed on my official records in the District office after I retired, creating the false impression that the falsified "records" had been discussed with me before Mr EL made his 5 February 2001 decision to dismiss my Stage 1 Grievance about Mrs GR's (and his own) abuse of the DWP process to 'pay me back" for trying to deal with the groups of unsupervised Grade 7 children who were roaming about the school.

In early 2004, 2421 F 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12  were released to me.

I have never sighted 2421 F 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

After 27 October 2005 I discovered that 2421 F documents 1- 12 (numbers at the top right hand corner of the document) had "vanished" from the official records.

On 10 January 2006 John Dobbie released to me 12 documents that he represented to me as the missing 12 documents 2421 F 1-12.

I did not realise for several months that John Dobbie had used the new numbers which were at the bottom of the page.

(All of my documents were reversed in order and given new numbers in October 2005, one month before the Verifact Investigation began. This meant that all of the references that I had made to documents would not make sense to anybody looking at my official records.) 

John Dobbie had actually released documents 63, 62, 61, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54 and 53 (using the numbers at the top right hand corner of the documents).

 

And on 3 February 2006, the Verifact Investigator noted, during a conversation with Kim Newman:

"Advised that 2361-2421 files will not be released."

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 969.

 

On 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to search for the "lost" documents 2421 File F 1-12.

 

7 )

On 23 March 2004 documents 2421 C 28 and 29 must have existed, because these two documents were given numbers.

But Education Queensland have always refused to release the documents to me.

 

On 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland State election, the Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to search for 2421 C 28 and 29.

 

8 )

After 12 July 2004 the 2469 documents were released to me.

I would like to examine the original document 2469 F 53 (number at the top right hand side of the page).

 

You will note that "NO DRINKS NO TOILET" has been written near the bottom of this document.

The words are circled and an arrow and a star points to something on the left.

Mrs GR often used arrows to point to notes that she had made on documents written by other people.

The "something on the left" seems to have been concealed on my 2469 F 53 copy of this document.

 

It is possible that this concealed "something on the left" may be the missing "notes to Leigh from Desley".

And that Mrs GR herself wrote the allegations on the the missing "notes to Leigh from Desley".

 

I would like to see the original 2469 F 53 (number at the top right hand side of the page) document with the missing "something on the left" uncovered.

 

But on 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland State election, the Office of the Information Commission refused to direct Education Queensland to allow me to examine the original 2469.

 

9 )

On 12 October 2004 I met Frank King, Ombudsman.

In his (accurate) notes on this meeting Mr King stated that Lynch-Mob State School usual principal Mr EL had written a Grievance Stage 2 Grievance Report in which Mr EL stated that he had found no evidence of bullying.

This report is described by Frank King, Ombudsman, in his notes on his meeting with me on 12 October 2004 and attached to a letter to me from the Ombudsman dated 5 June 2006.

 Mr King did not mention this Stage 2 Grievance report to me during the meeting.

Nobody ever told me that my Stage 2 Grievance was being investigated.

Nobody provided me with a copy of this "Stage 2 Grievance Report".

 

On 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland State election,  the Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to search for Mr EL's Stage 2 Grievance Report.

 

10 )

Friday October 21, 2005

One month before the Verifact Investigation into my complaint began, Matt Woodforth, Education Queensland Freedom of Information Officer, released the FOI 2733 documents to me.

The files of documents that were released to me are labelled FOI 2733.

FOI 2733 is the file of documents that were -

  • reversed in order
  • given new numbers at the bottom of the page
  • and from which at least 12 documents "vanished", never to be found again ( 2421 File F - this file was first named Lynch-Mob State School , but in 2005 the story about this file changed and it seems to have been described to the Verifact Investigator as Mrs GR's private file of falsified "records" concerning me - documents 1-12, numbers at the top right hand corner of the document ).

But Matt Woodford's letter to me is headed 2744.

This suggests to me that there may be two different sets of "records" -

  • one set - 2733 - that were released to me,
  • and a different set of "official records" - 2744 - that were not been released to me, but which may have been made available to the Verifact Investigator.

 

  • I would like to see all documents in Education Queensland FOI file 2744.

 

11 )

On 27 October 2005, one month before the Verifact Investigation into my complaint about the falsification of my official records began, 2733 File F Administrative Law Services Branch document 24 - number at the bottom of the page - was released to me.

I discovered for the first time that Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR had "recorded" on 10 November 2000 that she had made certain statements concerning me to the staff because of allegations that had been made about me in "notes to Leigh from Desley".

 2421 File F Mrs GR's "private file" of real and falsified 'records" concerning me, document 39-40, numbers at top right hand corner of page.

These "notes" and the allegations contained in these "notes" had never been discussed with me.

The allegations in these documents must have been very, very serious because only 14 Queensland teachers were put on DWP in 2001.

But the allegations were not discussed with me before Mrs GR and Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL made their 29 November 2000 agreement that "the (DWP) process is warranted".

Or before Mrs GR and Miss AL had a formal meeting with me to hand me a letter to advise me of this agreement.

Nor were the allegations in the "notes to Leigh from Desley" discussed with me before Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL dismissed my Stage 1 Grievance about Mrs GR's (and his own) abuse of the DWP process.

 

I do not believe that such an important piece of "evidence" would have been lost.

Leigh must know who Desley is.

Leigh must know what "notes" she was given by Desley.

Desley must know what notes she gave Leigh.

Either Leigh or Desley may have kept a copy of these "notes".

 

 

Mrs GR would have discussed the "notes" with Mr EL and Miss AL and the The District Office staff.

Somebody must know where the "notes" are now.

 

But on 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland State election,  the Office of the Queensland Information Commission refused to direct Education Queensland to search for copies of these "notes to Leigh from Desley".

 

12 )

On 27 January 2006 Kim Newman - the only Education Queensland Department of Ethical Conduct officer who seems to have left some "records" of her activites - made diary notes on a phone call that she made to Principal Advisor - Regional Services Ms CHR in The District Office.

Kim wrote:

"- Ms CHR Ö CDO ( Cairns District Office ) report never given to her and was lost?-

Need to look - at report."

2875 File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit document 221.

On 12 April 2004, two years before this conversation between Kim Newman and the Principal Advisor - Regional Services Ms CHR, I had requested an internal review of FOI 2421.

I had requested -

 

"Any response to my Stage 2 Grievance 31 August 2001 and my Stage 2 Grievance 3rd June 2002.

These reports should identify the 'reason' that was given for abusing the DWP.

  • I demand a copy of all EQ responses to my grievances."

 

But for the five years to this date, 15 March, 2009, Education Queensland have refused to search for this "lost" District Office Report.

 

On 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland State election, the Office of the Information Commission again refused to direct Education Queensland to search for a copy of this District Office report.

But decisions concerning me have been based and are still being based on this "lost" District Office report.

 

13 )

The missing Verifact Reports.

  • On 21 December, 2005 the Verifact Investigator provided Peter Edwards with an Interim Report.

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 968. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 12 June 2008.

A copy of this Interim Report was provided to me after 11 October 2006.

2875 File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 229 - number at bottom of page.

 

  • On 19 January, 2005 the Verifact investigator provided Kim Newman with an Interim Report.

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 968. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 12 June 2008.

A copy of this Interim Report was provided to me after 11 October 2006.

2875 File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 227 - number at bottom of page, and also 230.

 

  • On Monday 20 February, 2006 the Verifact Investigator noted:

"Contacted (name of the school to which Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR was promoted when I made  Grievance about her abuse of the DWP process to bully me) Appointment for 3:30 pm on Wednesday."

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 969. 

This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 12 June 2008.

 

  • So on Wednesday 22 February, 2006 I presume that the Verifact Investigator met Mrs GR, although this meeting is not recorded in his 'investigation running sheet".

22 February 2006 Verifact Interview with Mrs GR - Synopsis of  this interview NOT RECEIVED TO THIS DATE

I presume that this report would have recorded his recommendation that disciplinary action be considered against Mrs GR.

 

  • On Friday 3 March, 2006 The Verifact investigator submitted an Interim Report to Kim Newman.

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 970. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 12 June 2008.

3 March 2006 Verifact Interim Report - NOT RECEIVED TO THIS DATE

I presume that this report would have concerned his 22 February 2006 meeting with Mrs GR.

 

  • On Tuesday 7 March, 2006 the Verifact Investigator met Mrs GR.

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 970. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 12 June 2008.

7 March 2006 Verifact Interview with Mrs GR - Synopsis of  this interview NOT RECEIVED TO THIS DATE

 

  • On 29 March, 2006 The Verifact Investigator submitted an Interim Report to Kim Newman. 

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 970. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 12 June 2008.

29 March 2006 Verifact Interim Report. - NOT RECEIVED TO THIS DATE.

I presume that this Interview Report would have contained details of his second interview with Mrs GR.

And his recommendation that disciplinary action be considered against Mrs GR.

 

  • On 7 April 2006 the Verifact investigator submitted an Interim Report to Peter Edwards.

340/5/1295 document 965. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 9 January, 2009.

A copy of this Verifact Report was provided to me after 12 June 2009.

340/5/1295 document 956.

 

  • On 26 April 2006 the Verifact Investigator conducted a review and prepared a preliminary report for Peter Edwards.

340/5/1295 document 965. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 9 January, 2009.

26 April 2006 Verifact Preliminary Report. - NOT RECEIVED TO THIS DATE

 

  • On 17 May 2006 the Verifact Investigator supplied Peter Edwards with a status report (this may have been verbal) and an Interim Report.

340/5/1295 document 965. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 9 January, 2009.

17 May  2006 Verifact Interim Report. - NOT RECEIVED TO THIS DATE

 

  • On 25 May 2006 the Verifact Investigator met Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL.

340/5/1295 document 965. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 9 January, 2009.

 

  • On 27 May 2006 the Verifact Investigator prepared a synopsis of his interview with Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR.

340/5/1295 document 966. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 9 January, 2009.

As noted above, to this date I have not received a synopsis of the Verifact Investigator's one or two meetings with Mrs GR.

 

  • On 27 May 2006 the Verifact Investigator prepared a synopsis of his interview with Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL.

340/5/1295 document 966. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 9 January, 2009.

I received a copy of this synopsis after 12 June 2008.

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 975.

 

  • On 18 June 2006 the Verifact Investigator recorded a phone interview with Lynch-Mob State College acting deputy principal Miss AL.

340/5/1295 document 966. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 9 January, 2009.

He then prepared a synopsis of this interview with Miss AL.

I received a copy of this synopsis after 12 June 2008.

340/5/1295 documents 972-973

 

  • On 22 June 2006 the Verifact Investigator copied the recordings of the interview on to a CD.

340/5/1295 document 966. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 9 January, 2009.

22 June 2006 Verifact Interviews recorded on CD - NOT RECEIVED TO THIS DATE

 

  • On 24 June 2006 the Verifact investigator submitted a report to Peter Edwards.

340/5/1295 document 966. This investigation running sheet was first released to me after 9 January, 2009.

24 June 2006 Verifact Report.- NOT RECEIVED TO THIS DATE

 

  • On 11 July 2006 the Verifact Investigator submitted a Final Report to Peter Edwards.

Some pages of the report were provided to me after 12 June 2008.

340/5/1295 document numbers obscured but seems to be 1003 - 6 and 1008- 1011.

Document  1007 was released to me after 9 January 2009.

 

On 9 January 2009, very shortly before the Queensland state election was called, Elane Merkouriou released the final 340/5/1295 documents to me.

I had first requested these documents on 26 September, 2007.

After the final FOI documents were released on 9 January 2009, I first realised that these missing Verifact documents were not going to be released to me.

On March 9, 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the Information Commissioner refused to ask Education Queensland to search for these missing Verifact reports and my file was "closed".

 

This suggests to me that my FOI application was delayed for political convenience.

and

This calls into question the integrity of the Education Queensland "Freedom of Information" and  "Independent Investigation" process.

The investigation process is controlled by the people whose behaviour you are complaining about.

And then they are allowed to "lose" or destroy the investigation records.

 

Verifact would have copies of this report and could easily provide the department with a replacement for their "lost or destroyed" document.

 

NB -

A Verifact recommendation that disciplinary action be considered against a principal can simply be "lost" or destroyed.

But the principal's decision to put a teacher on DWP - a decision made in breach of several Departmental polices - cannot ever be removed from that teacher's files.

 

This Queensland Department of Education practice is unjust to Queensland classroom teachers.

It faciliates and encourages workplace abuse.

 

14 )

On 4 April 2006 My solicitor wrote to Education Queensland.

Comments were hand-written by senior officers of Education Queensland on this letter.

The Department of Education "fuzzied up" these comments before releasing this document to me.

FOI 340/5/1295 962 (and 4817)

 

On 9 March 2009 the Office of the Queensland Information Commission refused to direct Education Queensland to provide me with a legible copy of this document.

 

15 )

On 21 April 2006 John Ryan wrote to Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR.

340/ 5/ 1295 document 960 -962

He sent her a copy of my solicitorís letter dated 4 April and invited her to respond to the letter.

I requested all documentation concerning and related to Mrs GRís response to my solicitorís letter, and any other response concerning and related to my solicitorís letter.

For example -

John Ryan phoned my solicitor in response to this letter.

I understand that he gave my solicitor certain assurances.

I request John Ryanís records of that phone call.

 

But on March 9, 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the Information Commissioner refused to ask Education Queensland to search for a copy of these documents.

 

Mrs GR would have a copy of her own letter.

She may have a copy of / notes of her response.

But pressure was put on Education Queensland FOI officers - by a very senior Queensland public servant - not to ask Mrs GR for copies of her documents.

 

16 )

On 11 July 2006 The Verifact Investigator provided Peter Edwards, Director, Workforce Standards and performance, with a copy of his final report.

On 6 March 2006 I rang the investigator.

Part of his report on that conversation with me has been concealed from me for privacy reasons.

I do not understand why my own comments, if correctly reported, need to be kept private from me.

I requested a full copy of document 965.

 

On March 9, 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the Information Commissioner refused to ask Education Queensland to provide me with a full copy of this document.

 

17 )

On 17 July 2006 a letter to Mrs GR was signed and date-stamped by Ken Smith.

340/5/1295 External review Documents 1310 (number obscured) and 1311, first sighted by me after January 9, 2009.

Mr Smith states-

" Thank you for your letter dated 29 April 2006."

 

This letter from Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR to Ken Smith concerns me.

I requested a copy of Mrs GR's letter to Ken Smith dated 29 April 2006.

 

But on March 9, 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the Information Commissioner refused to ask Education Queensland to search for a copy of this letter to Ken Smith from Mrs GR.

 

18 )

On 19 September 2006 In a letter dated to Sue Barker, Office of the information Commissioner, Andrew Smith, Senior Policy officer, Department of Education, stated :

"Document 51-

The Education Queensland Aboriginal "Internal Reviewer" declares that he only provided Mr Ryan with two versions of his report.

The first was an incomplete, work-in-progress version, provided to Mr Ryan on or around 8 September 2004. Ö

Mr Ryan was contacted as part of this external review and he stated that when he met with (my name) on 11 October 2004 he discussed with her the first, or the in-complete, work-in-progress version of the report he received.

"(My Name)  has previously been supplied with a copy of this report."

340/5/1295 5006-5008  - letter dated 19 September 2006 to Sue Barker from Andrew Smith, Senior Policy officer, Department of Education (your ref 53166).

 

And again, in 340/5/1295 document 5020 - a letter to Sue Barker dated 6 October 2006, Andrew Smith again stated:

"The applicant has previously been supplied with copies of both versions of the report."

 

These documents were released to me for the first time after 12 June 2008.

This advice to the Information Commissioner was not correct.

I have never been provided with a copy of the-

"incomplete, work-in-progress version, provided to Mr Ryan on or around 8 September 2004."

that Mr Ryan claimed, in September 2006, was the document that he had discussed with me on 11 October 2004.

 

Mr Ryan had a printed copy of this document on 11 October 2004.

I requested the opportunity to examine the original copy of this document.

 

But on 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the Information Commissioner refused to ask Education Queensland to provide me with a copy of this document.

 

19 )

 On November 20, 2006 I met Peter Edwards.

If I understood Peter Edwards correctly, he was planning to "mark" the falsified documents in some way to indicate that they were falsified documents that had been placed on my official records without my knowledge.

And I understood Peter Edwards to advise me that he was planning to put these falsified documents in a different file.

John Ryan had already advised me that such files were "sealed" but could be opened again by the Department at any time.

2875 File A, Legal and Administrative Law branch, document 299, number at bottom of document.

I can see that some of the falsified documents seem to have been removed from some of the files in 340/5/1295.

 

I would like to inspect the new file (or files) that now contains the falsified documents.

I would like to inspect the original cover of this file and all of the documents in the file.

I am concerned that this file may contain more falsified documents, or that the falsified and re-falsified documents may have been falsified again with more untruthful comments concerning me.

 

On 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the office of the Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to search for this file to which the falsified documents has now been moved. 

 

20 )

When I met Peter Edwards on 20 November  2006, he also told me repeatedly that he had been given a "brief" that only allowed him to show me the folder of falsified documents that I had given to the Verifact investigator.

He refused to discuss my other concerns - the decisions concerning me that had been based on the falsified "records" etc.

Mr Edwards told me that his "brief" did not allow him to discuss these decisions  - for example, the 29 November 2000 agreement between Mrs GR and Mr EL that "the (DWP) process is warranted".

I would like to examine the original copy of this "Brief" and all documents concerned with or related to this "Brief".

 

On 9 March 2009 the office of the Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to search for the records concerning and related to Peter Edwatds' "brief".

 

21 )

On 21 December 2006 Louise Rosemann of the Queensland Ombudsman's Department met Regan Neumann and one other officer from the Ethical Conduct Unit of Education Queensland.  

There must be telephone records, diary notes, etc. of this meeting.

The whole process could not have been conducted "by word of mouth".

On 9 March 2009 the office of the Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to search for the records concerning and related to this meeting.

 

22 )

On 21 December 2006 I understand that Regan Neumann and the other unnamed officer from the Ethical conduct Unit - I presume it was Peter Edwards - assured Louise Rosemann that they were conducting some sort of "process" concerning my documents and that they would write to me when this "process" had been completed.

To this day I have heard nothing from either Regan Neumann or Peter Edwards.

But on 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to search for the documentation of this meeting / phone call.

 

23 )

On 4 January 2007 Helen Cooper, Director Complaints Services, CMC, emailed me.

I have reasonable grounds to believe that Helen had used a "Report" sent to her by Education Queensland as the basis of her letter to me, simply changing the word "she" into the word "you".

  • Because that is what a more junior employee of the CMC told me that the CMC usually did when they received "reports".

 

  • Because the wording of the letter to me suggests that this is what Helen did:

"You would, however, be advised by Education Queensland of the outcome of her complaint about the falsification of records".

 

In discussing the falsification of my official "records", Helen Cooper states:

"Departmental officers Ö explained to you the reasons for the alteration to some of the records, in part arising from the paraphrasing of your words by departmental officials."

This is absolute gibberish -

My complaint concerned files of falisifed documents that had secretly been placed on my Education Queensland "official records".

Mrs GR hand-wrote messages to Mr EL on the falsified 2421 F "private file" of falsified documents concerning me.

Then she seems to have handed the twice-falsified "records" to Mr EL, who also seems to have hand-written a comment on one of the documents.

Then they seem to have placed the twice-falsified documents in 2469 F to create the false impression that the falsified documents had been discussed with me during the Stage 1 Grievance.

 

Somebody has "pulled the wool over Helen Cooperís eyes".

Helen Cooper seems to have copied the words in her letter to me from a document that was sent to her by

  • an officer of Education Queensland,
  • or Verifact,
  • or a person who conducted another 'investigation' that is being concealed from me.

 

  • I request all documents concerning and related to meetings / letters / phone calls in which Education Queensland officers - or any other Queensland public servants / or any other persons - advised Helen Cooper of the outcome of any investigation / process concerning me, or of any meeting with / phone call to Helen Cooper.

 

How could Helen Cooper "accept" an investigation report that does not exist?

 

On 9 March 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to search for the letter to Helen Cooper or records of meetings with / phone calls to Helen Cooper.

 

  • I would like to see the document - from whatever source - from which Helen Cooper copied this statement concerning me.

24 )

On 19 July 2007 Peter Edwards spoke to Melanie Mundy of the Queensland Ombudsman's department concerning my complaint.

 

On March 9, 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the Information Commissioner refused to ask Education Queensland to search for Peter Edwards' records of this phone call.

 

25 )

On 1 August 2007 Peter Edwards met officers of The Ombudsman's Department.

 

On March 9, 2009, twelve days before the Queensland state election, the Information Commissioner refused to ask Education Queensland to search for Peter Edwards' records of this meeting.

 

26 )

On 9 March 2009

The Information Commissioner refused to ask Education Queensland to provide me with a copy of document FOI 340/5/1295 document 5015

The Information Commissioner claims that DETA has "confirmed" that a copy of this document has been forwarded to me.

This is not correct.

5014 is a numbered cover sheet which simply reads "Attachment C".

The back of 5014 is not numbered.

It is blank.

5016 is numbered.

It is page 34 from John Ryanís diary.

There is no page with the number 5015.

I request the right to view a copy of document FOI 340/5/1295 document 5015

 

27 )

On 9 March 2009 the Information Commissioner refused to ask The Department of Education to provide me with a legible copy of document FOI 340/5/1295 1328 (same as 1352, 13860) - the handwritten comments on each of these copies of this document have been obscured.

The Information Commissioner advise me that, as far as they are concerned, the document has been released to me and it is not their responsibility if the document has been "fuzzed up" so that it cannot be read.

I request the right to view a legible copy of document FOI 340/5/1295 1328 (same as 1352, 13860)

28 )

On March 9 2009 the Queensland  Information Commissioner made no response to my request that they direct the Department of Education to provide me with the real document FOI 340/5/1295 Document 2400 - this document had been replaced with documents relating to Nerang State School.

I request the right to view a copy of the original document FOI 340/5/1295 Document 2400

 

29 )

I would like to examine all letters, emails and all forms of communication concerning and related to me with all internal and external agencies including The Premiersí Department, The Ombudsmanís department and the CMC.

On March 9 2009, twelve days before the Queensland State election, the Queensland  Information Commissioner refused to direct Education Queensland to search for these documents.

30)

Comments made by Gary Barnes in July 2010 lead me to believe that the Queensland Department of Education keeps 'dirt files' on blacklisted teachers.

Secret NT teacher 'blacklist' revealed, Alyssa Betts, NT news : http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2010/07/16/164321_ntnews.html

I request the right to view my own Queensland government 'dirt file'.

 

My real-life experience of making a Freedom of Information application to the Queensland Department of Education.

 

Freedom of Information Application 2361

 

Wednesday, 24 September 2003 at 10:11 AM

I emailed InformationPrivacy@qed.qld.gov.au

"Hello,

In late 2000 a fellow teacher warned me that the acting principal at my school had been boasting that she was going to put me on DWP (Diminished Workplace Performance) if "it" continued.

I did not know that there was any issue at that stage.

I believed she was "paying me back" for talking about the disruptions to my LOTE (Indonesian) lessons at a staff meeting.

I asked her to attend an arbitrated meeting with the local union organiser to sort out the problems between us.

She said she would meet me to discuss putting me on DWP.

I said I would make a grievance.

The union organiser told me there was no hope of justice.

She put me on DWP.

I made a grievance that this was workplace bullying.

Basically the grievance system seems to be corrupt.

The Director General (Ken Smith) refuses to read my response to new allegations that were made against me recently.

... I suspect that I may have been discriminated against ...

How do I go about finding out why I was put on DWP?

I am reluctant to contact the District Office because there are conflict of interest issues and also because I feel that they have acted to protect the bully .

(They promoted her when I made a grievance.) ..."

 

Friday 26 September 2003

11:02 AM

There was no response to my email, so I emailed mailbox@justice.qld.gov.au

I attached a copy of my earlier email.

 

"Hello,

I am trying to find out why I was put on the DWP by the acting principal of (Lynch-Mob State College) at the end of 2000.

I think I may have been discriminated against on the grounds of age, sex, political belief or disability.

I have tried the EQ (Education Queensland) gievance process but EQ refuse to respond to my letters.

I have asked the Ombudsman to investigate but he won't investigate till the grievance process is completed.

... I think I really need to find out the official reason why I was put on DWP and also why the DG (Director-General Ken Smith) refuses to read my letters.

I am reluctant to contact the District office because there are (serious) conflict of interest issues involved.

How can I find out why EQ are behaving this way?

How they are justifying their conduct?"

 

Rod Welford was attorney-general and Minister for Justice from February 2001 to July 2005.

Then he was made Minister of Education.

 

Monday 29 September 2003 11:37 AM

an unnamed person at  EXECLEGL replied:

My email had been sent to Education Queensland's Freedom of Information Coordinator, Ms Stephannie Kalas.

5:24pm

I emailed Stephannie Kalas:

"... If the CJC liaison officer wrote a report describing her investigation and her findings, I would like a copy of that investigation report.

I think that should explain the real reason why they put me on DWP. ..."

 

28 October 2003

Stephannie Kalas wrote to me. 

Some of the documents that I had requested were not personal.

I would have to pay a $32.50 application fee.

And more fees for the search.

 

30 October 2003

I emailed David Turner (EQ FOI officer)

I  am on a Qsuper pension.

"... Can I claim financial hardship under the Freedom of Information act? ...

I am also going to send a complaint to the Ombudsman and the CMC.

Would it be quicker and cheaper for me to leave it to them to find the FOI documents?

My solicitor ... also tells me that I should consider making a complaint to the anti-discrimination commissioner. ..." 

 

11 November 2003

David Turner sent a receipt for the FOI application fee.

 

13 November 2003

I emailed David Turner and Stephannie Kalas.

" ... I am a Qsuper pensioner.

I have heard that the charges can be as much as $1000 and the search can take months.

.. Please note that I don't authorise you to start building up charges.

If I am refused "financial hardship" I cannot afford to pay for the search. ... "

 

I now realise that these 2361 documents were "personal" and that I should have been provided with them free of charge by the end of November 2003.

 

17 November 2003 1:08 PM

Daivd Turner emailed. He had sent my application for financial hardship to the Department of Premiers and Cabinet.

5:13 PM

I emailed Stephannie Kalas and David Turner.

I had rung Daniel Norberg at the Department of Premiers and Cabinet.

He said there was no flexibility in the rules.

I had to pay.

" ... How about we put the FOI on hold?

Then, if there is anything that I do not find out after the Ombudsman, the CMC and the anti-discrimination commission write their reports, I will ask for that specific information."

 

I was innocent at that time and really expected that Education Queensland, the CMC, the Ombudsman and the ADCQ would investigate my complaint.

I did not realise that it entirely was up to me to investigate and to find documentary evidence to support my complaint.

 

Wednesday 19 November 2003 10:20 AM

David Turner emailed to advise me that my FOI application fee would be refunded.

" ...This will be forwarded to you early next week along with a letter in relation to your FOI application. ..."

 

Tuesday 25 November 2003

David Turner wrote a letter to me to explain:

" ... It is not this Department's practice to put FOI applications on hold."

But David had not explained this to me in his email of 19 November 2003.

"Therefore I am refunding your application fee and closing my current FOI file on this matter...."

I had not realised that my FOI application was going to be closed.

"I advise that you may submit a new application at any time in the future.

I have, however, decided to retain the documentation relevant to your application for a period of 90 days when it is anticipated that the outcome of your enquiries with the authorities listed above (the Ombudsman, the Crime and Misconduct Commission and the ADCQ) will be known.

If I have not received a new FOI application or further advice about the outcome of your enquiries by 28 February, 2004 I shall deem that the documents are no longer required and will be returned to their original locations."

So, on 25 November 2003, the FOI 2361 documents were being held by David Turner.

 

Freedom of Information Application 2421

12 December 2003

I wrote to Stephannie Kalas and David Turner.

I enclosed a cheque for $132.50:

"FOI Application 2361"

(I did not realise that my application 2361 had been closed down and that I was going to have to start the FOI application process again.) 

" ... I would appreciate it if you would do a search for me.

I can afford to spend $100 so please stop after the bill gets to $100.

I received a letter from (the acting principal of Lynch-Mob State College, Mrs GR) dated 29 November 2000.

In this letter she stated that I would be on DWP at the start of 2001.

In the letter she stated that she was concerned that my classroom practices humiliated children.

(Acting principal Mrs GR) had never seen me teach.

When seven teachers who had seen me teach for period of up to two years told her that she had misunderstood the situation, that it was the behaviour of the children that was the problem, she (seems to have) told them that the reasons given in the letter were not the real reasons for me being put on DWP.

She said that there were 'secret, other" reasons why I had to be punished.

Can you find any material that explains why I was put on DWP?

Particularly, can you find any evidence of this 'secret, other" reason?

I suspect that there may have been political reasons for me being punished.

Can you find any evidence of a political motivation for the punishment? ... "

 

19 December 2003

David Turner wrote a letter to me:

" ... I am presently searching for documents relevant to your request. ... "

 

Wednesday 14 January 2004 7:37 AM

I emailed David Turner:

... Did you find out the "secret reason" why I was put on DWP? ...

10:18 AM

David Turner emailed me:

" ... I have not as yet located any secret reasons why you were placed on DWP.

However, I am waiting to consult with a number of staff members, this should be completed when school goes back on 27 January. ... "

 

27 January 2004 8:24 AM

I emailed David Turner:

" ... I would be particularly interested in any political reasons for punishing me.

I discussed the advice of the QTU that there was no hope of justice with the Minister 23/06/2002 and she seemed to know all about the situation. She said, "Wasn't that a problem with (a particular person)?"

She seemed to say this to R.B., a senior Education Queensland officer.

The DG seemed to know nothing about the situation.

A week or two afterwards Mr Beattie said a union member "up north" was being bullied by their union and it was going to explode soon.

He said he wanted to hear from any union member who had been bullied by their union. ...

 

... Did (acting school principal G.R.) give any reasons for her "concerns" - any evidence to support them? ...

 

On 27 May 2002 (the Staff Welfare officer at the District office) wrote to me in an email, " At this office we hold two files for you ... and a confidential file with documentation pertaining to the investigation that took place last year ...

This file will continue to be kept under lock in (District officer Ms CHR)'s room."

I am not really clear what investigation this was.

(Usual principal of Lynch-Mob State College, Mr EL)'s investigation of my Stage 1 Grievance?"

 

I now realise that this mysterious file could not have held the details of what I had been told was a Stage 1 Grievance investigation, because the "internal reviewer" found that there had been no Stage 1 Grievance investigation.

" The CJC liaison officer's investigation?

Would this file shed any light on the matter?"

 

Of course it would have.

I now presume that this mysterious file is the "lost" file described by District officer CHR in FOI 2875 File J Document 221:

On 27 January 2006 EQ Head Office Employee M.N. made notes on what seems to have been a telephone conversation with District Office Employee C.H.R.

" (District Office Employee C.H.R.) - What are Verifact investigating?

(Names District Office) report never given to her & was lost?-

Need to look - at report."

 

So it seems that at some stage before 27 May 2002, the District Office had written a report concerning my grievance.

This report was concealed from me at the time.

And it seems to have been immediately "lost" when I made an FOI application in September 2003.

 

2 February 2004

Stephannie Kalas made a File Note of her phone call to Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR:

"Phoned Mrs GR-

Got advice from DO to put (my name) on DWP."

DO - District Office - notice how Mrs GR tries to throw the blame for her abuse off onto the District Office staff.

Mrs GR never accepts responsibility for her own abusive behaviour.

She always claims that "somebody else told me to do it".

 

"But AM got a few things wrong re process."

Mrs GR abused the process.

This is my complaint.

Mrs GR seemed to be enjoying abusing the process.

 

"Informal process / step only put in place."

You are not telling Stephannie the truth, Mrs GR.

You and acting deputy principal Miss AL had a formal meeting with me.

You told me I would be in the DWP process the next year.

You gave me a letter to advise me that you had spoken with usual principal Mr EL - not the District Office staff, Mr EL - and that

"... he is in agreement that the (DWP) process is warranted."

And that he would be overseeing the process.

You had not been in my classroom for twelve months when you made that agreement with Mr EL, Mrs GR.

And Mr EL was on leave.

Your agreement was based on your malicious gossip.

Your entire knowledge of the DWP process was contained on a sticky-note.

2421 Lynch-Mob State College File F document 60

You were negligent, Mrs GR.

You were incompetent.

 

"DWP was to commence the following year.

But (my name) left the school before DWP commenced."

 

Yes, Mrs GR, dealing with your malice and irrational behaviour made me so ill that I gratefully accepted ill health retirement.

 

"Mrs GR indicated that she would send down all docs she has from Lynch-Mob SS."

340/5/1295 document 3015

This FOI document was released to me for the first time after January 9 2009.

 

Thursday 5 February 2004

Eve Gardiner, CMC officer, states:

"Rang CP (complainant - me) to advise of determination, however the number CP initially provided is the (Eve named Lynch-Mob State College, the school that I used to work at and where usual principal Mr EL 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 Lynch-Mob State College for a full three years. 

I never contacted Eve 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 on Thursday February 5 2004, two days before the state election?

  • Did Eve speak to usual principal Mr EL, one of the people whose behaviour I had complained about?

 

  • Did this compromise the FOI documents?

 

Saturday 7 February 2004

Was the day of the Queensland State election.

 

11 February 2004

The CMC handed Education Queensland all of the documents relating to my discrimination complaint.

I would presume that these are the documents in FOI 2606 File E

Documents 2606 E 230-232 are Matters Assessed 9M1-03-0035

This file contains my complaint about discrimination on the grounds of political belief, etc.

So departmental officers had the opportunity to read my discrimination complaint before they provided me with the FOI documents.

 

16 February 2004 8:52 AM

I emailed Stephannie Kalas and David Turner:

"I would appreciate some information about the progress of your searches."

 

Wednesday 18 February 2004 11:02AM

I emailed Anna Bligh education@ministerial.qld.gov.au

and copied the email to Greg Combet gcombet@actu.asn.au , The QTU qtu@qtu.asn.au , Correspondence.EXECLEGL@qed.qld.gov.au , HumanResources.HUMANRES@qed.qld.gov.au  and ken Smith  ken.smith@qed.qld.gov.au

 

"Dear Ms Bligh,

I understand that the CMC have sent my complaint to EQ for investigation.

Obviously this is a bit tricky as it is the behaviour of ... senior EQ officers that I am complaining about.

How do you intend dealing with this?

I am a bit tired of people investigating their own behaviour and finding themselves innocent. ..."

 

Thursday 19 February 2004

9:43 AM

Stephannie Kalas emailed me: 

" I have made contact with both Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL and acting principal Mrs GR and am presently waiting for further documents. ... "

11:14

I emailed Stephannie Kalas:

" ... Can you indicate which material was held at the ... District Office and which documents were sent later by usual principal Mr EL and acting principal Mrs GR when you send the material to me?

Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL wrote to me on 10 July 2002 that -

"The District Director rang me this morning and I will send all the paperwork we have to him to archive."

This was the agreement that I had made with the District Director and District office employee Mrs GN.

So I suppose that anything that usual principal Mr EL and acting principal Mrs GR are sending now must have been written after 10 July 2002. "

(i.e. after I had retired, and after I had been assured that all of my documents had been archived in the District Office.)

 

26 February 2004

Scott Smith, Departmental Liason Officer, Office of the Minister of Education wrote to me -

" ...The Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts, Anna Bligh MP, has asked me to respond to your letter (actually it was an email) of 18 February concerning workplace bullying.

The Minister acknowledges the points made in your letter, however she is not able to intervene in departmental staffing issues.

These issues fall under the responsibility of the Director-General of Education and the Arts, Mr Ken Smith.

The Minister has asked me to forward your letter to the Director-General for his information and direct reply.

The Minister thanks you for bringing this issue to her attention. ... "

 

Monday 1 March 2004 11:41 AM

I emailed Stephannie Kalas and David Turner:

" Stephannie and David, I am feeling very uneasy about this situation - so many weeks have passed with no result. It seems rather odd.

... All of the documents relating to my case should have been readily available in the ... District Office.

... Now it appears that more documents are being produced by E.L. and G.R..

This suggests to me that these documents are being newly written or re-written.

I note that these new documents are being produced AFTER Education Queensland has received my complaint to the ADCQ. ..."

 

Tuesday 2 March 2004 9:05 AM

Stephannie Kalas emailed:

" ... I have just received relevant documents (the documents I referred to in an earlier email) and I am going to look through them today ... "

 

23 March 2004

Stephannie Kalas wrote to me, telling me of her "decision". 

Her letter and the documents that she had allowed me "access" to were mailed to me on 25 March 2004.

 

Friday 26 March 2004 11:12 AM

Stephannie's FOI 2421 "decision" had arrived.

My remaining concerns with this 2421 decision are detailed below.

 

I emailed David Turner:

" David, I notice that document (2421 F) 61 appears to be a falsification.

By this I mean that it was never given to me.

What should I do about falsified documents?

Who should I report this to? "

 

As the 2421 documents were gradually released to me after 26 March 2004, I began to realise that a mass of falsified documents had been secretly placed on my official record in breach of Natural Justice, the Public Service Regulations, the Education Queensland Code of Conduct and the Education Queensland DWP policy.

For details of how these 2421 documents had been falsified, please refer to: http://www.badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm 

 

11:18 AM

I emailed the QTU qtu@qtu.asn.au -

" Hello QTU,

I have received a few FOI documents relating to the victimisation, discrimination, stalking, harassment, bullying, mobbing, etc. that I suffered at (my) State School.

I can see right away that one document has been falsified.

By this I mean that it was never given to me  (Document )063 (should be 061).

What should I do about this sort of falsified evidence?

Who do I report it to?

I am a financial member of the QTU. ... "

 

I rang the office of my local member.

 

I rang the QTU and asked for advice.

What could I do about falsified evidence?

I explained that in the FOI documents I had found one falsified document and one letter from a parent that I was not told about.

I was advised to ring back on Monday 29 March and talk to Fiona MacNamara.

 

I rang Stephannie Kalas to ask the same question. I was told that Stephannie would ring back on Monday.

 

3:00 PM

I emailed Stephannie Kalas and copied the email to David Turner.

" Stephannie,

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 a 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?

Were you under the impression that I had been told about this letter? "

 

4:21 PM

An unnamed person from EXECLEGL tried to email a letter to me. 

" ... If you are still unable to open the attachment please let me know by return email and I will post the original signed letter. ... "

 

8:47 PM

I replied to this email, as requested.

I was attacked by a backdoor subseven trojan horse - it came from computer 211 243 9 138 3586

 

The letter was from Neil Whittaker, Assistant Director-General, Shared Services, Office of the Director-General -

" ... The Minister for Education and the Arts, Anna Bligh MP asked the Director-General of Education and the Arts to reply to your email received on 19 February 2004.

The Director-General has asked me to respond to you on his behalf. ...

I understand you have lodged a complaint with the Crime and Misconduct Commission regarding your employment issues with Education Queensland and that these issues will be investigated in due course. ...

As previously advised, Education Queensland will not be corresponding with you any further in regard to the employment matters you have raised. ...

 

 ... will be investigated in due course. ... "

 

The investigation did not begin till the end of 2005.

It was completed in about July 2006.

I was not allowed to read any part of the report till after 12 June 2008.

To this day, 29 December, 2008, many pages of the report are still being refused to me under FOI.

 

" ... As previously advised, Education Queensland will not be corresponding with you any further in regard to the employment matters you have raised. ... "

 

So the answer to my question that day to Stephnnie Kalas and to the QTU -

"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 complaining that a mass of falsified documents had been secretly placed on my Education Queensland record.

And nobody was going to take responsibility for doing anything about the falsified documents.

 

Monday 29 March 2004 4:47pm

I emailed Fiona McNamara of the QTU and described the sticky-note 2421 F 60.

The sticky-note had CODE OF CONDUCT written on it.

I asked Fiona -

" ... Do you know who was advising acting principal Mrs GR to put me on DWP?

... Does this person know what the Code of Conduct issue was? "

 

To this day, 28 February 2008, I have not been told what the Code of Conduct issue was that Mrs GR seems to have been discussing with somebody.

And I do not know why this sticky-note was secretly placed on my official Education Queensland files to my disadvantage.

 

Tuesday 30 March 2004

9:03am

Ken Smith emailed me:

" ... I have been advised by the department's CMC liaison officer that the CMC has provided the department with details of your complaint against various departmental officers.

Copies of the folders you have provided have been delivered to the department by the CMC.

The information you have provided is being independently reviewed and the department will respond to the CMC in due course. ... "

 

Note the change - after I complained that several of the documents on my 'record" were falsified, the investigation was down-graded to an "independent review".

And the review was "Independent" in the sense that it was conducted by an Aboriginal employee of Education Queensland, under the direction of one of the senior Education Queensland officers that I had complained about.

This email to me from Ken Smith was then lost.

So there was no official record of the down-grading of the "investigation" into a "review".

 

 Wednesday 31 March 2004 9:04 AM

I emailed Stephannie Kalas, copied to David Turner:

" ... Thanks for your phone message yesterday.

I have not had a chance to really examine the documents and the list  ... yet.

I have started to check through the documents but they throw up so many questions that I think I need to devote some time to carefully checking ... "

 

12 April 2004

I made an application for an Internal Review of Stephannie's decision on FOI 2421.

 

11:08am

I emailed Keith Hynes, who was the Education Queensland Director of Ethical Standards.

I copied the email to the CMC and Ken Smith.

" ... 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 claim that I was victimised because I disclosed child abuse. And that I was discriminated against.

 

  • I wish to discuss certain conflict of interest issues. "

 

27 April 2004

Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. wrote his 'internal review' of FOI 2421.

My remaining concerns with this internal review are discussed below.

 

29 April 2004

I wrote to Keith Hynes, Director, Ethical Standards.

I described the several months that I had been waiting for the release of the FOI documents.

" The falsified documents that I have already seen and the high number of documents listed that I was never shown suggest to me that many of these documents have been falsified. ...

An 'impartial' opinion based on falsified documents would obviously be of little value.

I am also wondering if the 'secret reason' that I was put on the DWP was a false allegation made by a child.

I can understand a child telling a lie.

I believe the behaviour program at the school encouraged the children to lie.

I can understand a parent writing an angry letter.

My complaint is not about a child. 

... My complaint is about the menacing and impulsive bullying behaviour of G.R., her abuse of the DWP and the total failure of the Grievance process to deal with her abuse of her powers. "

I listed the issues that I wanted to discuss with the investigating officer.

I asked if the letters written to me by G.R. were of an acceptable professional standard.

I asked if the processes followed by G.R., E.L. and A.L. were in accordance with the DWP policy.

And if the investigations of my grievances were conducted in accordance with EQ procedures and ethical standards.

 

Mr Hynes, I put my heart into my career. I studied part time for ten years to develop my skills.

The bullying and discrimination that I suffered in this area destroyed my health and would have driven me to breakdown if I had not discovered that I was deaf.

There is need for change.

I have been very patient. I have been very discrete. Please show me that EQ can deal with this.

 

4 May 2004

7:47am

I emailed MailBox@justice.qld.gov.au

I explained that I had found falsified documents on my official record.

... I strongly suspect that many of the (other) documents on my file have been falsified and that evidence supportive of my case has been 'lost'.

I am worried that my case will be 'impartially investigated' before I have an opportunity to examine these falsified documents and give the investigator the missing documents. ...

I have been waiting for these FOI documents for several months now.

Can you help me?

 

9:22am

Cameron Wilson replied. My email had been forwarded to the FOI unit.

 

That afternoon

I phoned the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - trained discrimination solicitor M. E. who had conducted the internal review of FOI 2421.

(This phone call is described in my letter to the Information Commissioner dated 28 May 2004.)

I discussed his letter to me dated 27 April 2004.

I asked M.E. why he had ignored my 12 April 2004 request for an internal review of Stephannie Kalas's decision to limit her FOI search and ignore my demand for some documents, e.g. my 29/09/2003 demand for the report written by the CJC liaison officer.

I understood M.E. to explain to me that this was a problem with the administration of my application and that he was not empowered to review Stephannie's administration of my application.

He was only empowered to review her decision.

M.E. advised me to take the administration of the FOI decision up with Stephannie in the first instance and then with her supervisor.

It is hard to know why M.E. gave me this advice because, when I followed it, neither Stephannie nor her supervisior made any response.

 

5:59

I emailed Stephannie Kalas.

I sent her a copy of my 2421 Internal Review application.

I explained M.E.'s advice to me that I should take her decision to limit her search up with her.

... I feel particularly concerned that you made no attempt to find the CJC report or the file on 'the investigation carried out last year' described by (the EQ District Staff Welfare Officer).

I believe that either or both these documents would help me to understand the 'secret other reason' that I had to be put on DWP....

The process / secret process / secret reasons given during the process of reaching that decision - these are what interest me. ...

 

Stephannie did not respond.

N.B. I do not suggest that Stephannie Kalas or any other person named here was involved in the bullying.

I have concealed the names of public servants who seem to me to have been actively involved with the bullying or mobbing, or who seem to me to be a risk of "payback" because they behaved ethically.

 

Saturday 8 May 2004

9:54

I emailed Stephannie Kalas and copied the email to mailBox@justice.qld.gov.au   complaints@cmc.qld.gov.au   postmaster@cmc.qld.gov.au   and keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

Subject: Message for Stephannie and M.E.

In the documents that I have just received -

031

G.R. stated that there were a lot of allegations and that she had lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened. ...

These 'lots of pieces of paper to prove ...' and 'lots of allegations' are what I am demanding.

Where are they?

 

Monday 10 May 2004

10:04am

Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity commission - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. replied:

The FOI Unit is unable to identify the document referred to by G.R..

But the FOI Unit could have asked G.R. for these specific documents.

... It is not the role of the FOI Unit to research your concerns or questioning G.R. on her references. Nor can it generally provide you with information, its role is confined to providing documents containing information. The FOI Unit is not an investigative body.

The FOI Unit has obtained the documents held by (the) State School and provided you with its decision(s) ...

But G. R. was not at that school now.

She had been promoted to another school a few days after I had been assured that the bullying was under control.

... you are entitled to take up these concerns with the external review agency., the office of the Information Commissioner. ...

 

To this date, 28 February 2008, Education Queensland have refused to provide me with copies of these -

 'a lot of allegations' 

and 'lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened...' .

 

13 May 2004

I emailed the Ombudsman and the CMC to express my concern that documents seemed to be being 'whitewashed' by EQ officers to 'edit out' certain persons from the official story and to introduce others into the official story.

I believed that this was being done because of my discrimination complaint to the ADCQ.

I pointed out changes that had been made to one "record'.

 

17 May 2004

Kathryn Mahoney was, I understand, head of Administrative law and also supervisor of Stephannie Kalas.

Kathryn Mahoney was the CJC liaison officer who had examined my Grievance about the systemic abuse of the DWP and the Grievance policy to bully Queensland teachers, and who had "decided" that it was not a public interest disclosure.

So it was her supervisor's "CJC" report that I was asking Stephannie to search for.

 

7:39am

I emailed Kathryn Mahoney.

I referred to her undated letter to me, mailed about 27/11/2001, in which she stated that my complaint was not a CJC issue and should be dealt with as a Grievance.

I asked Katherine to regard the email as a formal request for a review of Stephannie Kalas's administrative decision not to search for the documents related to her own decision of 27/11/2001 and the other documents that I had requested.

Kathryn did not respond.

 

10:58am

I emailed Keith Hynes keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

I copied the email to postmaster@cmc.qld.gov.au  mwinniak@ombudsman.qld.gov.au   complaints@cmc.qld.gov.au

I attached my response to 2421 F document 32-28 (This copy of the document was photocopied backwards).

This document was headed "Meeting with (me), (the local QTU organiser), (acting principal G.R.), and (acting deputy principal A.L.). 27 November 2000".

This "record" was written by acting deputy principal A.L.

It had been placed secretly on my file in breach of Natural Justice, the Public Service Regulations, the Code of Conduct, etc.

The "record" had been significantly falsified.

 

12:28pm

I emailed Keith Hynes keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

I copied the email to postmaster@cmc.qld.gov.au  mwinniak@ombudsman.qld.gov.au   complaints@cmc.qld.gov.au

I attached my response to 2421 E documents 1-2.

These documents purported to be the "investigation report"  that the usual principal E.L. read at the start of the meeting on February 5 2001.

I would appreciate it if you would give a copy of this response to FOI documents E 1-2 to the impartial investigator.

 

19 May 2004

3:14

I emailed Keith Hynes keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

I copied the email to postmaster@cmc.qld.gov.au  mwinniak@ombudsman.qld.gov.au   complaints@cmc.qld.gov.au

I attached my response to FOI 2421 F 7.

This was a document signed by acting deputy principal A.L. and dated 13/10/2000.

It had been placed secretly on my file in breach of Natural Justice, the Public Service Regulations, the Code of Conduct, etc.

... I presume that the investigator will not have time to read everything and so I am picking out documents that illustrate the main complaints that I am making.

N.B. document 2421 F 58 is another document that has been entirely falsified. It appears to be a confidential note to me but I was never shown this document and it was never discussed with me. ...

 

Monday 24 May 2004

2:03pm

I emailed Keith Hynes keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

I copied the email to postmaster@cmc.qld.gov.au  mwinniak@ombudsman.qld.gov.au  complaints@cmc.qld.gov.au

I attached my response to FOI 2421 F 9-11.

This was acting principal G.R.'s 'record' of the incident on 4 October 2000 when I took Mother D.A. to G.R.'s office because of Mother D.A.'s threatening and abusive behaviour.

This 'record' had been placed secretly on my official Education Queensland files to my disadvantage.

The 'record' was significantly falsified to my disadvantage.

 

... I think this is the last individual document to which I will write an individual response.

Basically the other documents are just more of the same.

If there is another document you would like me to respond to, please advise me.

... In my professional opinion, acting school principal G.R. has a mental health problem.

 

28 May 2004

I wrote to the Queensland Information Commissioner, detailing the history of the 'administrative decision' that M.E. had advised me that Stephannie Kalas had made to limit my FOI 2421 application.

I asked for an external review of this decision to limit my application.

 

3 June 2004

9:19am

Infocomm officer N.O.D. asked me to telephone her to discuss the external review application.

 

Sunday 6 June 2004

7:59

I emailed Infocomm officer N.O.D.

... The most long-standing situation is the administrative decision made by Stephannie Kalas to limit my first FOI application.

I particularly wanted the documents etc. related to the CJC liaison officer report and also the FOI file of information from the district office related to an investigation that took place in 2001.

( I understand that) My principal told the teachers (who protested about me being put on DWP) that there was a secret reason for putting me on DWP. I am trying to find out what the secret reason was.

... Several of the documents that have been released to me so far have been significantly falsified.

 

Monday 7 June 2004

11:09

I emailed keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

And I copied the email to  ThePremier@premiers.qld.gov.au  complaints@cmc.qld.gov.au  the ADCQ, Stephannie.Kalas@qed.qld,gov.au ken.smith@qed.qld.gov.au  mwinniak@ombudsman.qld.gov.au and  postmaster@cmc.qld.gov.au

 

For the attention of the CMC Impartial Investigation Officer

C/O Keith Hynes, Director, Ethical Standards, Education Queensland.

Today I spoke to Infocomm Officer N.O.D., an FOI external review officer.

I explained that Education Queensland had told me that my case would be impartially investigated. ...

 

Actually this was not correct.

In his email to me dated Tuesday 30 March 2004  9:03am, Ken Smith had stated:

... The information you have provided is being independently reviewed and the department will respond to the CMC in due course. ...

At this time I did not realise the significant difference between an 'independent review' and an 'impartial investigation'.

Ken Smith had actually chosen an independent review .

In an Education Queensland independent review, a junior Aboriginal employee 'in training' with no qualifications in law, psychology or education would simply read the falsified documents and 'infer' from the falsified documents.

Or simply 'infer' based on no documentary evidence at all.

I did not anticipate that the 'reviewer' would not be allowed to ask any questions.

I did not anticipate that the 'reviewer' would refuse to 'consider' my responses to the falsified documents.

 

You might consider that this Aboriginal employee was being abused as a puppet to my disadvantage.

And I might agree with you.

 

... I talked about

... My concern that the documents that I had been allowed to see so far had been shockingly falsified.

... My concern that the extended delay in giving me copies of these documents has impacted on the impartial investigation. There can be no 'impartial investigation' if my files are full of secret lies that I have not had the opportunity to disprove.

... It was radiantly obvious from the first moment that I was being menaced and bullied. The bully bullied me because she thought that the system would allow her to get away with it.

It is important that 'the system' functions effectively and that this bully learns that her bullying will be exposed. She must learn to stop bullying.

Or you will have to go through this all again when she bullies her next target.

 

17 June 2004

Jeff Backen (QTU Officer) wrote to me to advise me that I could consider lodging a complaint with the Director-General regarding a breach of sections 15 and 16 of the Public Service Regulation 1997.

21 June 2004

12:35pm

I emailed Ken Smith, copied to the CMC and the Ombudsman.

I attached a letter to Ken Smith.

"As you will be aware, I have recently discovered that certain falsified documents were secretly placed on my EQ file before decisions concerning me - the DWP and the grievance process - were determined. ..."

22 June 2004

12:45pm

I hand-delivered a printed copy of the 21 June 2004 letter to the District Office of Education Queensland.

I enclosed a printed copy of my response to each of the five falsified documents listed in the letter.

3:37pm

I emailed Ken Smith to advise him that I had hand-delivered a copy of my letter to him and copies of my responses to five of the falsified documents to the District Office.

I named the person to whom I had handed the letter and documents.

"I would appreciate your assurance that the responses will be attached to EACH copy of the falsified documents, wherever they are filed." 

 

(From this point I have only detailed key dates and decisions concerning FOI 2421, to give an outline of the history of my application.)

July 2 2004

The CMC handed Education Queensland my complaint about the falsification of my records.

July 12 2004

The FOI 2469 documents arrived and I found that File F - which contained the bulk of the falsified 'records' - had now been re-organised and comments had been hand-written on the documents, significantly changing the 'story' told in some of the falsified 'records'.

If these comments had been written on the documents on 23 March 2004, why were they not released to me on 23 March 2004? 

July 29 2004

Infocomm Officer N.O.D. emailed me -

Given that you currently have 2 reviews on foot, and that the later access application 924690 ... is also broader, and therefore encompasses any documents in issue in the earlier FOI access application (2421) ... are you agreeable to putting 92421) on hold till 92469) is finalised?

Like an innocent fool, I agreed.

I bitterly regret this decision now, because I have not received the 2421 documents to this day, March 1 2008.

I did not realise - and Infocomm Officer N.O.D. did not explain - that this would 'lock' my 2421 FOI application behind 2469, and that 2469 would be dealt with very slowly, so it would be two more years till I would be able to apply for the 2421 documents again.

And that, in the meantime, many of the Education Queensland officers would change jobs and destroy all of their documents.

And that XXX XXX and Rachel Hunter would select Ken Smith's wife to be the new Information Commissioner, and the FOI laws would be changed to my disadvantage.

 

December 19 2004

4:12pm

I emailed Infocomm Officer N.O.D. ombudsman@ombudsman.qld.gov.au  ken.smith@qed.qld.gov.au  john.ryan@qed.qld.gov.au

I attached a copy of a letter to Margaret Newbery, Assistant Information Commissioner.

... I note that (the District Director) now thinks that he recalls a conversation at (the) State school with acting school principal G.R. about putting me on Diminished Workplace performance in the course of one of his regular school visits.

This is a totally new story.

I was never told in any meeting that (the District Director) had been involved in the decision to put me on DWP. During the past four years I have seen no document in which it has ever been suggested that (the District Director) was involved in this decision.

If this new claim is true it means that during the run-up to the state election, (the District Director) (I described a significant conflict of interest situation) and, although neither of them had seen me teach or looked at my program, they planned to put me, another Labor Party member and (I described a conflict of interest situation) on DWP. Then (the District Director) left the school without speaking to me.

I find this new story quite incredible.

A few weeks later I read in The Courier-Mail that Cathi Taylor, Ken Smith's wife, had been selected as the new information Commissioner.

And I that XXX XXX had been a member of the selection committee.

There was discussion in the media of the fact that Cathi Taylor was a social worker with no legal training. She had no skills and only limited experience of FOI.

  • FOI boss pledges to avoid conflicts, The Courier-Mail, 09/03/2005
  • Crash course for FOI chief, The Courier-Mail, 11/03/2005

 

Wednesday March 1, 2006

4:44 PM: John Ryan emailed Kathryn Mahoney.

He copied the email to District Director S.K.

" Dear Kathryn,

I've just spoken to (Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR) - the principal who (my name) targets -"

Suddenly the bully has become the victim!

"she called me regarding ... the ongoing request for information from the department about this issue - (Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR) sounds very fragile"

This is "G.R.'s advice seeking grooming strategy" again.

And where was all of this concern in November 2000, when G.R. was bullying me into ill health and out of work?

"she has asked if there is any way we can stop asking her for information - she was not specific about requests -

I've given her an update on what we are trying to do re allegation of false documents she has asked if there is any way we can limit requests to her about the 2000 issue - she is fearful about her safety -"

If Mrs GR had been telling the truth about the situation.

- If her secret records were truthful -

Why would she need to fear for her safety?

She would only need to fear for her safety if she had been abusing parents and children as puppets to speak her own words.

"- I'm happy to discuss

Regards john"

2875 File A Legal and Administrative Law Branch, document 681

 

Is this the way that FOI is supposed to work?

 

Thursday 2 March, 2006

9:36 AM: Kathryn Mahoney emailed Education Queensland FOI officer D.J.

She attached the 4:44 PM previous day's email from John Ryan.

 

" Would like your thoughts on this matter sometime

Kathryn "

2875 File A Legal and Administrative Law Branch, document 681

 

29 March 2006

Susan Barker, Assistant information Commissioner, wrote to me concerning FOI 2421 (Infocomm Ref 344/04).

The letter was actually written by Infocomm Officer N.O.D.

" ... it is (at last, after a delay of almost two years) appropriate to take this review out of abeyance.

... In my preliminary view, there are presently no reasonable grounds upon which I could form a view that the Department has in its possession or control documents responsive to your FOI application ... "

And I began to suspect that I had been tricked.

 

25 April 2006

I wrote to Susan Barker / infocomm Officer N.O.D.

" Thank you for the opportunity to re-state my application for 2361 and 2421.

I have ... listed the missing documents. "

 

29 April 2006

I wrote to the office of the Information Commissioner.

"concerning - DEA 2361 and DEA 2421 (IC 344/04)

I would be agreeable to making the search for the two lists of missing documents ... a new internal DEA (Education Queensland) search.

It would seem to be a simpler way to approach the situation.

Would this be agreeable to the Information Commissioner?"

 

4 May 2006

Susan Barker, Assistant Information Commissioner (the letter would actually have been written by Infocomm officer N.O.D.), accepted my proposal.

She declared my FOI application 2421 (IC 344/04) finalised and closed her file.

 

9 May 2006

1:36am

I emailed trevor.morris@qed.qld.gov.au and copied the email to ken.smith@qed.qld.gov.au

I attached a list of the missing 2421 documents.

"Infocomm have agreed that (the missing 2421 documents) should be handled as a new FOI request directly to the department."

 

I made this suggestion to Infocomm in good faith.

But to this date, March 21 2008, I have never received any of these missing 2421 documents.

 

10 May 2006

12:40am

Matt Woodforth emailed me.

He could not understand my application and so he did not accept it.

I had asked questions. I should have asked for documents.

 

11 May 2006

I wrote to Matt Woodforth.

I had asked for documents. But I had provided extra context information to assist with the search.

(Actually Matt was correct on this point. I had asked questions rather than asking for specific documents.)

 

12 May 2006

9:44

Matt offered to accept my re-stated 2421 application as an amendment to FOI application 2875.

I was reluctant to agree to this in case it was a strategy to delay FOI 2875.

 

19 May 2006

10:18

Matt Woodforth emailed me.

The registered envelope that I had mailed the two lists of missing 2421 documents had arrived.

However, the two lists of missing 2421 documents were not in the registered envelope!

" ... In order that these documents are considered in responding to your FOI application can you please provide a copy of these to me as soon as possible."

4:49pm

I emailed the lists of missing 2421 documents to Matt Woodforth again.

 

16 July 2006

I wrote to the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commission, detailing the vexacious refusal of Education Queensland officers to provide me with these documents that I had first requested in September 2003.

 

To this date, 21 March 2008, I have not received any of these missing 2421 documents.

 

At this date, 21 March 2008, my remaining concerns about FOI 2421 are as follows -

 

1) The missing District Office "Report" as described above - 

26 May 2002 5:07 PM

I had emailed the Staff Welfare Office at the District Office.

... Before I leave the Department there are a couple of concerns that I would like to clear up.

I find the three letters that G.R. gave me and the "report" written by E.L. defamatory and professionally negligent. They offend me. I would like to have these letters and the report officially withdrawn. I do not want them turning up on my record at some future date.

If they are not withdrawn I would like a written assurance that, wherever these documents are stored in future, my 120 page response will also be stored.

How can I make this request? ...

 

27 May 2002 1:32 PM

The Staff Welfare Officer had replied:

... I have queried your questions with District Office Employees G.N. and C.H.R ...

At this office we hold two files for you: your 'general personnel file' (that you can see with an appointment at any time, and photocopy anything out of it), and a confidential file with documentation pertaining to the investigation that took place last year.

 

When I read this in 2002, I presumed that 'the investigation that took place last year' was E.L.'s investigation into my Stage 1 grievance.

The report was represented to me as an Investigation report at the time.

And, when I offered E.L. the opportunity to withdraw the report on Monday 27 May 2002 at 16:01-

 

I am concerned about the three letters written by G.R. and the "report" that you wrote in response to my request for fewer disruptions to my Indonesian lessons.

I consider that these letters are defamatory and professionally negligent. I would like them to be withdrawn. By this I mean that I would like a letter to state that the report has been formally withdrawn.

In the case of (acting deputy principal) E.L., yourself, regional office staff and possibly head office staff, , in my judgement you were being manipulated as described in Bully On Line, "The Socialised Psychopathic Manager".

I believe that your personal judgement in this instance was wrong but that the very high regard in which you are held by every member of the school community and my own peronal respect for your intelligence and professional capabilities far outweigh this one mistake.

I believe that you were manipulated at a time when you were distracted by serious personal concerns and that this manipulation was quite cruel. I would expect that now you have had the time that you needed to look into the issue further and re-consider your opinion. I would be more than happy to accept the withdrawl of your 'report'.

If you feel able to provide me with a letter withdrawing the report in seven days, I will be happy to consider the issue settled through informal discussion in the case of E.L., yourself, district office staff and any member of the head office stff who was drawn into the situation.

 

E.L. claimed that he could not withdraw the "report" on his investigation -

... I have had the time to review the "report" this week and looked at the recommendations that were made from the investigation on 05/02/01.

As this is a Grievance Report (stage 1) it cannot be rescinded.

 

A copy of this email to me from E.L. can be found on my official records at 2469 F 128.

But the original document was moved over to the right hand side when it was photocopied and, in this way, the date of the investigation was 'edited out' of the official record in 2469 F 128 -

 

... I have had time to review the "report" this week and ... the recommendations that were made from the investigation on the  ...

As this is a Grievance Report (stage 1) it can not be rescinded.

 

But more than four years later, after 6 April 2005, I was sent a copy of Education Queensland officer K.E.'s "internal review"

(attached to letter to me from Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission -trained discrimination solicitor M.E. dated 6 April 2005)

and I discovered for the first time that -

 

Page 20 -21

60.

f) the principal chose not to commission or undertake a detail (sic) investigation but to meet with the parties and resolve the issues;

g) it is not clear whether the Complainant had accepted this approach by the Principal before it was implemented;

 

 

So the 2124 documents seem to be documents pertaining to another investigation that was conducted in 2001, an investigation that has always been concealed from me.

 

This file is available for you to see under FOI (Freedom of Information), and yes, holds any response you might have made in this process. This file will continue to be kept under lock in District Officer C.H.R.'s room. ...

I understand that any 'school based' information will be held and suitably archived by the Principal at the school. You may like to contact E.L. to clarify this. District Office doesn't necessarily receive all school data. ...

 

8 August 2003

District Officer C.H.R. wrote a Briefing Note for the Minister for Education.

(2469 File L 109-111 - numbered backwards at top right hand side of page.)

 

20. As (I) requested, all documents are archived in the District Office.

District Officer C.H.R. conceals the fact that my "request" related to the four documents that I had discussed with the Staff Welfare Officer, the District Director and District Officer G.N..

But a mass of falsified documents that I knew nothing about, and an investigation report that I knew nothing about had also been 'archived'.

 

These Documents were always kept in secure storage but were available to (me) at any time.

District Officer C.H.R. conceals the fact that I knew nothing about these documents.

And C.H.R. also conceals the fact that, when I had asked the Staff Welfare Officer about my documents, C.H.R. and G.N. had advised her that the 'confidential file with documentation pertaining to the investigation that took place last year' would only be available to me under FOI (Freedom of Information) - in other words, only after a process that would take months and even years to complete.

 

The documents that were returned from the Employee Relations Unit are part of this file.

RECOMMENDATION

21. It is recommended that any reply to (me) be based on the documentation of the investigation of her complaint held by the (District) and any other Education Queensland Unit.

 

So responses to my letters were based on these documents, many of which I knew nothing about, and many of which had been extensively falsified to my disadvantage.

 

... the investigation of her complaint ...

What investigation is C.H.R. describing?

The Stage 1 Grievance investigation that I had asked for , but which the "internal reviewer" found that E.L. had decided not to conduct?

Or another investigation that is being concealed from me to this date, 13 February 2008?

 

24 September 2003

Seven weeks after District Officer C.H.R. wrote the Briefing Note for the Minister for Education, I applied for my documents under FOI.

And many of the documents, purportedly "archived" under lock in C.H.R.'s office, promptly vanished.

 

29 July 2004

In a draft "review" of my complaint, Education Queensland Project Officer K.E. wrote-

 

22. ... assertions made by the complainant relating to lost documents ...

 

At that date - 29 July 2004 - I had complained about, and sent K.E. responses to, some of the many falsified documents that I had found on my Departmental file under FOI.

But at that date I had not realised that the department were dealing with my letters and documents by "losing" them.

 

...and the non-reading of documents previously by the Department and external "review" agencies, the author dou ...

 

(FOI Document 2733 L no.6, first released to me after 27 October 2005.) 

 

This suggests that before 29 July 2004 -

 

  • at least two external "review" agencies had reviewed my complaint.

 

  • and that Project Officer K.E. was aware of these "reviews" by external agencies.

 

But to this date, 2 March, 2008, these 'reviews' by external agencies are still being concealed from me.

 

12 October 2004

I met Ombudsmen L.O. and R.S.

Ombudsman R.S. made a memo of this meeting.

I received a copy of the memo was attached to a letter to me dated 5th June 2006 from the Ombudsman's Freedom of Information Decison Maker.

Ombudsman R.S.'s memo is truthful and accurate.

But one section -

 

... She also thought that her grievance had in fact been informally resolved. The District Director ... told her that he "had the bullying under control".

However this was contrary to the conclusion reached by stage 2 grievance investigator (E.L.) who found that no bullying had in fact occurred. ...

 

- seemed to me to be gibberish when I read it in 2006.

 

  • These Ombudsmen and I did not discuss this purported "stage 2 grievance investigation" during our meeting.

 

  • I know nothing about this purported Stage 2 Grievance Investigation.

 

  • To this date, 13 February 2008, despite many FOI applications to both the Ombudsman and Education Queensland, I have been refused a copy of this purported "stage 2 grievance investigation" by school administrator E.L..

 

  • And it would not have been appropriate for school administrator E. L. to conduct any such stage 2 grievance investigation because it was his own abuse of the DWP and Grievance stage 1 processes that I was complaining about!

 

June 22 2005

I attended the Queensland Teacher's Union Annual General Meeting.

I was talking to one Union Officer about the bullying.

She suddenly turned to me, as if she was exasperated, and said in a very unpleasant and "meaningful" manner, something to the effect of,

""Did you ever consider that she might have made a complaint about you? Did you ever consider that?"

(I have identified this officer in my letter to John Battams dated 21 February, 2007)

 

G.R. had threatened me five times during the meeting on 2 February 2001.

This was the meeting that I had understood to be a meeting to discuss E.L.'s report on his investigation.

G.R. threatened five times to "take action" against me if I continued to complain.

I presumed at the time that G.R. meant that this action would be taken if I made a Stage 2 grievance.

So there is a possiblity that E.L.'s "Stage 2 Grievance investigation" that I was told nothing about, and in which E.L. purported to find no evidence of his own bullying, was actually a faux investigation into a complaint made by G.R.

And the mass of falsified documents that were secretly placed on my official record were concocted to support G.R.'s 'Grievance' against me.

 

27 January 2006

EQ Head Office Employee M.N. made notes on what seems to have been a telephone conversation with District Office Employee C.H.R.

(District Office Employee C.H.R.) - What are Verifact investigating?

(Names District Office) report never given to her & was lost?-

Need to look - at report.

(FOI 2875 File J Document 221)

 

On 12 April 2004 I requested an internal review of FOI 2421.

I requested -

 

Any response to my Stage 2 Grievance 31 August 2001 and my Stage 2 Grievance 3rd June 2002. These reports should identify the 'reason' that was given for abusing the DWP.

  • I demand a copy of all EQ responses to my grievances.

 

But to this date, 13 February, 2008, despite many FOI requests to the Ombudsman, Education Queensland and the CMC, the missing Stage 2 Grievance investigation report has not been released to me.

 

But all Education Queensland, Ombudsman and CMC decisions concerning me seem to have been based on this "vanished" report.

 

And, in addition, I am unsure how many reports are being concealed from me.

Is there a missing District Office Report as well?

Are there other reports that are being concealed from me?

 

2) To this date, 21 March, 2008, the Education Queensland FOI officers do not seem to have searched for the documents that I actually requested on 12 December 2003.

 

When I made my application on 12 December 2003, I had written:

I suspect that there may have been political reasons for me being punished. Can you find any evidence of a political motivation for the punishment? ...

But Stephannie changed the wording of my application to -

... 2. documents relating to a Community Cabinet meeting on 23 June 2002 in ... (your town) ... at which the Minister for Education and the Premier made statements that refer to you.

Which is a much narrower FOI request.

 

12 April 2004  I made an application for an internal review and I asked again for -

... any material that explains why I was put on DWP. ... I am particularly interested in political factors that played a part in the situation. Was there a political reason for punishing me? ...

 

27 April 2004

The Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal opportunity solicitor conducted an internal review of my application.

He explained that I had to request document rather than information and he corrected my words -

Can you find any material that explains why I was put on DWP? particularly, can you find any evidence of this 'secret, other" reason?

to-

... any [documents] that explains why I was put on DWP? Particularly, can you find any [documents] of this "secret other" reason?

and he states that -

Those two sentences thus define the "scope" of your request.

 

He has edited out the second part of my FOI request -

I suspect that there may have been political reasons for me being punished. Can you find any evidence of a political motivation for the punishment? ...

 

Rather than treating it in the same manner as the first part of my request -

I suspect that there may have been political reasons for me being punished. Can you find any [documentation] of a political motivation for the punishment? ...

 

To this date, 12 February, 2008, Education Queensland FOI officers have not searched for the documents that I actually requested on 12 December 2003.

 

3) To this date I have not been provided with copies of the "lot of allegations" and the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened" described by Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR at the meeting on 27 November 2000.

 

This statement by Mrs GR was recorded by acting principal Mr EL and placed secretly on my official record -

" ... (G.R.) then stated that there were a lot of allegations, and that she had lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened. ..."

(FOI 2421 F 31, number at top right hand side of the page, 2733 F document 32, number at bottom of page) Notes made by acting principal E.L.)

 

Nor have I been provided with a copy of the "notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.) from D-----" which contained the allegations concerning me that triggered G.R.'s defamatory comments concerning me at the staff meeting on 10 November 2000.

(Described in 2421 F 40, number at top right hand side of the page. Also 2733 F 24, number at bottom of page, an unsigned note, handwritten on two small pieces of paper or rectangular sticky-notes. Seem to be written by G.R.)

 

I first made a specific request for these missing documents on Saturday 8 May 2004:

9:54

I emailed Stephannie Kalas and copied the email to mailBox@justice.qld.gov.au   complaints@cmc.qld.gov.au   postmaster@cmc.qld.gov.au   and keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

Subject: Message for Stephannie and M.E.

In the documents that I have just received -

031

G.R. stated that there were a lot of allegations and that she had lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened. ...

These 'lots of pieces of paper to prove ...' and 'lots of allegations' are what I am demanding.

Where are they?

 

Either G.R. was lying.

In which case I would like an apology.

Or G.R. was telling the truth.

In which case I would like to be provided with a copy of these 'lot of allegations' and 'lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened'.

And with a copy of the notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.) from D----- which contained the allegations concerning me that triggered G.R.'s defamatory comments concerning me at the staff meeting on 10 November 2000.

 

4)The copy of File 2421 C The District Office Documents that was sent to me was actually labelled Application 2361 File C.

I am unsure whether File C in 2361 and 2421 are the same.

 

Could there be two different versions of this file? 

Which one was Stephannie describing?

Which version was I given?

Which version was given to the internal reviewer?

Which version was given to the Verifact Commercial Investigator?

 

I need to compare the original 2361 and 2421 documents to find out the truth about this.

 

5) File C (The District Office) Documents 28-29 .

 

These documents were not described by Stephannie on 23 March 2004.

To this date, 12 February 2008, these documents have not been provided to me.

 

6) File F (The School) Document 1 

 

23 March 2004 this document was described by Stephannie Kalas as handwritten note from (me) to G.R., so presumably it existed on 23 March 2004.

Stephannie refused me access to this document.

27 April 2004 Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. made no mention of this document when he conducted his 'internal review'.

By 27 October 2005 this document had vanished from the offical records.

To this date, 13 February 2008, this document has not been provided to me.

 

7) File F (The School) Document 2

 

23 March 2004 this document was described by Stephannie as Letter from G.R. to (me) dated 20/11/2000.

Stephannie refused me a copy of this document.

27 April 2004 Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. provided me with a copy of this document.

It was a true copy. 

But by 27 October 2005 this document had vanished from the official records.

 

8) File F (The School) Documents 3-4, 6

 

23 March 2004 this document was described by Stephannie as Letter from (me) to G.R. dated 21/11/00.

Stephannie denied me access to this document.

27 April 2004 Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. made no mention of these documents when he conducted his 'internal review'.

27 October 2005 these documents had vanished from the official records.

To this date, 13 February 2008, this document has not been provided to me.

 

9) File F (The School) Document 5

 

23 March 2004 this document was not described by Stephannie Kalas.

27 April 2004 Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. made no mention of this document when he conducted his 'internal review'.

27 October 2005 this document (or the fact that this document was missing) had vanished from the official record.

To this date, 13 February 2008, this document has not been provided to me.

 

10) File F (The School) Document 7

 

Was described by Stephannie on 23 March 2004 as Note from acting deputy principal A.L. concerning behaviour management issues involving my students dated 13/10/00

23 March 2004 Stephannie Kalas denied me access to this document.

27 April 2004 Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. provided me with a copy of this document.

This document had not been shown to me before 27 April 2004.

It had been placed secretly on my official record to my disadvantage in breach of the Public Service Regulations, the Departmental Code of Conduct and the Education Queensland DWP policy.

By 27 October 2005 this document had vanished from the official record.

 

11) File F (The School) Document 8

 

23 March 2004 this document was described by Stephannie as Note from acting deputy principal A.L. concerning behaviour management issues involving my students dated 18/10/00

Stephannie denied me access to this document on 23 March 2004.

27 April 2004 Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. provided me with a copy of this document.

This document had not been shown to me before 27 April 2004.

It had been placed secretly on my official record to my disadvantage in breach of the Public Service Regulations, the Departmental Code of Conduct and the Education Queensland DWP policy.

By 27 October 2005 this document had vanished from the official record.

 

12) File F (The School) Documents 9-11

 

23 March 2004 these documents were described by Stephannie as Record of incident between (me) and parent dated 4/10/00

Stephannie Kalas denied me access to this document on 23 March 2004.

27 April 2004 Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. provided me with a copy of this document.

This document had not been shown to me before 27 April 2004.

It had been placed secretly on my official record to my disadvantage in breach of the Public Service Regulations, the Departmental Code of Conduct and the Education Queensland DWP policy.

By 27 October 2005 these documents had vanished from the official record.

 

13) File F (The School) Document 12

 

23 March 2004 this document was described by Stephannie Kalas as Note of interview between me and acting school principal G.R. dated 12/10/00 concerning an incident involving a parent.

Stephannie denied me access to this document on 23 March 2004.

27 April 2004 Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. provided me with a copy of this document.

This document had not been shown to me before 27 April 2004.

It had been placed secretly on my official record to my disadvantage in breach of the Public Service Regulations, the Departmental Code of Conduct and the Education Queensland DWP policy.

By 27 October 2005 this document had vanished from the official record.

 

14) File F (The School) Documents 28-32

 

Were described by Stephannie on 23 March 2004 as

Notes of meeting between (acting school principal G.R.), (acting deputy principal A.L.), (the usual principal E.L.) and (me) on 27/11/00.

This document had been placed secretly on my official record to my disadvantage in breach of the Public Service regulations, the Departmental Code of Conduct and the Education Queensland DWP policy.

This document had clearly been falsified because the usual principal E.L. had not attended this meeting.

And the local QTU organiser had attended the meeting.

 

On 12 April 2004 I applied for an external review of Stephannie's 'decision' not to allow me to see this document:

... 28-32 Notes of meeting ... I presume that this is a typo. I met with G.R., A.L. and (the local QTU organiser). E.L. was not at this meeting. The notes of this meeting were probably falsified and would certainly indicate the reason / 'secret other reason' why I was put on DWP. ... I demand these notes.

 

To this date, 12 February 2008, I have not been provided with a copy of this original F 28-32 document.

 

27 April 2004 the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. stated -

... I have carefully read your request letter ...

and M.E. provided me with what seems to be a substitute document headed -

Meeting with (me), (the local union organiser), (acting principal G.R.) and (acting deputy principal A.L.)

27 November 2000.

The name of the usual principal - who had not been present at the meeting - had now been changed to that of the local union organiser.

 

Acting deputy principal E.L. had written this substitute document.

So there is a possibility that the first, falsified document, was a "record' of the meeting written by G.R. to creat the impression that E.L. had been present at this meeting and had discussed the situation with me before the agreement was made to put me on DWP.

 

15)  Missing documentation of an investigation by Katrina Jefferson, Katherine Mahoney and N.N. into my complaint.

 

On 3 September 2003 Robert Walker, CMC officer, wrote to me:

Re: Concerns about Education Queensland officers Katrina Jefferson, Kathryn Mahoney and N.N.

I refer to your email and documentation dated 9 August 2003, in which you raised concerns about the conduct of Ms Katrina Jefferson, Ms Katherine Mahoney and N.N., who investigated your workplace grievance. ...

 

This CMC letter seemed to be gobberish to me.

I had not complained about the behaviour of Katrina Jefferson or Kathryn Mahoney.

I had complained about the refusal of Education Queensland senior officer N.N. to investigate my complaint.

I knew nothing about any investigation by Katrina Jefferson, Katherine Mahoney and N.N. into my complaint.

 

On Monday 29 September 2003 at 5:24pm I emailed Stephannie Kalas:

 

... If the CJC liaison officer wrote a report describing her investigation and her findings, I would like a copy of that investigation report.

I think that should explain the real reason why they put me on DWP. ...

 

On 12 April 2004 I applied for an internal review of Stephannie Kalas's decision.

She did not seem to have searched for a report written by the CJC liaison officer.

 

and I also asked for -

 

The records of N.N.'s investigation into my complaint.

The ... District office staff must have given N.N. some reason why I was being bullied.

  • I demand all records made, in whatever form, of all aspects of N.N.'s investigation into my complaint.

 

27 April 2004 The Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity trained discrimination solicitor M.E. ignored this request for the documentation of the CJC liaison officer's investigation and also for the documentation of N.N.'s investigation.

 

12 July 2002 I received the 2469 FOI documents and noticed that -

Katrina Jefferson emailed Michelle O'Grady on Wednesday 7 November 2001 at 12:10 PM.

Michelle

... Once we get the docs and make a decision on the PID matter we'll do a memo to HR. ...

Kat

(File G Human Resource Services Branch document 141)

 

To this date, 25 February 2008, despite several FOI applications to Education Queensland and the CMC, I have not been provided with any memo or other documentation related to any investigation by Katrina Jefferson, Katherine Mahoney and N.N. into my complaint.

 

16)   Failure to identify 'we all' and to search for documentation of discussions by 'we all'.

 

On 12 April 2004, I made an internal review application in relation to document 2421 F 61, the falsified version of G.R.'s letter to me dated 23 November 2000 (a true copy of this letter can be found at 2421 F 63) -

This appears to be a falsified document. It was never shown to me. It could have been written two weeks ago. ...

The letter demonstrates G.R.'s fragile grasp on reality. G.R.'s pompous 'opinions' are just bluff - they are based on nothing. She has not seen me teach all year. She has not looked at my program all year. G.R. states,

"... we all acknowledge that your curriculum planning is of a very high standard indeed. ..."

I demand all notes made, in whatever form, of the discussions / communications between 'we all" that led G.R. to make her pronouncements on my work and to conclude that I needed to be punished. I demand full details of the times of these discussions, the people involved in the discussions, the matters discussed, the conclusions reached, the action taken. ...

 

To this date, 27 February 2008, Education Queensland FOI officers have refused to ask G.R. to identify 'we all' and to ask 'we all' for this documentation.

 

 

 

(To be continued)

 

FOI 2421 demonstrates the following points:

  • The FOI Officers may change the wording of your application to disadvantage you.

 

  • Just before falsified record are released to you under FOI, Education Queensland senior officers will write to you to advise you that they will not "correspond" with you any further. So when you write to the senior officers to tell them that your official records have been extensively falisifed, no Queensland public servant can be held responsible for "knowing" that your official records have been extensively falsified and for failing to do anything about it, because there is an offical record on your file that they have advised you that they will not (read or) respond to your letters. This seems to be a very common Queensland public service strategy to avoid dealing with problems.

 

  • Infocomm officers demand that you prove that a document exists before they will search for it. But when you have already discovered that your official record has been extensively falsified with a mass of falsifed "records" that you knew nothing whatsoever about, and when you find constant references to "investigations" concerning you that you know nothing about,  proving that documents exist is very, very difficult. Anything is possible when so much has been falsified. 

 

  • And you may not realise / find the documentary evidence that a document existed for several years. And then the FOI officers refuse to search for the document because they have closed down the FOI application that applied to that time period.

 

  • Education Queensland and Infocomm officers refuse to deal with your FOI application properly, forcing you to spend hours of your time applying for the same documents over and over again. They then describe you as a "vexacious applicant". It would be more truthful to describe these FOI officers as "vexacious FOI search avoiders".

 

  • Official records acn be falsified if a document is placed on the photocopier in a manner that edits some words off the page. This may affect the findings of FOI searches and of investigations. Investigators should be allowed to examine the original documents.

 

Freedom of Information Application 2469

3 March 2004

I made a second FOI application to Ken Smith -

... On 25 November 2003 David Turner, an Education Queensland FOI officer advised me that he had the documents relevant to my application for FOI.

On 12 December 2003 I sent him a search fee and asked him to commence a search.

Today, 3rd March 2004, I still have not received these documents.

Yesterday I was told that there would be a further delay.

I do not understand. ...

I require that you produce to me copies of all documents or files, held in any format, electronic or otherwise, that you or other employees of Education Queensland have produced or caused to be produced in relation to me.

This includes (but is not limited to) personnel files, documents purporting to record any and all meetings held by any employee of Education Queensland with me or about me and any investigations conducted in response to my grievances. I further require copies of any complaints received by any employee of Education Queensland regarding me from any source whatever. I include such cases in which the complaint was not made in writing. In all cases I require full details of the substance of the complaint including -

The name of the person making the complaint.

The date that the complaint was taken.

The name of the person who took the complaint.

The date that the complaint was recorded.

And, in all cases, details of what action was taken regarding the complaint. ...

 

4 April 2004

I mailed the FOI 2469 application fee.

... I feel that all of the material being produced at (the) school is compromised because I had been assured that all of the documents had been archived at (the) District Office.

I begrudge paying FOI fees for documents that could have been written during the mysterious two months void since my complaint was handed to EQ by the CMC ...

 

17 May 2004

7:52am

I emailed Stephannie Kalas, and copied the email to MailBox@justice.qld.gov.au and  keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

... Please regard this as a formal request for an internal review of the delay / failure / refusal to provide me with a list of these (2469)documents and a price breakdown on the cost of copies of the documents. ...

 

28 May 2004

I wrote to the Queensland Information Commissioner, detailing the history of the situation.

I applied for an external review of the deemed refusal of Education Queensland to provide me with the FOI 2469 documents.

 

3 June 2004

9:19am

Infocomm officer N.O.D. asked me to telephone her to discuss the external review application.

 

Sunday 6 June 2004

7:59

I emailed Infocomm officer N.O.D.

... The most long-standing situation is the administrative decision made by Stephannie Kalas to limit my first FOI application.

(But )

The second review (I am requesting) is of the refusal of EQ FOI officers to give me a list of all of my documents, etc. as described in my demand of 03/03/2004.

... Several of the documents that have been released to me so far have been significantly falsified.

(To be continued)

 

 

Freedom of Information Application 3016

15 December 2006

I made FOI Application 3016.

 

21 December 2006

Louise Rosemann, Assistant Ombudsman, Assessment and Resolution Team, Queensland Ombudsman discussed my complaint at a meeting with two representatives of the Education Queensland Workforce Standards and Performance Unit.

One of the Education Queensland representatives was Regan Neumann, Unit Director.

Ms Rosemann was advised that -

... following an investigation undertaken by Verifact Commercial Investigations, Mr Neumann arranged for a meeting between yourself and Mr Peter Edwards, Assistant Director of the Unit, to review all relevant materials on your EQ files.

(Letter to me from Louise Rosemann, Assistant Ombudsman, dated 16 February 2007)

 

THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

Peter Edwards only allowed me to see one small file of documents that appeared to be copies of documents that I had found myself under Freedom Of Information.

I had provided a file of such documents to the Verifact Commercial Investigator on December 16 2005.

But I had provided the investigator with many other documents.

In my letter to Louise Rosemann dated 16 June 2007 I listed the many other documents that I had provided to the Verifact Investigator.

At this meeting with two representatives of the Education Queensland Workforce Standards and Performance Unit Ms Rosemann was also told that

 ... Mr Edwards requested that you identify documents that you wanted removed from the files,

 

THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.

... and these documents would then be placed in a sealed envelope and sent to EQ's Legal Section for advice. I am advised that you appeared unhappy with the process and left the building.

 

THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

MR EDWARDS CALLED TWO SECURITY GUARDS AND HAD ME ESCORTED OUT OF THE BUILDING.

 

15 January 2007

Matt Woodforth, Senior Policy Officer, Legal and Administrative Law Branch, Education Queensland, wrote to me.

He sent a receipt for the $36.00 application fee.

 

16 January 2007

One day later - Matt Woodforth, Senior Policy officer, Legal and Administrative Branch, Education Queensland, wrote to me again. 

He refused to deal with my application.

 

15 February 2007

I wrote to Rachel Hunter, Director General of the Department of Education and asked her to deal with (what seemed to me to be) a sustained abuse of the FOI process.

 

16 February 2007

Louise Rosemann, Assistant Ombudsman, wrote to me.

... following your freedom of Information request, EQ is undertaking the physical inspection and identification of relevant materials on your files. I understand that Mr Edwards will write to you again when this task has been completed, and I have requested that this office receives a copy of this correspondence to you in due course.

 

FROM THE DATE THAT THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE - 21 DECEMBER 2006 - TO THIS DATE - 3 MARCH 2008 - MR EDWARDS HAS NOT WRITTEN TO ME TO ADVISE ME THAT MY FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST OR ANY OTHER "TASK" HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

... EQ is currently responding to your FOI request ...

and intends writing to you about the manner in which your file materials are to be handled.

 

TO THIS DATE, 3 March 2008, MR EDWARDS HAS NOT WRITTEN TO ME TO ADVISE ME ABOUT THIS OR ANY OTHER MATTER.

 

... I suggest that you allow this process to occur.

... I believe you should allow time for this process to continue.

 

I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST TO YOU, MS ROSEMANN, THAT NO SUCH PROCESS IS EVER GOING TO OCCUR.

I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST TO YOU, MS ROSEMANN, THAT EDUCATION QUEENSLAND IS ENGAGED IN A PROCESS OF DOING NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

 

19 July 2007

Ms Melanie Mundy, from the Queensland Ombudsman, made further inquiries with Mr Peter Edwards of EQ's Workforce Standards and Performance Unit (WSPU).

(Letter to me from Greg Woodbury, Ombudsman, dated 10 September 2007)

... Mr Edwards confirmed the above actions ( the physical inspection and identification of relevant materials on your files) remained the intent of the WSPU.

He noted that EQ's processing of your recent FOI applications had delayed progress on this task. ...

 

1 August 2007

Greg Woodbury, Ombudsman, met with Mr Peter Edwards, Education Queensland, and discussed my complaint.

Mr Edwards subsequently advised Mr Woodbury that EQ had finalised all your FOI matters..

 

No recent FOI application has "delayed progress on this task".

Education Queensland's "progress on this task" seems to consist of doing nothing whatsoever.

 

... and that he would now proceed to finalise the task of inspecting and identifying relevant materials on your files and write to you on completion of this task ...

 

Mr Woodbury, let's all be really frank.

Education Queensland haven't done anything since Louise Rosemann met them on 21 December 2006.

The Education Queensland  "investigation process" seems to consist of doing nothing whatsoever.

 

10 September 2007

Greg Woodbury, Assistant Ombudsman, wrote to me -

 ... Having given detailed consideration to your complaint, the following complaint issues were identified:

I identified my complaint issues in my letter to Greg Woodbury dated 31 July 2007 and attached to my letters to Forbes Smith dated 10 August 2007 and 10 September 2007.

(1) With regard to your FOI applications you expressed concern that:

a) EQ has not provided you with a copy or explanation regarding the document titled "notes to ...  from D - - - - -"

b) EQ has refused to provide you with copies of certain documents;

  • including the "lots of allegations" against you in "lots of documents" described by school administrator G.R. during the meeting on 27 November 2000.

 

  • And all of the investigation reports concerning you that have been refused to you / concealed from you to this date, including a 2002 Stage 2 Grievance Report by school administrator E.L. and all reports prepared by external agencies including all reports and documents prepared by Verifact Commercial Investigation.

c) Certain documents are missing from the FOI records. These documents are listed in The Cosser List 31/10/2006.

d) a large number of  documents were concealed from you and placed secretly on your Education Queensland file. These documents had been falsified in various ways. The majority of the falsified documents have been listed and described in The Cosser List 31/10/2006.

e) Certain documents appear to be substitute documents.

(2) You have requested -

  • That EQ provide you with the opportunity to respond to the 'lots of' allegations in the 'lots of' documents that are being concealed from you.
  • That your response be considered and that you have the opportunity to be found not guilty of the allegations.
  • That the decisions to punish you be officially annotated to state that these decisions were legally invalid and were made in breach of Natural Justice, the Departmental Code of Conduct, Public Service Regulations, The Diminished Work Performance Process, the Managing Unsatisfactory Performance Process and the Grievance Process.
  • Or that the decisions to punish you be simply annotated to say that they were legally invalid and that they have been officially 'struck off' your Departmental Record.

(3) You are concerned that the FOI process is being abused to refuse you documents that you first requested in September 2003.

(4) You are concerned that children, the disabled, the sick, the gullible, the Aboriginal, union organisers, senior officers of Education Queensland and the inexperienced have been abused as puppets by school administrator G.R. to 'make' imaginary allegations against you.

You complained to Eve Gardiner, Crime and Misconduct Commission officer, about discrimination on the grounds of political belief (and also on the grounds of age, race, sex and disability) during a phone conversation on Wednesday 26 November 2003.

At Eve's suggestion you emailed a copy of your discrimination complaint to her at 5:32 PM that afternoon.

You are concerned that Education Queensland employ many solicitors and barristers, including at least one Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor. But senior officers of Education Queensland selected an Aboriginal employee with no qualifications in the law, psychology or teaching to conduct a "review" of the falsified documents.

You are concerned that the "reviewer" did not consider your responses to these falsified documents.

(5) You are dissatisfied by the conduct of CMC and Education Queensland officers.

(6) You are concerned about the total failure / abuse of the CMC / Education Queensland investigation process.

(7) You are concerned that Mr Edwards seems to be responsible for dealing with your complaint, but that when you met him in late 2006, he clearly knew almost nothing about your complaint.

You are concerned that Mr Edwards told you repeatedly that he had been given a "brief" that instructed him to do nothing other than to show you (what appeared to be) one of several files of documents that you had provided to Verifact Commercial Investigation.

(8) You are seeking compensation from Education Queensland for professional negligence and on various other grounds.

.. I understand from our inquiries with EQ, that Mr Edwards has provided you with information concerning lodgement of a claim for compensation.

IT HASN'T HAPPENED.

YOU ARE HAVING THE WOOL PULLED OVER YOUR EYES, MR WOODBURY.

If you wish to pursue this matter you should submit a claim to EQ and provide it with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the claim.

How many more years of my life do you estimate that this new Education Queensland process of doing nothing whatsoever is likely to consume, Mr Woodbury?

I do not consider that any further action relating to your complaint is necessary or warranted at this time and will close our file.

Mr Woodbury, how can the office of the Queensland Ombudsman possibly close my file?

Education Queensland haven't actually done anything since Louise Rosemann met them on 21 December 2006!

Is this some sort of public service joke? 

 

FOI application 3016 demonstrates the following points:

  • Freedom of Information officers may write to you one day, accepting your $36.00 application fee, then write again the next day and refuse to deal with your application. So you have paid the application fee but you receive no documents.

 

  • Education Queensland officers tell the Ombudsman that they cannot deal with your complaint because they are so busy dealing with your FOI application. Whereas, in fact, they are refusing to deal with your FOI application and seem to be doing nothing whatsoever for months and even years.

 

 

Freedom of Information Application 340 / 5 / 1295  (IC Ref 210411 and 210447)

26 September 2007 

3:14PM

I emailed an FOI application (EQ Ref 340 / 5 / 1295 and IC Ref 210411 and 210447) to Rod Welford educationandarts@ministerial.qld.gov.au and Rachel Hunter Rachel.HUNTER@deta.qld.gov.au

I applied for -

  • "all documents concerning and related to me.

 

I include, but do not limit my application to -

  • all documents that have been concealed from me / refused to me / not released to me for any reason in response to any earlier FOI application.

 

  • including the 12 "vanished" documents 2421 F 1-12 (the 2421 numbers are on the top right hand side of the documents).

 

  • and the various "vanished" investigation reports, including the Grievance Stage 2 report written by E.L. and the --- District Office report that was concealed from me and that has now "vanished".

 

  • and all documents that explain the allegations contained in the "notes to L---- from D-----" as recorded by G.R. on 10/11/2000 (FOI 2421 F 39-40)

 

  • and of the "lots of pieces of paper" that contained "lots of allegations" as claimed by G.R. and recorded by acting deputy principal A.L. on 27/11/2000 (2421 F 28-32).

 

 

  • and the documentation of all action taken by the Department in response to the Verifact report.

 

  • and all documents that record the process that Education Queensland has been conducting concerning me since Louise Rosemann met officers from the Education Queensland Workforce Standards and Performance Unit on 23 December 2006.

 

  • including all notes of meetings and all letters concerning and related to me.

 

I request that all searches be made in writing and that all persons concerned be allowed to answer in their own words rather than just agreeing to words suggested to them by Departmental FOI officers.

I request that Departmental officers actually search for documents rather than simply giving me their opinions about the documents."

 

2:54 PM

I emailed Greg Woodbury, Acting Deputy Ombudsman, ombudsman@ombudsman.qld.gov.au

I asked Mr Woodbury to support my FOI application to Rachel Hunter.

I sent him a copy of my FOI application.

 

25 October 2007

Elane Merkouriou, Manager, Freedom of Infomation and Privacy, Freedom of Information Unit, Education Queensland, wrote to me.

She had received my FOI application 340 / 5 / 1295

I had to pay a $36.00 application fee.

 

I have paid these application fees - for the same documents - over and over again since September 2003.

 

27 November 2007

I emailed Elane Merkouriou.

As I did not know her email address, I sent the email to educationandarts@ministerial.qld.gov.au and Rachel.HUNTER@deta.qld.gov.au

Because Rachel Hunter and Rod Welford seemed to have instructed their staff not to read my emails and letters, I also sent the email to -

administration@oic.qld.gov.au

 

"Subject: FOI Application 340 / 5/ 1295 message for Elane Merkouriou.

... My application is for access to all original documents concerning and related to me.

 

I include, but do not limit my application to -

  • The original covers on all files concerning and related to me.

and

  • all documentation concerning and related to the "Brief" that Mr Edwards told me on November 20, 2006 that he had been given concerning my case.

 

  • including all draft copies of and all email or other records of discussion of this 'Brief'.

 

  • any document in which G.R. or E.L. or any other employee of the Queensland Government expresses any insight into their bullying, any remorse and / or any committment to stop bullying teachers.

 

  • any document in which any employee of the Queensland Government has advised G.R., E.L. or any other person that their behaviour is bullying and that the bullying of Queensland teachers must stop. Or any other wording to that effect.

 

I will mail a cheque for $36, as requested, to you today by priority mail.

Please note, however, that I do not agree that my application is "not personal".

In September 2003 I applied for the documents that explained the "secret reason" why acting principal G.R., acting deputy principal A.L. and the usual principal E.L. decided in November 2000 that I "had to be" punished in 2001.

The behaviour of G.R., A.L. and E.L., and other officers of Education Queensland from November 2000 to the present date has been in breach of natural justice, the Education Queensland Code of Conduct, The Public Service Regulations, The Diminished Workplace Performance Policy, the Education Queensland Grievance Policy and the ... Behaviour Management Policy (of the state school where I was bullied into ill health and out of work).

These officers have been engaged in harassing me in breach of Education Queensland Regulations.

... Harassment is not part of the offical role of a Queensland Government employee. It is personal.

If  ... (these documents had been discussed / shown / released)... to me at the proper time and in the proper manner I would not be making this application.

I know from experience, however, that if I claim that I should not have to pay for an FOI application fee because my documents are "personal", my application will be sent to the Information Commissioner and will then be delayed for many months.

So I acccept that I am forced to pay the application fee.

But my acceptance that I am (being repeatedly) forced to pay the application fee should not be interpreted as agreement that my application is "not personal".

My application is personal."

 

30 November 2007

Elane Merkouriou, Manager, Freedom of Infomation and Privacy, Freedom of Information Unit, Education Queensland, wrote to me.

She acknowledged my payment of the FOI application fee.

 

6 December 2007

Elane Merkouriou, Manager, Freedom of Infomation and Privacy, Freedom of Information Unit, Education Queensland, wrote to me.

It had not been possible to finalise the FOI decision by the due date, 6 December 2007.

A deemed decision had been made to refuse me access to all of the documents.

Elane Merkouriou sent me a form to sign. It was headed "Extension of Time Form".

But the wording of the form - I would like to apply again for the same documents - suggested to me that I would be starting the FOI process all over again.

I was very apprehensive that this was another trick and that, if I agreed to apply again for the same documents, I would never, ever get them.

 

17 December 2007

I emailed Infocomm.

I did not understand why the principal officer of the Education Queensland Freedom of information unit had made a "deemed decison" to refuse me access to the (EQ Ref 340 / 5 / 1295 and IC Ref 210411 and 210447) documents that I had applied for. 

I agreed to wait for the documents till 21 January 2008.

But I requested an external review of the deemed refusal of the Department of Education to provide me with the FOI documents that I had requested on 26 September 2007

 

4 January 2008

The Queensland Department of Education contacted F. Henry, Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner, and asked for an extension of time to deal with my application (EQ Ref 340 / 5 / 1295 and IC Ref 210411 and 210447)

 

7 January 2008

F. Henry, Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner, wrote to me to advise me that she had decided to grant the Department of Education an extension of time until 29 January 2008 to deal with my application (EQ Ref 340 / 5 / 1295).

 

22 February 2008

I wrote to F. Henry, Assistant Commissioner, office of the Information Commissioner (EQ Ref 340 / 5 / 1295 and IC Ref 210411 and 210447)

 

"You wrote to me on 7 January 2008 to advise me that the Department of Education expected to make a decision on my FOI application by Tuesday 29 January 2008.

I have heard nothing.

I request an external review of the vexacious refusal of Education Queensland officers to provide me with the documents that I have been requesting since 2003.

...

At this date, 12 February 2008, my remaining concerns about FOI 2124 are as follows -"

(The list of remaining FOI 2124 concerns that I emailed to F.Henry on 22 February 2008 is detailed above on this webpage.)

 

6 March 2008

Assistant Commissioner F. Henry replied.

My reference number had now been changed from 210411 to 210447.

Commissioner Henry had asked Education Queensland to respond to my 26 September 2007 FOI application by 20 March 2008.

F. Henry gives no explanation why the 210411 documents were not provided to me on 29 January 2008, as she claimed to have agreed with Education Queensland on 4 January 2008.

I have been waiting for some of these documents since September 2003.

 

11 March 2008

Unnamed Queensland Department of Education officers emailed Assistant Information Commissioner F. Henry.

They said that they could not comply with the 20 March 2008 time-frame. They sought an extension of time.

Assistant Commissioner F. Henry gave these unnamed Department of Education officers an extension of time till 3 April 2008.

 

20 March 2008

Assistant Commissioner F. Henry wrote to me to advise me that she had granted these unnamed Department of Education officers an extension of time.

And that she had asked them to make every effort to comply with the new time-frame.

 

3 April 2008

Assistant Commissioner F. Henry wrote to me.

She advised me that DETA had written to him to advise him that it had identified 5,238 documents to which it is willing to provide me full access.

Assistant Commissioner advised me to "please contact DETA directly to arrange access to these documents".

But F. Henry did not tell me who to contact.

And the DETA website now blocks non-DETA people from finding out the names of DETA employees working in the various departments.

F. Henry further advised me that DETA had provided his office with copies of documents which it claims re exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (QLD).

F.Henry will consider these documents.

 

Monday 21 April, 2008

11:42AM

I wrote to F. Henry, Assistant Commissioner, office of the Information Commissioner (EQ Ref 340 / 5 / 1295 and IC Ref 210411 and 210447)
 

1) Had DETA offered F. Henry any explanation for their failure to make a decision concerning my application by 29 January 2008, as they had promised?

2) I would appreciate it if F.Henry would advise me which DETA employee to contact and how to contact them.

I had searched the DETA website and access to the names and contact details of the DETA employees working in the various departments had been blocked to non-DETA employees.

And when I write to Rachel Hunter or to Rod Welford my letters seem to be automatically destroyed or filed without being read.

I described the process by which Rachel Hunter, Peter Beattie, Neil Smith, Jeff Loof and George O'Farrell had all agreed, three weeks after my first FOI application in September 2003, when it would have been obvious that I was going to find the huge mass of falsified "records" that had been secretly placed on my file, that they would not reply to my letters and emails.

And how Kim Poiner, George O'Farrell, Neil Smith and David Douglas all agreed again in October 2004 that they would not respond to my letters and emails.

And how Denise Wojciechowski, Raewyn Garcia, Michele Rice and David Douglas, E/D, Workforce Management had organised that an additional notice be placed on my files so that my letters and emails can be sent "straight to files and not through the tracking system and down to our office etc".

The information is detailed on http://www.badapplebullies.com/investigations.htm  for your convenience.

So I would appreciate it if F.Henry could provide me with the name and contact deails of a DETA employee who is allowed to receive my letters and emails.

 

3) I have some concerns about the process that Infocomm now adopt of advising me to apply directly to DETA for the documents that DETA have been refusing to give me for years.

Since Infocomm have adopted this practice I have found that the documents sent to me directly by DETA may not be the same as the documents sent to Infocomm.

And also that the photocopies sent to Infocomm may not be the same as the original documents.

I have very significant concerns about this situation and I wish to raise F.Henry's awareness of my concerns.

 

24 April 2008

F.Henry, Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner wrote to me.

DETA had requested that I write to Ms Elane Merkouriou, Manager, Freedom of Information & Privacy, Queensland Department of Information, to arrange access to the FOI documents.

 

Monday 5 May 2008

I wrote to Ms Merkouriou, asking her to mail copies of the documents to me.

I said that I would inspect the photocopies and then arrange an appointment to inspect the original documents and the original covers on these files.

 

Tuesday 6 May 2008

I took the a copy of the letter to the District Office and asked for them to fax it to Elane MerKoutiou.

I also mailed a copy of the letter by ordinary mail.

 

Sunday 18 May, 2008

I emailed Ms F.Henry, Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner.

I had heard nothing from Elane Merkouriou.

No response.

 

Tuesday 10 June 2008 3:21 PM

I emailed Ms F.Henry, Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner.

I had heard nothing from Elaine Merkouriou.

 

Thursday 12 June, 2008 10:37 AM

I phoned the office of the Information Commissioner.

Assistant Commissioner Henry was unavailable.

Ms Fletcher, the case manager, was unavailable.

I was advised that Infocomm were in the process of writing to Elaine Merkouriou and that a copy of the letter would be sent to me.

 

10:45 AM

I phoned Elane Merkouriou, Education Queensland FOI Manager, 32 474749.

She advised me that the FOI documents would be sent to me at the end of this week, or early next week.

 

5238 FOI documents were mailed to me that day.

216 FOI remaining documents were not released.

They are still before the Information Commissioner "for consideration".

 

Monday 23 June, 2008

Assistant Commissioner Henry / Ms Fletcher, the case manager emailed Ms Elane Merkouriou / Ms Robyn Martin.

"I attach a further email from (my name).

I have included (my name) as a recipient of this message at her request."

My email of June 10 2008 to Assistant Commissioner Henry / Ms Fletcher, the case manager was attached.

The date of my own email had been deleted.

 

Tuesday 5 August, 2008 3:53PM

I emailed Assistant Information Commissioner Ms F. Henry.

I had read the first 4500 FOI documents once.

I would be able to read the remaining 1000 FOI documents within the next week.

It was difficult for me to understand what exactly Education Queensland legal officers were proposing to do with the falsified documents while these 216 remaining documents were still being concealed from me.

I would appreciate Ms F. Henry's advice -

1. When will she be able to provide me with the remaining 216 documents?

2. Can I presume that any time-lines for my response will date from the time that these remaining documents are released?

 

Monday 25 August 2008

Assistant Commissioner F. Henry / Ms Fletcher, my case manager at the Office of the Information Commissioner, wrote to me.

She was in the process of forming a preliminary view on the exemption and exclusion claims made by Elane Merkouriou, Education Queensland FOI Manager.

617 pages are at issue in the review.

I would be allowed two weeks from the date of the preliminary view to argue my case to see these 617 refused documents.

That I first applied for on 26 September, 2007.

The "process" of not providing me with these documents has taken almost a year.

And I will be allowed only a few days to construct an argument to receive copies of documents that I know nothing about.