Bad Apple Bullies

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

What happens when you make a complaint about workplace bullying / harassment by a "Bad Apple" Education Queensland State School principal?

What happens if you make a complaint about workplace bullying / harassment by a "Bad Apple" Education Queensland State School principal?

  • A psychopathic Education Queensland State School principal can take nothing at all and turn it into a "secret something" that will destroy your health and your career.

 

  • If you complain or "make a grievance" about this abuse, the Bad Apple Bully principal will laugh at you because they will be confident that the "official processes" are corrupt / dysfunctional and that they will "get away with it".

 

  • Abusive Education Queensland State School principals and senior Departmental officers know that they will be allowed to investigate themselves and find themselves innocent.

 

  • It may not be obvious to you that this is what is "going on".

 

  • A Bad Apple Bully administrator whose behaviour you have complained about may be asked to write a letter to you, advising you that "no evidence of ... has been found of ...". But they will give the letter to a senior officer of Education Queensland or the Minister to sign.

 

  • The name of the person who actually wrote the letter may be lower down in the body of the letter - "If you would like to discuss this further you are welcome to contact ...".

 

  • In this way Bad Apple Bully Education Queensland principals and administrators are easily able to manipulate senior Departmental officers and Queensland Government Ministers. They use them like puppets to speak their own Bad Apple Bully words.

 

  • And the senior Departmental officers and Queensland Government Ministers cannot be held responsible for the inaccurate documents that they sign, because they don't "know" that they are being misled.

 

  • If you disclose the details of the abuse to the State Premier, Senior Queensland public servants may simply "lose" your letter. This is probably the most common Queensland public service strategy for dealing with disclosures.

 

  • Or public servants may re-write your disclosure, editing your actual disclosure out of their "frank and fearless briefing for the Minister".

 

  • Or senior officers may instruct junior public servants simply to file your letters and not to bother reading them. Then they can "advise" each other that you have "raised no new issues". And no Queensland public servant will be held responsible for "not knowing" about your disclosure, because they can demonstrate that they were all instructed not to read your letters.

 

  • An Education Queensland "external investigation" may be tightly controlled by the Bad Apple Bully  / a member of the Bad Apple Bully Mob whose behaviour you are complaining about.

 

  • An "external investigator" may be instructed by the Education Queensland Bad Apple to simply copy down what he is told, even if it is obviously untrue. Private companies are being paid taxpayers money by Education Queensland administrators to conduct these faux "investigations". You may think that this is a disgraceful abuse of the Queensland taxpayer. I certainly do.

 

  • The "external investigation" will be stopped by the Bad Apple Bully administrator as soon as your first allegation is substantiated. The official Education Queensland "outcome advice to the Crime and Misconduct Commission"  will then state that your allegations were "partly substantiated" and that "all other allegations remain unsubstantiated". This is correct. Most of your allegations remain unsubstantiated because they remain uninvestigated. The investigation was stopped.

 

What happens if you disclose child abuse by another teacher?

  • If you follow Education Queensland / Department of Education and the Arts (DEA) official policies and disclose child abuse by another teacher, you put yourself at great risk.

 

  • No written record may be made of your disclosure.

 

  • But you may be abused by other members of staff.

 

  • And you may be "paid back" for making the disclosure.

 

  • You may be maliciously accused of whatever it was that you reported.

 

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

 

NB.  I have used initials to disguise the identity of people who either-

  • may be "Bad Apple Bullies",
  • who behaved with integrity and so might be vulnerable to "payback",
  • or who were only marginally involved in the situation.

The Freedom Of Information (FOI) document references are accurate.

 

My story is a story of determined, unrelenting systemic "incompetence".

 

Education Queensland senior officers have failed in their duty of care -

 

  • to protect me from this systemic "incompetence".

 

  • and to have my complaint about this "incompetence" properly investigated by a qualified and experienced investigator.

 

In late 1999 a child at White-Wash State School disclosed to me that he was being abused - often being hit - by his male teacher.

The boy looked very depressed and the rest of his class just looked at me in silence, so it seemed to be true.

I did exactly what we had been told that we should do in this sort of circumstance - I reported the child's disclosure to the school principal.

The principal told me that the male teacher had a long history of warnings for this sort of behaviour.

 

But the principal made no written record of the child's complaint about this male teacher's behaviour.

 

"At the time I handled the incident internally and made no formal documentation of the incident. ... to the best of my knowledge, there is no documentation pertaining to this incident."

FOI document 2703 I  91

 

And shortly afterwards, during an in-service on child abuse,  I was humiliated and verbally abused in front of the whole staff of White-Wash State School - cleaners, teachers' aides and teachers.

 

And, one year later, Mrs GR, acting principal of Lynch-Mob State College told me that the principal of the White-Wash State School had told her that he had "concerns about my relationship with children".

And that this principal  had encouraged her to put me on Diminished Workplace Performance.

When I complained that this was discrimination and "payback", acting principal Mrs GR changed her story. 

Both she and the principal of White-Wash State School claimed that they had never had this discussion concerning me.

And Mrs GR made different allegations against me.

 

Mrs GR's allegations were always mysterious.

So that I could never respond.

If I managed to respond to one mysterious allegation, another mysterious allegation would appear.

It was an endless game in which it was impossible for me to prove myself innocent.

Played by a woman - Mrs GR - who had not seen me teach or looked at my program all year.

 

That's how the Bad Apple Bully Departmental Mob deal with your complaint about discrimination and "payback".

They don't deal with the discrimination and the "payback".

They deal with the evidence of the discrimination and payback.

It vanishes.

 

The next year the Lynch-Mob State College Grade 7 teachers had adopted a "Rich Tasks", "outcomes based" philosphy.

"... Rich Tasks ... is Education Queensland's attempt to-

  • empower and encourage teachers,

  • unclutter the curriculum,

  • up the ante intellectually,

  • deliver fewer alienated students,

  • prepare students for a future in an uncertain world,

  • and position the classroom within the global village."

http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/html/richtasks/richtasks.html

 

The practical outcome of this "philosophy" was that, when I arrived at a Grade 7 classroom, there would sometimes only be about six children in the room.

The Grade 7 teachers would be wonderfully relaxed, lying on the floor making a poster or sitting at a desk doing some craftwork and chatting to a few children.

The rest of the class would be missing.

And I knew where they were.

The rest of the Grade 7 students were being allowed to roam about the school in unsupervised groups, disrupting the other classes with their demands to be allowed to use the computers, speak to groups of children about a project that they were working on, etc. etc.

 

Who was responsible for the safety of these roaming groups of children?

If a child had an accident, who would know? Who would help the child?

 

Term 3 2000

The music teacher, the PE teacher and I discussed the behaviour problems in the Grade 6 and 7 classes with the usual principal of Lynch-Mob State College.

We discussed our plan to record the children's behaviour in specialist lessons, and then to reward the well-behaved students.

 

I also discussed the problem of the roaming groups of students who were continually disrupting classes.

The usual principal told me that several other teachers had also complained to him about these roaming groups of children continually coming into their classrooms.

The usual principal then made an announcement at a staff meeting that teachers should try not to send students "on messages'.

But actually the children were not being sent on messages, they were just being allowed to roam about.

 

Friday November 3 2000 -

I discussed with Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR my concern about the numbers of children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms when I arrived to take my specialist lessons.

For example:

When I went to Grade 7 Class L.R. on Wednesday 8 November 2000, (five days after I had discussed my concerns about the number of children missing from the Grade 7 classes with acting principal Mrs GR), I was told that -

 

  • three children were absent,
  • six children were missing from the classroom because they were organising a Remembrance Day ceremony,
  • five were missing from the classroom because they were organising a graduation celebration,
  • two were missing from the classroom because they were organising something for Christmas
  • and one child had gone home.

 

This left me with eleven children to teach.

As recorded in- FOI 2421 File C District Office document 39.

FOI 2733 File C Administrative Law Services Branch document 170.

 

During this week I also spoke three times to Grade 7 teacher Mrs LR about three separate roaming groups of children from her Grade 7LR Class who had disrupted my lessons with other classes.

I asked her to instruct her children not to disturb my lessons with other classes.

She told me to tell them myself.

 

Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR suggested that I discuss the situation at a staff meeting.

Acting principal Mrs GR wrote it on the staff-room whiteboard agenda for discussion at the staff meeting on Friday November 10 2000.

Acting principal Mrs GR then moved it to the top of the agenda.

 

But, just before I spoke to the staff, acting principal Mrs GR spoke to the staff at length concerning "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

 

The day after this staff meeting, another teacher warned me to "document everything" because acting principal Mrs GR was "out to get me".

I asked this teacher what she meant.

She explained -

 

"You know that "person" she was talking about?

The one who's been humiliating children?

That's you!

Apparently you told (name of Grade 6/7 student BOS) to put her nose to the wall!"

 

The teacher told me that acting principal Mrs GR had said that "if it continued" she was going to put me on Diminished Workplace Performance (DWP - now called MUP -  Managing Unsatisfactory Performance ).

I was absolutely astounded.

I kept saying, "I didn't do it! It can't be true!"

 

The teacher told me that acting principal Mrs GR had told her that I was "the person".

The teacher realised that I was very upset and she was reluctant to tell me any more details.

 

I immediately rang Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR.

Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR confirmed that it was true that I was "the person" that she had been talking about to the staff.

 

The shock of acting principal Mrs GR's seemingly irrational and deeply unprofessional behaviour made me ill.

I was more ill than I have ever been in my life before or since.

I could not believe that my school principal would say such things about me to the staff.

I was afraid to return to school.

I felt very unsafe.

Mrs GR's behaviour seemed to be absolutely irrational.

I had no idea what Mrs GR might do next.

During the next week I took sick leave and sought advice on how to deal with Mrs GR's behaviour from - 

  • the Queensland Teachers' Union,
  • the Staff Welfare Officer,
  • two Specialist Advisory teachers
  • and my doctor

- on how to deal with Mrs GR's seemingly irrational behaviour. 

I explained that Mrs GR had told at least one, possibly several teachers that I had told a child to "put her nose to the wall".

 

I explained that the child - who had disrupted three classes that morning - was actually sitting on the carpet in the middle of the room, watching an Indonesian play.

She kept on calling out "Show Off!"at the children who were acting, so I told her to turn around and face towards the back wall.

But she had been sitting in the middle of the room - there had never been any question of her standing close to the wall or "putting her nose against the wall".

 

I was advised by the QTU and the Staff Welfare Officer to request a mediated meeting with acting principal Mrs GR.

So, as soon as I returned to work the next week, I asked the school QTU representative to organise a mediated meeting with acting principal Mrs GR. 

 

FOI documents 2733 F 39-40 (discussed below) suggest that Lynch-Mob State School acting principal GR made some sort of mistake / malicious "beat up" when she made her announcement to the staff concerning me.

 

I would suspect that either -

  • there was no problem at all - Mrs GR's dramatic speech to the staff concerning me was simply a "red herring" to pay me back / distract attention from the real problem of the groups of unsupervised Grade 7 children who were roaming about the school, disrupting other classes.

 

  • or a child had lied or joked about something and Mrs GR had "beaten up" the "complaint" to distract attention from her own behaviour at the staff meeting / pay me back for my complaint about the roaming groups of unsupervised Grade 7 children,

 

  • or a complaint was made about the actions of another teacher, possibly a scripture teacher or a casual teacher.

 

The majority of the scraps of paper and sticky-notes secretly placed on my Departmental file seem to be either

  • records of imaginary conversations concerning me that Mrs GR claimed to "believe" that she was having with students, teachers, other principals and District Office Staff.
  • falsified records of real conversations.

But -

  • Many real events and real conversations had been "edited out" of Mrs GR's collection of sticky-notes.
  • In particular, evidence and statements supportive of me seem to have been entirely "edited out".

 

At this stage, in December 2000, the situation could have been resolved during a mediated meeting with an apology.

But -

  • When Bad Apple Bully administrators make a mistake, they make "red herring" allegations against you to distract attention away from their own poor professional conduct.

 

Mrs GR did not apologise - she agreed to meet me, but said that the purpose of the "mediated" meeting would not be mediation.

It would be to discuss her sudden "concerns" about my work.

Mrs GR was supposed to be my supervisor in 2000, but she had never looked at my program and she had not been into my classroom once during the entire year.

 

About halfway through the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000, the Queensland Teachers' Union organiser asked me to go outside.

During the first part of the meeting I had said that I would make a Grievance about the situation.

When we got outside, the QTU organiser told me that there was no hope of a just outcome from a Grievance.

He said he had never known a Grievance made by a Queensland classroom teacher to be upheld.

He told me that the Diminished Workplace Performance Process could last as long as two years.

He told me that the process was extremely stressful.

And people who "fought it" had mental and physical breakdowns.

He told me that he had never known anybody to survive a DWP who protested their innocence.

He said that the only people who survived were those who accepted it, just or unjust.

The DWP rules were so elastic that school administrator G.R. could more or less put me on DWP for anything at all.

He kept saying, "She has the power!" when I said that G.R.'s behaviour was unjust.

He advised me that the best thing that I could do was to eat humble pie.

If I agreed, he would try to do a deal.

He would try to persuade G.R. to give me some lesser punishment (punishment for what?).

I agreed.

I was very shocked by the advice of the QTU organiser.

I struggled to believe that I could be bullied in this way.

During the second half of the meeting I said very little.

I sat in shocked silence.

I did nothing to provoke Mrs GR.

But my passive behaviour seemed to stimulate Mrs GR.

 

Suddenly Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR turned towards me, looked directly at me, and began to speak very slowly and with great malice -

 

"I feel so sorry for Robbie! 

Just imagine how Robbie must be feeling at this moment!

She must be feeing so awful!

I really hate to do this to you, Robbie!"

 

She stared hard at me and chanted these sentences through twice.

The words had obviously been carefully chosen because when they are written down they seem so innocuous.

But the malice with which the words were spoken made the message one of extreme menace.

Nobody else said anything.

The situation was electrifying.

 

It was like a scene from "Dr Who", in which acting principal Mrs GR was suddenly transformed into a vicious, dribbling monster from outer space.

 

While Mrs GR was chanting at me I was thinking "Fruit-cake! Fruit-cake! Fruit-cake!" like a car alarm.

Because Mrs GR seemed to be over the edge into obvious mental instability.

From that moment onwards I have never had any doubt that-

  • I was being bullied.
  • Mrs GR was enjoying bullying me.
  • Mrs GR wanted us all to know that she was enjoying bullying me.

 

 

After the mediated meeting, the QTU organiser stood with me in the school car-park.



He kept saying,


"It must be because you are a woman!"


and shaking his head in bewilderment.

He said this about eight times.



He said that there lots of "old blokes" in the district who were "rough with children" but they were not put on DWP.




This seemed an odd thing for the QTU organiser to say.



I had not been "rough" with any child.



I had just tried to discuss the unsupervised groups of grade 7 children who were roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes.




Mrs GR had told us that she was going to consult "her superiors in the department" about putting me on DWP.



I asked the QTU organiser if he thought that there was any chance that Mrs GR's "superiors" would tell her that she was making a fuss about nothing.


The QTU Organiser shook his head decisively and said that there was no chance of that at all.


This was also very shocking to me.

The QTU organiser was obviously as bewildered as I was as to why I was being put on DWP.

He obviously thought that it was very unjust.

But he still believed that there was no hope at all.

 

From that point onwards, as the Queensland Teachers' Union organiser advised me on 27 November 2000, there was no hope of justice.

 

Every other Queensland Government public servant has to pretend to "believe" Bad Apple Bully administrators.

And so they -

(1) Deny you Natural Justice

- school administrator Mrs GR claimed during the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000 that "lots of" allegations had been made against me, and at some time before 27 April 2004, she secretly placed notes on my Departmental Record to this effect.

But to this day, 10 March, 2009, Education Queensland refuse to explain these secret "lots of" allegations.

So I can never prove that I am innocent.

 

Example A:

2733 F 39-40  seem to be loose scraps of paper or large rectangular sticky-notes. 

These "documents" purport to be dated 10 November 2000, but they were placed secretly on my Departmental Record and concealed from me till after 27 October 2005.

These "documents" seem to have been written by acting principal G.R.. 

They concern the statements made by acting principal G.R. at the staff meeting on November 10 2000:

 

"8:30 Fri 10/11/ Staff Meeting. 

Following complaints that (my name) had been ... humiliating students (..., notes to  (Grade 7 teacher NT) from Desley) ..."

No mention was ever made to me of these "... notes to (Grade 7 teacher NT) from Desley ..." during any meeting that I ever attended with school administrator GR.

But the allegations concerning me in these "... notes to (Grade 7 teacher NT) from Desley ..." must have been very serious because school administrator GR ...

 

"... made a statement to the effect that ... as far as I was concerned, humiliating students was a disciplinary offence by teachers. ..."

 

On December 14, 2000 I first made a written request to the District Director that acting principal GR's conduct be investigated.

To this day, 10 March, 2009, despite making many FOI applications, I have not been shown copies of these "... notes to (Grade 7 teacher NT) from Desley ..." 

Nor have I been told anything about the real or imaginary "complaints" concerning me that seem to have been made in these real or imaginary documents.

To this day Education Queensland have refused me Natural Justice - the right to know these real or imaginary allegations against me, and the opportunity to prove myself innocent.

 

Example B:

I was advised to request a mediated meeting with acting principal GR.

So as soon as I returned from sick leave I asked for a mediated meeting with GR. 

On 27 November 2000 I met acting principal GR, acting deputy principal AL and the local QTU organiser.

 

During this meeting acting principal 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 F 31 - notes written by acting deputy principal A.L. and placed secretly on my Departmental Record.  

These notes purport to be dated 27 November 2000 but were concealed from me till after 27 April 2004.

 

  • I first made a written request to the District Director that this situation be investigated on December 14, 2000.
  • To this date, 10 March, 2009, despite many FOI applications, I do not know what these  "lot of allegations" against me were.
  • Nor have I been shown copies of the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened".
  • Nor do I know what the "things" were that "may have happened". 

 

To this date, March 10, 2009, Education Queensland have refused me Natural Justice - the right to know these allegations against me and the opportunity to prove myself innocent.

 

But two days after the "mediated meeting" on November 27 2000, Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR gave me a letter to say that she and the usual principal Mr EL (who had been on leave all term and had not discussed the situation with me at all) were in agreement " the (DWP) process is warranted".

And that Mr EL would be overseeing the Diminished Workplace Performance (DWP) in 2001.

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State College document 59

I understand that this agreement between Mr El and Mrs GR that "the (DWP) process is warranted" and that they would put me on DWP in 2001 was legally invalid because it was made in breach of -

  • Natural Justice,
  • the Public Service Regulations,
  • the Education Queensland Code of Conduct
  • and the Education Queensland Diminished Workplace Performance policy.

 

But to this date, August 10, 2008, Education Queensland senior officers have refused to strike this decision off my Departmental Record.

They have simply moved two or more files containing a huge number of falsified / re-falsified / concealed / legally invalid etc. documents concerning me from the District Office to the Mary Street, Brisbane Head Office.

 

(2) Bad Apple Bully principals and their Bad Apple Bully Mob manipulate the State Premier, the Minister, the Director-General and the senior officers of Education Queensland, providing them with misleading "Briefings" and using them like puppets to sign documents and "speak" words written for them by the Bad Apples Bully administrators.

 

Example 2:1

23 June 2002

I met Anna Bligh, Minister of Education and Jim Varghese, Director-General of Education.

Because the Minister is responsible for dealing with Bad Apples in his or her department.

The Minister may try to claim that he / she was not informed of problems and controversial decisions.

But the Queensland Cabinet Handbook makes it clear that not knowing about a mistake in a department is not enough to get a Minister off the hook.

One of the early chapters, dealing with the roles and responsibilities of Ministers, says this:

"Ultimate responsibility for departmental management rests with Ministers who are legally and politically accountable to the Parliament for the administration of their department."

... so the Minister is personally responsible for the actions and decisions of his or her department.

... If a department does not function in the manner a Minister desires, then the Minister has a responsibility to fix it.

Brickbat or bouquet, ministers responsible, Malcom Cole, The Courier-Mail, 02 June, 2005

 

I told Anna Bligh and Jim Varghese that, when Queensland teachers were bullied at work, the immediate advice of the Queensland Teachers Union was that there was no hope of justice because the Education Queensland Grievance process did not work.

I told them that the only advice of the Queensland Teachers' Union to bullied teachers was to "accept the things you cannot change".

 

Anna Bligh already seemed to know about my complaint.

I presume that Anna Bligh had been shown the Stage 2 Grievance Report written by Lynch Mob State College usual principal Mr EL.

The Report - and the fact that there had been a Stage 2 Grievance Investigation - was being concealed from me.

And all copies of the Report were immediately "lost" when I made my first FOI application. 

 

Example 2:2

26 February 2003

5:44 PM : I emailed Peter Beattie at The Premier's department.

I made a full disclosure to Peter Beattie of the conflict of interest  (a political relationship) in the District Office that was affecting my complaint.

I did not copy this email to anybody.

 

"Dear Mr Beattie,

... I have tried very hard for two years to deal with this situation in a way that does no harm to the Labor party.

I have been an active Labor party member and an active union member for several years.

I do not want to do anything to harm the Labor party - but I do not want to suffer injustice just BECAUSE I am a member of the Labor party. ...

... both (school administrator G.R.) (the bully) and I were Labor party members when this all began.

We both worked for (I disclosed the political relationship that had created a conflict of interest in the District Office and that had made it very difficult for me to complain about Mrs GR's bullying) .

Because I did not want to cause friction in the local groups I have dropped out of all activities with the Labor party since this all began two years ago.

I have avoided involving the local members in the problem.

But it meant that I had to deal with it alone.

Because (of the conflict of interest) I was very reluctant to make a formal complaint to the Industrial Relations Tribunal with the resulting publicity.

I tried very hard to deal with the bullying informally.  ...

I feel that I have tried to "do the right thing" by the Labor party and I have suffered because of it.

And that other teachers have now been negligently exposed to a toxic environment....

Mr Beattie, the corruption (for lack of a better word) must stop somewhere.

Please show me that my faith in the Labor party was not misplaced. ... have the integrity to deal with this bully. ...

If you, the Premier, will do nothing about this situation - well, I will have to abandon all hope of the Labor party. ..."

This email was received by Michele Rice, the Office of the Premier on Thursday , 27 February 2003 at 7:51 AM.

 

29 June 2003

2:06 PM: I re-sent the full disclosure to Peter Beattie dated 26 February 2003 to the Office of the Premier.

The Office of the Public Service Commissioner have a copy of this full disclosure.

You can see the first part of the email at the bottom of  OPS 70524 FOLIO 23

 

3 August 2003

4:49 PM: I wrote again to Peter Beattie.

I emailed a copy of this letter to -

  • Anna Bligh, Minster of Education;

  • Debby Pitcher at the QTU

  • Education Queensland Human Resources

  • the Ombudsman

  • and The Premier's Department.

with a cover note:

 

" Confidential.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the premier to you so that you all understand the situation clearly.

I can't think of what else to do to resolve the situation and I have nobody to advise me. ... "

 

I explained again that acting principal Mrs GR and I were both Labor party members.

I did not make a full disclosure in this letter.

I did not think that I needed to keep making the same disclosure over and over again in every letter to Peter Beattie.

I asked Mr Beattie to DIRECT Ken Smith, the Director-General of Education, to allow me Natural Justice.

I told Mr Beattie that the Queensland Teachers' Union ( QTU ) had advised me that they were withholding information from me in order to "resolve" the situation.

(I now presume that the QTU already knew that a mass of falsified "records" had been secretly placed on my Departmental File.)

" ... I feel unable to trust the advice of the QTU.

I feel that my union has let me down very badly in my hour of need. ...

... If political allegations were "beaten up" against me - please tell me what the allegations were AND ALLOW ME THE RIGHT TO RESPOND BEFORE YOU FIND ME GUILTY. ...

I have tried / am trying hard to deal with this issue slowly and quietly because  I did not want to "beat it up" more than necessary.

I did not expect that the corruption (for lack of a better word to describe the situation) would extend so far.

But I want to be sure that the bullying will stop.

No other teacher must suffer as I have suffered. ...

I could never feel safe in a Queensland school again.

I have heard workplace bullying described as being "similar to being held hostage" and that describes my experience exactly. ...

 

I would accept a written apology from the Director-General and some DEMONSTRATION that both Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR and the person who was training her in DWP- attack skills have re-thought their professional ethics and have made a firm commitment not to bully again. ... "

 

14 August 2003

Rachel Hunter, Public Service Commissioner, wrote to Ken Smith, Director-General, Education Queensland.

Rachel Hunter asked Ken Smith to provide her with a brief on the issue.

The letter seems to have been actually written by Dean Jones, Principal Policy Officer, Office of the Public Service Commissioner.

 

16 October 2003

Rachel Hunter signed a Chief of Staff Briefing Note concerning me -

 







" ... Ms C------ continues to write prolifically to the Director-General, Department of Education, the Premier and others regarding issues preceding her retirement. ...





...it is recommended that no response be prepared to her email dated 2 October 2003,

or to any further correspondence received from Ms C----- regarding this issue. ... "

OPS 70524 FOLIO 16

 

So, when I wrote to the Premier disclosing the political relationship in the District Office that had created a conflict of interest and was affecting my case, Rachel Hunter recommended that nobody should reply to my letters - because I had written letters disclosing the conflict of interest!

 

Rachel Hunter did not explain in her Chief of Staff briefing note what the actual "issues" were that I was writing about -

  • The significant conflict of interest in the District Office that was affecting my case.
  • In addition to the significant conflict of interest, at least one other District Officer had a conflict of interest in my case, in that she had been involved in the abuse during 2000.
  • At the time of my retirement on July 9 2002, the District Director had twice assured me that he had the bullying under control.
  • He had concealed from me that the bully was going to be given a whacking great promotion a couple of days after I had retired.

 

At this stage, 16 October 2003, I had not complained that -

  • my Stage 1 Grievance Investigation file had been secretly filled with a huge mass of falsified and re-falsified "records"
  • which had created the false impression that these falsifed "records" had been discussed with me during the Stage 1 Grievance Investigation process. 
  • a Stage 2 Grievance Report had been secretly written on my complaint by Lynch Mob State College usual principal Mr EL (one of the people whose bullying I had complained about). 
  • Mr EL had claimed to have "found no evidence" of his own bullying.
  • Rachel Hunter's decisions - and all other decisions - concerning me were being based on this secret report.
  • all copies of this report were going to be "lost" if I applied for it under FOI.
  • and a note had been put on my file to indicate that, if ever I applied for work in Queensland again, John Ryan, the Director of Human Resources should be contacted, as he had a discipline file on me - not on the bullies - on me in his office.

Because these facts were still being concealed from me.

 

Peter Beattie,

Premier of Queensland and Leader of the Queensland Labor party,

the man who once said that he wanted any Queensland public servant who was being bullied to write to him,

personally approved Rachel Hunter's 16 October 2003 recommendation that nobody should reply to my letters.

Peter Beattie signed the Chief of Staff Briefing Note with a big flourish.

 

It is quite an amazing thing to make a disclosure of this nature to the State Premier and then, four years later, to hold in your hand his signed decision that his staff should not respond to any more of your letters.

 

Neil Smith, "Action Officer" OPSME, initialled the decision.

I presume that Neil Smith was the person who actually wrote the Chief of Staff briefing note.

To this date, 21 October 2007, I have had no contact with Neil Smith.

 

Jeff Loof , Director, initialled the decision.

George O'Farrell, ED, also initialled the decision.

OPS 70524 FOLIO 16

 

Example 2:3

5 October 2004

Kim Poiner, Principal Consultant, Office of Public Service Merit and Equity, wrote and signed a "Commissioner's Brief".

" ... in view of no new issues having been raised by Ms C-----, it is recommended that no responses be sent to her. ..."

 

Kim Poiner makes no mention in her "Commissioner's Brief" that I had been complaining during 2004 about the mass of falsified "records" that had been secretly placed on my Departmental file.

Large numbers of the secretly falsified "records" had been slowly released to me during 2004 under Freedom of Information.

( Several falsified 2421 "records" were not fully released to me till after 27 October 2005. )

And Kim Poiner makes no mention of my detailed responses to seven of the falsified "records".

 

A handwrittten note has been added on the right hand side -

" 16 October 03 Premier approves no further correspondence with Ms C----- (see green tab at E798). "

Another handwritten note reads -

" Agreed - George O'Farrell - 11/10/04

Make sure MIU is aware no action necessary. "

 

Director Neil Smith initialled the Commissioner's Brief on 6/10.

David Douglas initialled the Commissioner's Brief on 7/10.

OPS 70524 FOLIO 13

 

16 November, 2004

Denise Wojciechowski, Executive Services, OPSME, emailed Raewyn Garcia and copied to Michele Rice.

"There are two Premiers detached folios coming back to records in the afternoon run.

... The folders carry MCU numbers 65945 and 66162 respectively.

they are from (my name) 

... her files P14300 and E798 are both marked that she is not to receive any further responses on either the Premier's or Commissioner's behalf.

This action was endorsed by the Premier in Oct 2003 and re-endorsed, after review, by the Commissioner in Oct 2004.

David Douglas, E/D, Workforce Management has asked if an additional notice be placed on the files so that if and when the correspondence continues it can go straight to files and not through the tracking system and down to our office etc?

I anticipate that this would save us all a modicum of effort. ... "

So - am I understanding this situation correctly?

All of the letters and documents that I have sent to Peter Beattie and the Public Service Commissioner since 16 November 2004 have simply been filed -

- and nobody has actually been reading them -

- and this was done because it saved the public servants in the Office of the Public Service Commissioner a modicum of effort?

 

Example 2:4

8 August, 2005

When you complain about the behaviour of an Education Queensland senior public servant, the Director-General will instruct you that all communications with the Department must be through that public servant - the public servant whose behaviour you are complaining about.

 

I wrote to -

Mr Smith had written to me:

"You have been advised by Mr John Ryan that all communications with the Department other than communications relating to your FOI applications must be made through him.

I confirm this arrangement and request that you correspond directly with Mr Ryan in future."

 

This was totally inappropriate.

My complaint to the CMC, the complaint that the CMC had given Education Queensland to investigate, had been about John Ryan's behaviour.

And I protested that Mr Smith was being misled.

" ... In emails to you I have offered many times to accept an apology.

I have never asked for (the person who bullied me) to be dismissed or demoted. ... "

 

I said that I would communicate directly with Mr Beattie.

 

13 August, 2005

I wrote to -

  • Peter Beattie at The Premier's Office

  • The Ombudsman,

  • Kathryn Mahoney,

  • Ken Smith,

  • John Ryan,

  • The Information Commissioner

  • and the CMC.

(I had discovered from examining the FOI documents that untruthful statements were being made about me by one senior officer of Education Queensland.)

I said that -

  • On August 3 2003 I had offered to accept a written apology from the Director-General.

  • And again, on 14 July 2004 I had emailed Ken Smith -

 

" I am wondering if it is possible to resolve this situation informally.

It must be obvious to everybody by now that I was being bullied.

Why not move (the person who bullied me) to a job where she will have less opportunity to harm people? Maybe a writing or a lecturing job.

And give me a letter to say that deciding to put me on DWP was impulsive and irrational.

I will settle for that ... "

 

  • and it was true that -

" I have said that I would like to see a more logical relationship between the two days that it took (the person who bullied me) to destroy my career and the four and a half years that I have been waiting for an independent investigation ... "

  • but it was not true that -

" ... Ms C----- has repeatedly indicated that from her perspective the only action that will resolve the issue is the demotion of (the person who bullied me). "

" ... for the principal to be demoted and she has been told a number of times that this will not happen ... "

" ... Ms C----- has stated that she will only be satisfied that her complaint has been satisfactorily addressed if a certain employee is dismissed. "

(I had discovered from examining the FOI documents that these untruthful statements were being made about me by one senior officer of Education Queensland.)

 

I repeated my request for an apology or for an independent investigation.

I said that I would not talk to any person who had lied about me.

 

26 August, 2005

Senior officers of the Queensland public service deal with disclosures by re-writing your disclosure, editing your actual disclosure out of their "frank and fearless briefing".

David Douglas, E/D, Workforce Management, who on 16 November, 2004 had requested that all of my correspondence could be sent straight to files and not through the tracking system and down to the office ... seems to have written a Premier's briefing note.

' Recommendation

That you do not reply to recent emails from Ms R----- C-----.

Ms C----- has sent emails to you on 8 August and 13 August 2005 ...

... Ms C-----'s recent emails do not raise any new issues."

It is pretty hard to "raise any new issues", Mr Douglas, when your letters and emails are simply being filed and not being read.

 

30 August 2005

Vicky Darling, Senior Policy Officer, wrote a "Premier's Advice".

" I agree that it would not be constructive to respond to Ms C-----. ...

Recommendations:

I recommend that the Premier:

Agrees that NO REPLY is sent to Ms C-----. "

 

This premier's briefing note was signed by George O'Farrell, Public Service Commissioner

and by Peter Beattie, Premier and Treasurer.

Peter Beattie signed his name with a big, careless swirl.

OPS 70524 Folio 8

 



Example 2:5

18 November, 2006

The Premier, Ken Smith, the CMC and the Ombudsman would only allow me to communicate with John Ryan, the person whose behaviour I had complained about to the CMC.

Clearly this was a hopeless situation.

 

But I believed that there would be some public servant with integrity, somewhere in Queensland.

I decided to appeal to the other Directors-General in Queensland.

At 9:54 I emailed Desley Boyle, Minister for Child Safety.

I attached November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents.

(This was a slightly updated version of The C - - - - - List 31/10/2006.  

I handed three printed copies of The C  - - - - -  List 31/10/2006 - one each for The Director-General, the Minister and Peter Edwards to Tony the security guard at Education House, Mary Street on Thursday 23 November.

In The C - - - - - List 31/0/2006 I listed most of the falsified records that I had found hidden on my Departmental Record.

I explained how they had been falsified.)

I explained to Desley that this was a list of falsified records that had been hidden in my Departmental files in breach of the Departmental Code of Conduct, Natural Justice, the DWP policy, the Grievance policy and the Public Service Regulations.

The "internal reviewer" had simply copied from these falsified records.

He had ignored my responses to the falsified records.

In about July 2006 an "external review" had been completed .

I had not been allowed to read the "external review" but it had already been declared "finalised".

I appealed to Desley -

"I appeal to you-

Do not allow yourself to be manipulated with false assurances.

Do not play a passive part in facilitating the abuse.

Contact the Director-General, Rachel Hunter.

Support my request to be allowed to read the latest "independent investigation report".

(I have not been allowed to read the "independent" investigation report to this date, 22 January, 2008.)

I do not agree that simply moving the mass of falsified documents from my file in (my town) to another file in Brisbane is an adequate response to six years of systemic abuse.

I do not agree that simply generating new policies will stop the systemic abuse of Queensland teachers. ...

Nobody in (my town) was following any of the official Departmental policies ... "

 

At 9:54 AM I emailed Anna Bligh , Deputy Premier , sent her a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to her.

At 9:55 AM I emailed Robin Sullivan, Director-General of Child Safety,  sent her a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to her.

At 9:56 AM I emailed Peter Henneken, DIR, sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

At 9:58 AM I emailed Jim McGowan at  JUSTICE, sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

At 9:59 AM I emailed Bob Atkinson APM, Police Commissioner, sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

At 10:00 AM I emailed Ross Rolfe at the Premier's Department , sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

At 10:01 AM I emailed Robert Needham at the CMC , sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

At 10:03 AM I emailed Cathi Taylor at the Office of the Information Commissioner , sent her a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to her.

At 10:04 AM I emailed David Bevan at the Queensland Ombudsman, sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

The Ombudsman, to his credit, did contact Education Queensland and ask what was going on.

But I describe on http://www.badapplebullies.com/thequeenslandombudsman.htm the manner in which, from November 2006, to this date, 22 August 2008, Education Queensland seem to have done nothing whatsoever in response to the Ombudsman's questioning.

At 10:06 AM I emailed James Purtill at OPSME, sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

At 10:08 AM I emailed Judy Spence, Minister for the Queensland Police, sent her a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to her.

Judy Spence wrote to me to advise me that I could make a formal complaint to the local police.

But I explained that I did not want to drag respected members of my local community through the courts.

I just wanted to know what the November 2000 allegations were against me, to have the opportunity to respond to the allegations and prove myself innocent, and to have the two decisions to punish me officially "struck off" my Departmental record.

At 10:10 AM I emailed Peter Beattie at the Premier's Department, sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

At 10:13 AM I emailed Peter Edwards at Education Queensland,  sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

At 10:15 AM I emailed Jim Varghese at DPI , sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

At 10:16 AM I emailed Regan Neumann, Director of the Education Queensland Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, sent him a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to him.

At 10:17 AM I emailed Sharon Hansen at the Queensland Teachers' Union ( QTU ) (All emails to Sharon Hansen concerning Queensland teachers are sent directly to the QTU. She advised me that it is ACTU policy.), sent her a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to her.

No response to this date 19 January 2010.

At 10:20 AM I emailed Fiona McNamara , the QTU legal officer at the QTU, sent her a copy of November 17 2006 List of Falsified and or Concealed Documents. , and made a similar appeal to her.

No response to this date 19 January 2010.

 

20 November, 2006

I met Peter Edwards at Education House, Mary Streeet, Brisbane.

Peter Edwards showed me what seemed to be the file of falsified records that I had discovered under FOI.

I had given a file of these documents to the Verifact Commercial Investigator on December 16 2005, one year earlier.

I had, of course, provided the Verifact Commercial Investigator with many other documents.

I was astonished by how little Peter Edwards knew about my "case".

He told me repeatedly that he had been given "a brief" that only allowed him to "know about" and to discuss this one file of documents.

He told me that he was not allowed to "know about" or to discuss the decisions based on these falsified records.

Or the many missing documents.

It was the first time that I had been told about this "brief".

I asked Peter Edwards if John Ryan had written this "brief" that banned him from discussing the decisions based on the falsified records.

Peter Edwards did not respond.

 

23 November, 2006

I met Ken Smith.










He told me that I could walk into the District Office at any time and ask for a job, because I was still a registered teacher.

I asked Ken Smith how he would like to work with a group of people who seemed to have agreed to comprehensively trick him and lie about him.

I live in a small community.

People that I respected and trusted, important people in our community, had either joined in with the bullying or passively facilitated the bullying.

In 2000 seven of my fellow teachers - teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years - spoke up in my support.

They met with school administrator G.R. and told her that she was "making a mistake".

These seven teachers were told - I understand - that there were "secret reasons" why I had to be punished in 2001.

They were told - I understand - that they would get into "very serious trouble" if they talked to me about the bullying.

They were afraid to be seen talking to me.

I have been isolated in my small community for years, waiting for Education Queensland to explain the real or imaginary "lots of allegations" that I was told in November 2000 had been made against me in "lots of" documents.

I want Education Queensland to give me the opportunity to respond to these real or imaginary "allegations".

I want the opportunity to prove myself innocent.

I can only fight to prove myself innocent while I am not employed by Education Queensland.


During the meeting with school administrator GR and EL on 5 February 2001, I was threatened five times that "action would be taken against me" if I continued to complain about the bullying.

And I now realise that a Queensland Government employee who complains about workplace bullying can be dismissed for "gross misconduct".

 

Ken Smith told me that he could not help me because he was no longer Director-General of Education.

He advised me to write to Rachel Hunter, who was now the new Director-General of Education, and explain to her what I wanted. 

 

4 December, 2006

Rachel Hunter, who had now been appointed Director-General of Education Queensland, wrote to Ross Rolfe, Director-General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

She was aware that I had been making contact with Directors-General from several government departments.

 

" ... In any reply to Ms C-----, could I please encourage your staff to indicate that the matter will be referred to the Department of Education, Training and the Arts for consideration.

If you have any questions relating to these representations, please contact Mr Regan Neumann, Director of Workforce Standards and Performance Unit ... "

 

I presume that Rachel Hunter sent a similar letter to all of the Queensland Directors-General.

 

Regan Neumann seems to have only been "Director of Workforce Standards and Performance" for a few weeks.

I do not believe that Mr Neumann knows anything whatsoever about my complaint.

John Ryan and Ken Smith had banned me from communicating with anyone other than John Ryan.

So how could Regan Neumann answer questions about my "representations"?

 

Since I spoke to Ken Smith in November 2006, I have written to Rachel Hunter, Director-General of Education Queensland repeatedly.















I have explained repeatedly to Rachel Hunter that I want -
  • to be shown copies of the allegations that were secretly placed on my file in November 2000.
  • to understand these real or imaginary allegations.
  • to have the opportunity to respond to these secret allegations and to prove myself innocent.
  • to have the decision to punish me officially struck off my Departmental file.

 

26 June, 2007

I met Rachel Hunter briefly.

and Jenny Cranston, Deputy Director General, Education.

And Gary Barnes, Assistant Director General, Strategic Human resources.

 

I told them that I had been bullied.

I told them about this website.

I told them that I had been asking for the situation to be investigated since November 2000.

 

I told Rachel Hunter that I had written to her many times.

 

To this date, 19 January, 2010,  Rachel Hunter, Jenny Cranston and Gary Barnes have made no response to my complaint.


 

(3)  "Lose" their own documents when you make Freedom of Information (FOI) applications.

Example 3: A

In late 2003 I made a Freedom of Information application for the documents that explained the "secret reason" why I "had to be" punished.

On 23 March 2004 Education Queensland FOI Officer A.S. sent me a schedule of documents in FOI Application 2421.

The schedule listed 63 documents in 2421 File F.

I was only allowed to see a few of these 2421 File F documents.

I was not allowed to see 2421 F 1, 3, 4, 5, or 6.                       

After the Department had sent me a copy of their October 11 2004 "internal review" of my documents, I wondered if the "internal reviewer" had been given falsified copies of my documents to review.

So I made FOI application 2733 for the actual documents used by the "internal reviewer".

On 27 October 2005, just before the 2006 Verifact investigation began,  the FOI 2733 documents were released to me. 

FOI 2733 contained a copy of File 2421.

But the documents in this copy of 2421 F had been reversed in order and the page numbers had also been reversed.

This concealed the fact that now there were only 53 documents in file 2421 F.

Document 63 was now numbered "2" at the bottom of the page.

Document 13 was now numbered "53" at the bottom of the page.

  • Documents 1-12 in 2421 File F had vanished. 

Presumably these 12 missing documents were concealed from the "internal reviewer" and also from the "independent Verifact investigator".

  • To this date - 20 September, 2007 - I have not been allowed to see 2421 F 1, 3, 4, 5, or 6 despite making many FOI applications for these documents.   

Example 3 : B

FOI 2875 File J Document 221

On 27 January 2006 EQ Head Office Employee M.N. made notes on what appears 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 the Cairns District Office wrote a report concerning my grievance.

To this day, 20 September, 2007, I know nothing about this report.

To this date I have not been allowed to read this report.

To this date I have not been allowed to respond to this report.

 

(4)  Conduct "Claytons" investigations.

Example 4 : A

On 13 December 2000 I wrote to the Cairns District Director (2733 H 104):

" Dear Mr ------

On Friday 10 November I spoke at a staff meeting at (my) school. I was concerned about the numbers of children being withdrawn from the grade 7 (specialist) lessons to participate in other activities or to do "jobs".

As a result of this discussion and other issues that I have tried to raise at the school the acting principal (G.R.) has placed me on Diminished Work Performance. She wrote to me on 29 November to advise me that the initial stage would be instigated at the commencement of next year, when (school administrator E.L.) returns. She states, "I have spoken to him about the matter and he is in agreement that the process is warranted." (School administrator E.L.) has not discussed this situation with me.

For this and other reasons I believe that the process of placing me on Diminished Work Performance was conducted in an unfair manner and that the aim of the process is completely punitive. I believe that this is a "payback" situation. ...

I request that an officer be appointed to investigate the situation and to determine the truth."

 

Cairns District Office Employee C.H.R. returned my letter to school administrator G.R. - the person about whose behaviour I was complaining - the next day.

I agreed with school administrator G.R. that school administrator E.L. would deal with my Grievance when he returned to work the next year.

I respected and trusted school administrator E.L. absolutely.

I knew that E.L. was in breach of Natural Justice, the Code of Conduct and the DWP process in agreeing with school administrator G.R. that the DWP process was justified before he had discussed the situation with me.

But I wanted to give school administrator E.L. the opportunity to quietly "sort out the mess" that G.R. had made while he was on leave. 

I did not want to do anything to bring school administrator E.L. or my school into disrepute. 

 

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 EQ Human Rights and Equal Opportunity C-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;"

 

I knew nothing about school administrator E.L.'s January 2001 "decision not to investigate" my grievance till after 6 April 2005. 

I understood that the document that school administrator E.L. read to us at the start of the meeting on 5 February 2001 was his investigation report.

I thought that E..L. had conducted (what appeared to me to be) a corrupt investigation.

I thought that the "Report Grievance meeting Stage 1 5/2/01",

the report that was delivered to my home on the afternoon of 16 February 2001 -

the day before the 17 February 2001 Queensland State election

- was a typed copy of the investigation report that school administrator E.L. had read at the start of the meeting on February 5 2001.

The investigation report did not seem to be very well written, but I presumed that this must be because school administrator E.L. was not terribly literate.

 

In fact the report was very cleverly written to convey one meaning to me, and quite a different meaning for the official record -

 

"Report: Grievance Meeting Stage 1 - 5/2/01"

THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

This was the investigation report that school administrator E.L. asked school administrator G.R. and I to listen to at the start of the meeting.

It was not a report on the meeting.

It had been written before the meeting.

 

"(My name ) appealed over the harsh, unjust and unreasonable behaviour of (school administrator G.R.) during Term 4.

This was in relation to strategies used with various students during (specialist) classes."

THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

My grievance concerned school administrator G.R.'s refusal to attend -

  • the meeting that I had requested with the School Behaviour Management Committee to discuss the Behaviour Management Program at the school
  • and the mediated meeting that I had been advised by the Queensland teacher's union, the Staff Welfare officer and two specialist advisory teachers to request with G.R., to discuss her behaviour during the staff meeting on November 10 2000.

School administrator G.R. had agreed to meet me, but said that the purpose of the meeting would be to discuss her sudden "concerns".

My grievance was that school administrator G.R. was abusing the Diminished Work Performance process to distract attention from her own behaviour during the staff meeting on November 10 2000.

 

"The aim of the process was to :-

Discuss and clarify with support people any identified facts. ..."

THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

Seven teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years (all of the Grade 5 and 6 teachers) asked G.R. if they could have a meeting to discuss her behaviour.

These seven brave teachers astonished each other by how clearly they spoke to G.R.

School administrator G. R. had not been into my classroom or looked at my program all year.

School administrator A.L. had never seen me teach and never looked at my program.

The seven teachers told G.R. that she was making a mistake. They told her very clearly and firmly that there was no problem with my "classroom and behaviour management practices" (these were the "specific concerns" identified in G.R.'s letter to me dated 29 November 2000).

I understand that G.R. told the seven teachers that I was not being put on the DWP for the reasons given in her letter, that there were "secret other" reasons to punish me.

I asked school administrator E.L. to speak to these seven teachers who had actually seen me teach and who all supported me.

They could explain to him what had been "going on" at the school while he was away.

If he had any doubt at all about any detial of my complaint, school administrator E.L. could have checked the facts with these teachers.

E.L. told me at the meeting on February 5, 2000 that he had not spoken to the teachers.

E.L. told me on  February 5, 2000 that the teachers had put nothing in writing.

He had never mentioned to me that this would be necessary.

And he also told me that it was now too late for the teachers to put anything in writing.

So E.L.'s "report" is misleading in that he does not make clear that he refused to consult the seven support people who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years  - and who all supported me.

 

" ... We as teachers are often required to deal with difficult parents from time to time. ..."

Is some real or imaginary problem with a parent being concealed from me?

 

Only one parent had been a problem during 2000.

I had taken Mother D.A. to Lynch-Mob State School acting school principal G.R. on the afternoon of the third day of Term 4 2000.

Mother D.A. was loud, aggressive and abusive.

She believed that I had put her son on detention.

This had not happened.

Acting school principal G.R. did not support me effectively.

She allowed Mother D.A. to abuse me for twenty minutes in front of her son, my student.

I tried to explain but Mother D.A. shouted me down.

After Mother D.A. left, acting school princiapal G.R. asked me to stay behind

I tried to explain.

G.R,. said that she did not have time to listen to me. She had to go to a meeting.

Then she also abused me.

I was shocked by acting school principal G.R.'s unprofessional behaviour, and I was exhausted with the unrelenting abuse.

I began to cry.

 

But this had all taken place on October 4 2000, several weeks earlier.

Is some other real or imaginary problem with a parent being concealed from me to this date, 19 January, 2010?

 

"... There has been an increasing build up of professional resistance between the two parties and as time has passed coming to an acceptable resolution has become more difficult. ..."

THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

a) 

Lynch-Mob State School acting school principal G.R. had asked me repeatedly to join her branch of the Labor party.

I had "resisted" her repeated suggestion.

It is not appropriate to describe this as "... an increasing build up of professional resistance. ..."

Acting school principal G.R. had not seen me teach or looked at my program all year.

She had shown no "professional" interest in my work.

 

b)

I had been very shocked by acting school principal G.R's lack of support for me when I took Mrs D.R. to her office.

I felt trapped because G.R. was my principal and I could not refuse to talk to her.

But I felt unsafe talking to G.R. because her behaviour seemed to me to be irrational, impulsive and unprofessional.

I asked my doctor for valium to take when I had to speak to G.R.. I wanted to be able to "zap myself out" so that G.R.'s behaviour would not "get to me".

My G.P. advised me that it was "situational stress" and that it was better for my health to cry rather than to take valium.

Then things seemed to "settle down" and I felt that acting school principal G.R. and I were establishing a more professional relationship.

It was because I felt, on Friday November 3 2000, that we had established a more professional relationship, that I asked acting school principal G.R. to support me in saying that there were too many disruptions to my Grade 7 (specialist) lessons.

 

... as time has passed coming to an acceptable resolution has become more difficult. ...

THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

... as time has passed ...

Acting school principal G.R.'s behaviour at the staff meeting on Friday 10 November 2000 was a shock that "came out of the blue" after I asked for her support in saying that there were too many disruptions to my Grade 7 (specialist) lessons.

I was so shocked by G.R."s (seemingly) irrational and very, very unprofessional behaviour that I became ill. I was on sick leave for the next week.

... coming to an acceptable resolution has become more difficult ...

G.R. responded to my request for a mediated meeting by abusing her power to change the nature of the meeting. 

G.R. insisted that the purpose of the meeting would be ...

... regarding the implementation of a Diminished Work Performance Program ... (FOI 2421 F 059 True copy of a letter to me from Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR dated 29 November 2000)

G.R. made no attempt all all to come to an acceptable resolution.

Her immediate response to my request for a mediated meeting was to put me on DWP.

 

Nowhere in this document does Lynch-Mob State school usual principal E.L. acknowledge that -

  • acting deputy principal A.L. had abused the Education Queensland Code of Conduct, the Public Service Regulations, refused me Natural Justice and abused the Diminished Work Performance Process.
  • acting principal G.R. had also abused the Education Queensland Code of Conduct, the Public Service Regulations, refused me Natural Justice and abused the Diminished Work Performance Process.
  • usual principal E.L.'s own behaviour towards me was in breach of Natural Justice, the Education Queensland Code of Conduct, the Public Service Regulations and the Diminished Work Performance Process.
  • And, in writing this misleading report, usual principal E.L. was abusing the Education Queensland Grievance process.

 

(5) Extensively falsify your Official Departmental Record by secretly placing a mass of falsified "documents" on your file, including records of imaginary conversations concerning you.

Please refer to:

http://www.badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm

 

(6) Base their decisions concerning you on the findings of  "investigations" that you know nothing about.

Example 6 : A

FOI 2875 File J Document 221

The District Office report discussed above.

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

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

 

Example 6 : B

September 3 2003

- the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) wrote to me:

RE: Concerns about Education Queensland Officers Head Office Employee S.N., E.Q. Director N.Y.and E.Q. Director N.N..

I refer to your email dated Saturday 9 August in which you raised concerns about the conduct of Head Office Employee S.N., E.Q. Director N.Y. and E.Q. Director N.N., who investigated your workplace grievance.

All the information provided has been considered and it is understood your concerns are that Head Office Employee S.N., E.Q. Director N.Y. and E.Q. Director N.N. failed to adequately address your grievance, "turning a blind eye" to workplace bullying. ...

This CMC letter is gibberish.

  • I had complained about the conduct of Education Queensland Director N.N.
  • I had not complained about the conduct of  E.Q. Director N.Y. or Head Office Employee S.N..
  • To this day, 20 September, 2007, I know nothing about any "investigation into my workplace grievance" by Head Office Employee S.N., E.Q. Director N.Y. and E.Q. Director N.N..
  • To this day, despite many FOI applications to both the CMC and Education Queensland, I have not been provided with a copy of this purported "investigation".

 

Example 6: C

29 July 2004

In a draft "review" Education Queensland Project Officer K.E. wrote-

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

At this stage - 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.

At this stage 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.

 

To this date, 10 August 2008, despite many FOI applications to Education Queensland, I know nothing about these two or more reports by external "review" agencies.

 

Example 6: D

12 October 2004

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

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

(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 (School Administrator E.L.) who found that no bullying had in fact occurred. ...

- is more gibberish.

  • These Ombudsmen and I did not discuss this purported "stage 2 grievance investigation" during our meeting.
  • To this date, 10 August 2008, despite many FOI applications to Education Queensland, I know nothing about this purported "stage 2 grievance investigation" by school administrator E.L..
  • To this day I have not been provided with a copy of this purported "stage 2 grievance investigation" report by Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL.

 

  • 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.

 

Example 6: E

----- Original Message -----
From: (My Local Member)
To: (My name)
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: Rod Welford

(My Name), 
(The local member)  has asked me to let you know that she tried, but that the answer is no - the Minister is not prepared to meet. 
The issue has been thoroughly investigated on a number of occasions by the department over the years and, as you have been previously informed, it is now deemed to be closed.

(Name)
Electorate Officer
to 
...  MP
Member for ...

--------------------------------------------

To this date, 10 August 2008, despite many FOI applications to Education Queensland, I know nothing about these "thorough investigations" that have been conducted on a number of occasions by the department over the years.

 

I have only been given (1) a copy of a "review" conducted during 2004 by Education Queensland Project Officer K.E. , a junior project officer who identifies as an Aboriginal. Project officer K. E. is not a qualified teacher and has no qualifications in law or in psychology.

The "review" was tightly supervised by Education Queensland Director N.N., the person about whose conduct I had complained to the CMC. 

Project Officer K.E.'s "review" consisted of little more than copying from the falsified documents that had secretly been placed on my departmental file.

  • I knew nothing about these falsified documents when the "review" began.
  • The first draft of Project officer K.E.'s "review" is dated July 29 2004.
  • But many of the falsified and re-falsifed documents were not released to me till after July 12 2004. 
  • Three copies of my public interest disclosure (PID) to the CMC (one copy of which was emailed to the CMC on 26 November 2003 5:32 PM) were provided by the CMC to the Department, but my public interest disclosure was not provided by the Department to Project Officer K.E.
  • My responses to the falsified documents were not "considered" by Project Officer K.E. 
  • Project Officer K.E. found no evidence of bullying in the falsified documents.

 

I understand that (2)

an "independent" Verifact Commercial Investigation was completed in mid-2006.

The Department is refusing to provide me with either -

  • a copy of the terms of reference for this "independent" Verifact Commercial Investigation
  • or with a copy of the Verifact investigation report.

 

It is in this sense that the Verifact Commercial Investigation was "independent".

This "independent" Verifact Investigation was also tightly supervised by Education Queensland Director N.N. - the person about whose conduct I had complained to the CMC.

I am concerned that Education Queensland Director N.N. may only have allowed the "independent" Verifact Commercial investigator to consider the falsified documents that I had actually found under FOI,

not the many missing documents and missing investigation reports described above.

 

I have very grave concerns about this "independent" Verifact Commercial Investigation.

  • To this date,  20 September 2007, I have not been allowed natural justice.
  • To this date I have not been told what the allegations were in the ... notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.) from D-----.
  • To this date I have not been allowed to respond to these allegations and prove myself innocent.

 

--------------------------------------------

... and, as you have been previously informed, it is now deemed to be closed.

But seven days before I received this email from my local member, the Ombudsman had written to tell me that the falsified documents that I had found under FOI, and provided to the "independent" Verifact Commercial investigator on 16 December 2005, had been recently sent to Education Queensland's Legal Section for advice. (Letter from Assistant Ombudsman U.M. dated 16 February 2007).

And the Ombudsman advised me to "allow this process to occur".

So which of these stories is true?

  • The story told to the Ombudsman - that the legal department is examining the falsified documents

 

  • or the story told to my local member-  that the investigation is now deemed to be closed?

 

Or are Education Queensland officers saying anything that "comes into their head" and, in reality, doing nothing for year after year? 

 

 

(7) Write two quite different versions of events in two different documents and place both documents secretly on your Departmental file, so that even when you manage to find the documents under Freedom of Information, you still have no real idea which "official story", if any, is true. 

You still can't respond effectively to these conflicting "official allegations".

Example 7 A :

File 2421 F contains both 

  • 2421 F 63, which is a true copy of a letter to me signed by school administrator G.R. and dated 23 November 2000, 
  • and 2421 F 61, which seems to be an undated and unsigned falsified version of this letter. It was placed secretly on my official Records. I first saw 2421 F 61 after 27 April 2004.

Would any investigator be able to realise that 2421 F 61 is falsified?

Example 7 B :

On 23 March 2004 Education Queensland FOI Officer A.S. sent me a schedule of documents in FOI Application 2421 in which she described documents 2421 F 28-32 as -

Notes of meeting between (School Administrator G.R.), (School Administrator A.L.), (School Administrator E.L.) and (my name) on 27/11/00.

FOI Officer A.S. did not allow me to have a copy of this document.

On 27 April 2004 Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission -trained discrimination solicitor M.E. sent me a copy of 2421 F 28-32.

 

But it was a different document.

This Version B document was titled -

Meeting with (my name), (name of union organiser), (School Administrator G.R.), and (School Administrator A.L.). 27th November 2000.

Notice that the names on this second version of 2421 F 28-32 are in a different order and they are different names.

Would any investigator realise that there were two versions of this document, and that the first version of 2421 F 28-32 had vanished?

 


(8)  Manipulate people who are vulnerable in some way -
  • children,
  • the sick,
  • the disabled,
  • the Aboriginal,
  • inexperienced employees "in training" 
  • or the local Queensland Teachers' Union organiser

- as puppets to "speak" their imaginary allegations against you and to facilitate their abuse.

Example 8 A :

The disabled child in the wheelchair described above was manipulated by School Administrator G.R. as a puppet to "speak" comments critical of me. 

Example 8 B :

D-----, whose  ( ..., notes to [Grade 7 teacher N.T.] from D-----)... were secretly placed on my departmental file, was a teacher who was being rehabilitated at my school during 2000. 

D----- was obviously having significant difficulty functioning.

The Bad Apple Bully-Mob seem to have manipulated her as a puppet to "write" notes that discredited me.

Example 8 C :

Education Queensland employ many solicitors and barristers.

The Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained solicitor, M.E. for example, specialised in discrimination.

My complaint concerned discrimination. But discrimination solicitor M.E. was not selected to "review" my discrimination complaint.  

Discrimination solicitor M.E. was selected to be the "internal reviewer" of my Freedom of Information application. 

Discrimination solicitor M.E. refused to provide me with the 2361 and 2421 documents - including the ( ..., notes to [Grade 7 teacher N.T.] from D-----) -  the documents that have now "vanished".

 

The "independent reviewer" selected in 2004 by Education Queensland senior officers, the reviewer who simply copied out the contents of the falsified documents and did not "consider" my responses to the falsified documents, was

  • not a qualified teacher,
  • had no qualifications in law
  • or in psychology
  • and identifies as an Aboriginal.

In addition to my basic three year certificate I had completed a B.Ed in which I was awarded the college medal.

I had also completed a Master's Degree with Merit at Sydney University.

After being asked to become a specialist teacher I had spent many hours of my own time (and at my own expense) completing specialist courses both in Australia and overseas.

In 1980 I was inspected for one day and placed on the NSW First Primary Promotion List.

When I was recruited to work in Queensland I was told that my application was outstanding.

 

This is a story of utter, systemic incompetence.

Education Queensland failed in its duty of care to me -

  • to protect me from this systemic incompetence
  • and to have my complaint about this incompetence effectively investigated by a properly qualified and experienced investigator.

 

It was culturally inappropriate to appoint a person who identified as an Aboriginal as the "reviewer" of my complaint.

My first language is English. My culture is English. My values are English. In making my complaint I used the thinking and (three stage, intake-organise-express) reasoning style of a person of my own culture - that of an educated, mother-tongue English speaker.

I was not bought up to either expect or to tolerate bureaucratic corruption.

But Aboriginal people have a different reasoning style. For example, I was once present during a discussion at Yarrabah. The Yarrabah men were speaking in English, but I was unable to follow their line of argument or to participate in the discussion. Instead of using the "zig-zag", A-B-A-B-A-B discussion style that I had been used to using, these Yarrabah men spoke together more in what I would describe as a spiral style. Each person agreed with the previous speaker but the discussion steadily moved towards a decision that was quite new and different.

It was neither culturally appropriate nor just to appoint a "reviewer" with a culture, a value-system and a reasoning style so entirely different to my own.

 

The impact of the Aboriginal investigator's different reasoning style on the 2004 "review" can be seen in the draft review dated 29 July 2004 (FOI 2733 L, documents 3-13). in which EQ Employee S.E. states-

8. By virtue of MI-04-1824 dated 2 June 2004, the complainant raised a further allegation, by numerous emails, that the documentation she obtained under FOI was falsified. Further, the CMC suggested that the "impartial investigator" (The Crime and Misconduct Commission were under the impression at this date that EQ had engaged an external consultant to investigate my complaint.) assess this matter.

9.The author was aware of the numerous emails, but was not advised of the MI-04-1824 until early July 2004.

10. Merging of the two complaints is problematic. While related, the nature and substance of each complaint will be assessed separately to ensure the identification issues and scoping of actions.

So, when he was told that my departmental file had been extensively falsified, EQ employee S.E. decided to simply copy out the contents of the falsified documents.

EQ employee S.E. did not "consider" my responses to the falsified documents. 

This is not the reasoning style of a person educated in the western tradition. 

 

(9)  "Lose" your letters and documents over and over again.

Example 9 A

On 21 June 2004 at 12:35 PM

I emailed a letter to Ken Smith. I attached responses to five of the falsified and concealed FOI 2421 documents -

  • 2421 E - this document is not numbered.

These are notes by School Administrator E.L., hand-written in pencil over the January 2,3, and 4 pages of a 2001 diary. I first saw these notes after 23 March 2004.

  • 2421 F 7 - School Administrator A.L's "documentation of behaviour management issues" dated 13/10/2000.

This was a document that had been placed secretly on my file. I first saw a copy after 27 April 2004. I responded to it on June 21 2004. By 27 October 2005 this document had vanished.

  • 2421 F 9-11 - School Administrator G.R's Record of Incident dated 04/10/2000.

This was a significantly falsified document that had been placed secretly on my file. I first saw a copy after 27 April 2004. I responded to it on June 21 2004. By 27 October 2005 this document had vanished.

  • 2421 F 28-32 - school administrator A.L's record of the "mediated" meeting with the local QTU organiser.

On 23 March 2004 this document was described as Notes of meeting between school administrator G.R., school administrator A.L. school administrator E.L. and (me) on 27/11/00.

When I made an application for an internal review of EQ FOI coordinator A.S.'s  decision to refuse me a copy of this document, I pointed out that this document must be falsified because school administrator E.L. did not attend the meeting, the local QTU organiser had attended the meeting. 

Education Queensland HREOC-trained discrimination solicitor M.E. conducted the internal review. He provided me with what seems to be a different document. This document is headed: Meeting with (me), (the QTU Organiser), school administrator G.R. and school administrator A.L. Different names in a different order.

I have never been provided with a copy of the original document. I first saw a copy of this substitute document after 27 April 2004.

  • 2421 F 61 - this loose sheet of paper appears to be a falsified version of a real letter dated 23 November 2000 written by school admininistrator G.R. to me. 

This falsified document is headed up CONFIDENTIAL in handwriting. I first saw this document after 23 March 2004. I immediately reported to the Department that it was a falsified document.

 

I emailed the 21 June 2004 letter and my responses to the five falsified and concealed documents to Ken Smith, Director-General of Education, at 12:35.

I copied it to the CMC postmaster, CMC Complaints, Justice  and Ombudsman R.S.

 

On 22 June 2004 at 3:37 PM

I emailed Ken Smith again.

I told Mr Smith that I had handed a printed copy of the letter and the documents in at the District Office at 12.45 PM.

I told him the name of the person that I had handed the letter and the documents to. I told him that the person had date-stamped the letter.

I asked for his assurance that my responses would be attached to EACH copy of the falsified documents, wherever they had been filed.

This was not done.

 

I later discovered under FOI that both Education Queensland copies of my letter and of my responses to the five falsifed 2421 documents - both the printed copy and the emailed copy - had been "lost".

And, by 27 October 2005, documents 2421 F 1-12 had also vanished.

 

On Sunday 18 December 2005 at 12:39

I emailed a copy of this 21 June 2004 letter and the five responses to the falsified documents to the V------- investigator, at his request.

On Saturday March 4 2006 at 12:44 PM

When I realised that Education Queensland had lost all of their copies of this letter and the documents, I emailed a copy of the letter and the documents again to Ken Smith, Rod Welford, EQ Director N.N. , EQ Assistant Director R.S. and the CMC.

On Sunday 5 March 2006 at 9:14

Education Queensland Director N.N., the person whose behaviour I had complained about to the CMC, emailed me and copied his email to Ken Smith.

Dear (my name),

I acknowledge receipt of your letter - as you are aware an independent person is currently investigating your complaint - I request that any documentation or comment you have about this issue be directed to the independent investigator.

Regards (EQ Director N.N.)

 

Which suggests that, on March 5 2006, these Education Queensland officers still did not want to "know" about the "lost" June 21 2004 letter, or about my responses to five of the falsified and concealed 2421 documents.

 

More examples:

  • You make a grievance. You receive no response. You email repeatedly, asking if your grievance has been received. Nobody responds. Then when they eventually do respond, they claim that the documents that you provided to support your allegations are lost/ not able to be located. They ask if you have got the original copies. You say that you have got the original copies. And suddenly the "lost" documents are found.

 

  • But only the first few pages of your letter have been recorded. So anybody looking at the official record would be able to make little sense of your grievance. You do not realise that this has happened.

 

  • Or your document is divided in two. The seond part of your complaint is recorded first, then the first part. The pages are not numbered. So anybody looking at the official record would have difficulty making any sense of your complaint.

 

  • Documents sent as attachments are not read. (Write Attached: Grievanced concerning ... in the subject line of your email.)

 

  • Or the person that you sent the email to sends it on to someone else to deal with. In fact they send it round the whole office. During this process your attached letter is lost. You do not find out about this for several months. 

 

  • Or you hit "reply" to an email sent to you by a departmental officer. And your reply is mysteriously sent to a different email address. You are not notified that the email has not been delivered. Weeks later the officer advises you that he / she did not receive your email. (Chain your emails to departmental officers. Look out for emails from departmental officers that are not chained. Check where your emails to Departmental officers were sent. Copy your email to the CMC.)

 

  • If you send your documents in a registered package, the registered package will arrive but your document will not be in the package!  

 

  • Your complaint is not "accepted". For example, when you complain to a really senior public servant, he /she simply responds, "I do not accept what you are saying about my staff." And that is it. They will not investigate your complaint, however much proof you provide to support what you are saying - because they just won't accept it. 

 

  • You send a letter to the department that the Department does not want to "know" about. So they respond to you with a letter that refers to letters that you wrote a few days before. The Department refuse to communicate with you any further about the issue. They can then destroy or refuse to read the letter that they do not want to have to deal with. And all of your letters from that point onwards.

 

  • The person to whom you sent your email / who emailed you is moved to another position for a few months. When they move, all of their documents are destroyed. Head office staff are continually "on the move", spending three months in one job and then moving to do three months in another job. So nobody can be held responsible for anything.

 

  • Or they don't move, but they destroy all of your documents anyway. All of the emails, letters and documents that you emailed to them, all of the emails that they sent to you. All of the documentation of your complaint for the past year, all destroyed. This is eventually described as a "computer problem". (So any assurance in any document that is emailed to you has no value. It will be destroyed. Similarly, any verbal assurance that is given to you in a meeting puts you at risk. If you make reference to this assurance later, you will be told, or other people will be secretly told by email, that you imagined the assurance and that this is evidence that you are a liar.)

 

(10)  Undermine your verbal complaints by "spinning" them to suggest that you are not credible.

 

(11) Only read the first few lines of your letters.

Or simply file them and neglect to read them.

 

(12) "Misunderstand" your complaint.

  • Queensland public servants often misrepresent your complaint in their letters to you.

  • Then they place their misleading letters to you on your Departmental record.

  • Then they refuse to read your response and allow you the opportunity to correct their misleading "official record" of your complaint.

  • Then they send their own misleading letters to other public servants who copy the misleading contents directly into their own letters to you.

  • Then they repeat this strategy over and over again so that a totally misleading "official record" of your complaint is created.
  • This seems to be a very common Queensland public service strategy to avoid dealing with your complaint, FOI application, etc.

Example 12 A

On February 5 2001:

School administrator E. L. "misunderstood" / made an untruthful official record of the reason for my Grievance Stage 1.

His Report: Grievance Meeting Stage 1 - 5/2/01 states:

(My name ) appealed over the harsh, unjust and unreasonable behaviour of (school administrator G.R.) during Term 4.

This was in relation to strategies used with various students during (specialist) classes.

THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

My grievance concerned school administrator G.R.'s refusal to attend -

  • the meeting that I had requested with the School Behaviour Management Committee to discuss the Behaviour Management Program at the school
  • and the mediated meeting that I had been advised by the Queensland teacher's union, the Staff Welfare officer and two specialist advisory teachers to request with G.R., to discuss her behaviour during the staff meeting on November 10 2000.

School administrator G.R. agreed to meet me, but said that the purpose of the meeting would be to discuss her sudden "concerns".

My grievance was that school administrator G.R. was abusing the Diminished Work Performance process to distract attention from her own (seemingly) irrational and unprofessional behaviour during the staff meeting on November 10 2000.

 

Example 12 B 

Please refer to : http://www.badapplebullies.com/thequeenslandombudsman.htm

 

(13) Base their decisions about you on their own gossip.

Example 13: A

  • On August 3 2003 at 4:49 PM I emailed a letter to Peter Beattie, the Queensland State Premier.

  •  I copied this letter to Anna Bligh, the QTU, Education Queensland Human Resources and The Ombudsman,

    " ... so you will all understand the situation clearly. ... "

    The Department have a copy of this letter at 2606 E 96-99.

    In this letter I stated that :

    " I would accept a written apology from the Director General and some DEMONSTRATION that both (school administrator G.R.) and the person who was training her in DWP-attack skills have re-thought their professional ethics and have made a firm commitment not to bully again.

    And the ... process also needs to be changed. People who are DWP-attacked should be TOLD what they are being accused of and they should be allowed the right to RESPOND to any new allegations. 

    It is not happening. "

  • (14)  Copy their own untruthful gossip concerning you into your official records.

     

    (15)  Write "Briefings" for the Minister or the Director-General that "spin" the facts to conceal what is really "going on".

    "It's time ... the minders of bureaucrats and ministers, who simply block out the real world, are exposed for the destructive frauds they are." 

    Beattie too tight to fight rampant child buse, Peter Botsman, The Australian, 22 January 2004

  •  

    (16)  When you demonstrate that their letters and records are gibberish, they claim that this is "the best that they can do".

     

    (17)  Meet you and give you false assurances.

    What you are told at any meeting is more or less the opposite of what used to be called "the truth".

    "The bullying is under control. Worksites where there might be cause for concern will be monitored."

    really means 

    In about three days the bully is going to be given a huge promotion.

    and

    "Your documents have been archived"

    really means

    We have two huge, secret files of documents that we have created concerning you.

    Or maybe the documents don't concern you at all but we have put them on your file anyway. 

  • Somebody did something and we have to blame somebody for it. We have all agreed to secretly put these documents on your file so it will appear that you are the person concerned.

    You don't know about these documents and we are not going to give you the opportunity to respond to them and point out that they are falsified.

  •  

    (18)  Write letters to you that convey little real meaning or have multiple possible interpretations.

     

    (19)   Abuse the FOI process.

    Example A:  http://www.badapplebullies.com/freedomofinformation.htm

     

    (20)  Continually move from job to job so that all of their records concerning you can be destroyed and they can't be held responsible for their actions / inaction.

    (21)  Sign documents that they claim that they did not write, do not understand and for which they cannot be held responsible.

    (22)  Delay any investigation for as long as possible so that Bad Apple Administrators can claim to have "forgotten" the reason for their actions (snigger, snigger).

    (23)  Give the person whose abuse you have complained about total control over the "independent" investigation into your complaint about their own conduct.

    (24)  Conduct themselves in an unprofessional manner - snigggering about you and "putting you down" to each other and to the Bad Apple Bully administrator.

    (25)  Portray each other as victims in the official records.

    (26)  Explain away behaviour that any normal person would consider to be corrupt as "good management of our limited resources".

    (27) Defeat you with their unrelenting incompetence. 

    And because you can't prove that they have adopted their incompetence as a strategy to avoid being held accountable for their actions.

     

    *******************

    (Page in process of development - Jumbled notes below)

  • The Public Service Commissioner is responsible for dealing with any complaints about the director-general.

  • In the event that there are complaints about directors-general, they are dealt with by the Public Service Commissioner.

    (A spokeswoman for the Premier, Ex-judge to probe bullying claims, Renee Viellaris, The Courier-Mail, 19 August 2005

     

    The Public Service Commissioner gives his findings to Premier Peter Beattie, who decides whether any of his chief executives are disciplined or sacked.

    ( Top public servant in bullying inquiry, Renee Viellaris, The Courier-Mail, 11 July 2005.)

     

    Let's see how that works in practice -You ask the investigator to talk to the other teachers. They have already spoken up strongly on your behalf.

    • The investigator doesn't talk to the teachers. He doesn't talk to anybody who has anything positive to say about you.
    • The investigator arranges a meeting with you and the bully. The investigator starts the meeting by reading his "report".
    • You realise that the investigator has not investigated your complaint. And he has changed your complaint to one that is easier for him to to find unsubstantiated. And also to make sure that there is no official record of  the real reason for your complaint.
    • The investigator explains that the bully asked him/her not to talk to the teachers and, anyway, the teachers gave the investigator nothing in writing.  The investigator has never mentioned the need for their evidence to be in writing before.
    • And the investigator tells you that now it is too late for the teachers to give him anything in writing.
    • But the investigator's report states that he/she talked to support people identified (identified by the bully - Geddit?).
    • The investigator does not tell you who these support people were. 
    • The investigator finds that you need to be punished because you "won't admit it". But the investigator knows that you have never been shown the hidden documents. So you have no way of knowing what it is that you have got to admit.
    • During the meeting the bully repeatedly threatens to "take action against you" if you make a Stage 2 Grievance.
    • The investigator warns you repeatedly that you must not talk to anyone (other than the local QTU organiser) about the investigation. So you can't check any "facts" with the support people identified or talk to the other teachers about the situation. You are isolated.
    • Four years later you find out under FOI that the investigator actually decided not to investigate your complaint at all.
    • The meeting at which the investigator read out his "investigation report" and during which you were repeatedly threatened was, you discover four years later, actually a "mediated meeting".

    The Crime and Misconduct Commission refers your complaint to The Department of Education.

    BUT, and this is crucial, the CMC officers tick a box "outcome advice only" on your folder. This means that they don't care what The Department do about your complaint.

    The Crime and Misconduct Commission are indicating to The Department that they will never, ever, in any circumstances question whatever dopey thing the Department chooses to do about your complaint.

    And the official CMC records will secretly "edit out" the real reason for your complaint.

    Getting this mass of secret documents takes a long, long time. The FOI process does work but you have to spend many days re-stating your request for documents over and over again. 

    You begin to respond to the falsified documents. This takes a while because so little meaning is conveyed by the scribbled notes. Obviously something is being alleged against you - but what exactly? You write for hours, trying  to respond to every possible allegation.

    The investigation only consists of reading documents. No questions are allowed. So, for example, the Bad Apple Bully can write, "Mrs Brown agreed with my opinion that this teacher had behaviour management problems." And the investigator will not be allowed to question Mrs Brown and find out that this is a lie. The investigator copies the Bad Apple Bully's allegations carefully into his "report" and the lies appear to be facts. The investigator does not "know" that the lies are lies and so he/she cannot be held responsible for the lies in the report.

    You have no idea what this "secret reason" why you "have to be" punished might be. You worry about everything. You practically write down your life history, trying to defend yourself against every possible allegation. This strategy of refusing you the right to know why you are being punished is all part of the mobbing. It is all part of the attack on your mental health. The Bad Apple Bully-Mob and the investigator snigger at your "voluminous" documentation.

    ******************

    "Whistleblowers cannot survive in any administration where investigations into their allegations are denied by destruction or coverup of the evidence, by inadequacy or incompetence in the investigation, and /or by a lack of independence by the investigating authority."



    Let's deal with the bad apples!


  • Problems?

    To contact the webmaster please email dealingwiththemob@badapplebullies.com

     

    website
statistics