|
Bad Apple Bullies
|
What happens when you make a Freedom of Information Application?
An ex- teacher describes her own experience:
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 either seem to me to have been actively or passively involved with the bullying / mobbing, or who may be at risk of "payback" because of their ethical conduct.
Freedom of Information Application 2361
On 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 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 think I really need to find out the official reason why I was put on DWP and also why the DG refuses to read my letters.
I am reluctant to contact the District office because there are (serious) conflict of interest issues involved. ...
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 he 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.
FOI application 2361 demonstrates the following points:
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 ( acting principal G.R.) 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 G.R.) 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 C.H.R.)'s room."
I am not really clear what investigation this was.
(School administrator E.L.)'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.
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 names the school that I used to work at and where school administrator E.L. was still working.) (CP has not been there for 2 years).
(Page 5 CMC ACTIVITY REGISTER REPORT M1-03-0035)
On February 5 2004 I had not been working at that school for a full three years.
I never contacted Eve from the school, nor did I ever ask her to ring me at the school.
I always rang the CMC from home.
If Eve could not catch me on the phone, she could easily have sent me an email.
So why did Eve Gardiner, CMC Officer, ring the school where E.L. was working?
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 9:43 AM
Stephannie Kalas emailed me:
I have made contact with both (school administrator E.L.) and (school administrator G.R.) 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 E.L. and G.R. when you send the material to me?
School administrator E.L. 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 G.N..
So I suppose that anything that E.L. and G.R. 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.
I believe it was completed in about July 2006.
To this date, 11 May 2008, I have not been given a copy of the Terms of Reference of the investigation, or of the investigation report.
... 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 G.R. 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 G.R. 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. ...
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 -
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.
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.
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 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 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 -
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.
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.
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 G.R. at the meeting on 27 November 2000.
This statement by G.R. was recorded by acting principal E.L. 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.
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 m