Bad Apple Bullies

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

How your "official records" can be extensively falsified.

How your Education Queensland "official records" can be extensively falsified.

And how decisions concerning you can be based on these falsified "records".

 

An abusive school principal can "edit" the documents on your official file to "pay you back" for trying to deal with real problems at his or her school.

Your efforts to deal with the real problems will be edited out of the official records.

The official records will create the impression that the problems began with you.

 

Your "official record" can be falsified in various ways-

 

  • Education Queensland "official records" are of an appallingly unprofessional standard. This appalling standard of professional documentation exposes classroom teachers to workplace abuse.

 

  • Huge numbers of "records" of conversations with you, or with children, parents, teachers, principals and other administrators concerning you - some entirely imaginary, some extensively falsified - can be secretly placed on your official Education Queensland "records".

 

  • This is, of course, a breach of the Education Queensland Code of Conduct, the Public Service Regulations, Natural Justice, etc. 

 

  • It doesn't matter. Nobody is following the official policies. Hardly anybody reads the official polices. Education Queensland has an increasingly oral culture. Many decisions concerning classroom teachers seem to be based on malicious gossip.

 

  • A huge mass of falsified "records" may be released to you under Freedom of Information (FOI) one month before an "investigation" into your complaint about workplace abuse begins. In theory, this allows you to know the allegations against you one month before the investigation begins. But, in fact, you will find not find any clear statement about what was "going on" at the school on your file. All you will be given is a jumble of unsigned, undated notes scribbled by hand on scraps of paper and sticky notes. The "notes" will be so vague that they could mean almost anything. All names will have been blanked out by the FOI officers, so you will have no idea if the situation involves a child, parent, teacher or administrator. You have to try to figure out what is being alleged against you from this jumble of scraps of paper.

 

  • The falsified records may actually "record" malicious gossip that has been "spun" and then placed secretly on your official "record". 

 

  • Falsified "records" of imaginary conversations with students concerning you may be secretly placed on your official Education Queensland record.

 

  • These falsified records may "record" conversations that took place one term earlier. Between different people.

 

  • Students may be used / abused as puppets to "speak" imaginary allegations against you.

 

  • In Term 4, just before the school holidays, Grade 7 students make good puppets for abusive administrators to use to "speak" allegations against teachers, because the students are leaving the school. If the records of the imaginary "conversation" can be concealed from you till the student has left the school, you will not be able to question the student and find out that the record is falsified and that there never was any such "conversation".

 

  • Teachers and administrators who are going to retire or to be transferred can also be used as "puppets" to speak words critical of you because it will not be easy for you to contact them and find out that the "records" of their words are falsified. A gullible teacher may even be offered a "promotion opportunity" to another school so that they can be used as a "puppet" to do you harm.

 

  • The official "record" of a meeting may falsify the names of the people who were present at the meeting.

 

  • This falsified official "record" of the meeting may serve to conceal the fact that you were not given Natural Justice - and that decisions were made concerning you by people who had not discussed the situation with you.

 

  • An abusive administrator may ask an easily manipulated offsider to make secret "records" of their meetings with you. The offsider will know that he or she has to give the "record" to the abusive administrator. The offsider will know that the "record" is going to be concealed from you. The offsider will know that your health and your career have been destroyed for no real reason. The offsider will have good reason to falsify your "records" and to keep the abusive administrator happy.

 

  • The "records" can be made on loose scraps of paper or sticky-notes.

 

  • They can be unsigned and undated.

 

  • Further comments, unsigned and undated, can be handwritten on these documents, to introduce changes to the "official story". This can be done at any time.

 

  • Sticky notes - undated and unsigned - can be attached to a document, creating the impression that they are related to that document and that date and time.

 

  • Then the sticky-notes can be moved and attached to a different document, changing the implied date and time of the sticky-note.

 

  • Loose pieces of paper introducing significant changes to the "official story" can suddenly "appear" on your file as long as seven years after the events in question.

 

  • And documents can mysteriously vanish from your "official record" at any time.

 

  • If you ask a Queensland Teachers' Uunion (QTU) officer or the Staff Welfare officer how to deal with the seemingly irrational behaviour of your school principal, they will both advise you to request a mediated meeting to try to resolve the situation. But if you follow their advice and ask for a mediated meeting to try to resolve the situation, an irrational or abusive administrator can "pay you back" for asking for mediation. An abusive administrator can respond to your request for a mediated meeting by refusing to attend the mediated meeting - but demand that you attend a meeting for the purpose of putting you on Managing Unsatisfactory Performance. And the QTU and the Staff Welfare officer will passively allow this to happen. An abusive principal will encourage / manipulate you to ask the local QTU organiser to attend the meeting. It is very, very important for you to realise that the QTU Organiser can be manipulated like a puppet by an abusive administrator to falsify the "records" af a meeting. If the well-meaning QTU organiser offers to do something for you during the meeting, this can be "spun" by an abusive administrator into a refusal on your part to "take direction from senior officers". After the meeting, If you protest that you did or said something to your advantage during the meeting, an abusive principal can claim - and record on your "official records" - that the QTU Organiser did not hear you say or do this thing to your advantage. This will undermine you and make you look like a liar. The QTU organiser may tell you that he or she is being mis-quoted, but they will be helpless to actually get your official records corrected. It is very important to realise that the QTU organiser cannot help a member who is in dispute with another member. So, if an abusive administrator lies about you, and the QTU organiser knows that they are lying, the QTU Organiser can do nothing to help you. In many ways you are better off tape recording the meeting - yes, this is allowed - and bringing your father or your husband or any other person not employed by the Queensland Government to support you. They will then be able to approach your Local Member on your behalf.

 

  • Real documents - letters to you from abusive administrators - may be falsified "records" of what is really "going on" at the school. For example, if you ask for a mediated meeting with an abusive administrator to discuss a problem, the abusive administrator may write a letter to you that makes no mention of your request for a mediated meeting, but demands a formal meeting with you to discuss the abusive administrators sudden "performance concerns". 

 

  • And a copy of a real letter that is placed on your official record may have unsigned and undated comments hand-written on it that introduce significant changes into the "official story".

 

  • Real documents that you have written yourself can also be falsified. For example, If you write a Grievance to the Director-General that makes it obvious that your files have been falsified, your Grievance (or all but the first page) can simply be "lost". Again and again and again. If you email your Grievance, there may be a "computer malfunction" that destroys your Grievance and all other emails to you and from you over a period of several months. If you send a document by registered mail, the registered letter may arrive but your document may "not be found inside the envelope". If you print a copy of your Grievance and hand it in at the District Office, all trace of it can be lost. You simply cannot find a way to communicate with Education Queensland that cannot be "lost" in this way. So, if you make a Grievance or write a letter to Education Queensland, it is very important to make a Freedom of Information application for the "official record" of your Grievance or your letter. It is the only way to find out if it has been "lost".

 

  • You may not realise what is "going on" for several years.

 

  • Decisions concerning you may be based on this falsified version of your complaint.

 

  • It is possible that your complaint has to be falsified because no Queensland public servant wants to be responsible for reading your real complaint and "knowing" that your official records have been extensively falsified.

 

  • Your own documents can also be falsified by "officially recording" only the first few pages of your document. Or by recording the first few pages of your letter, then "losing" the next seven pages, then putting the remaining pages of your document in another file so your document will make no sense to anybody who happens to find it. Or by "officially recording" alternate pages of the document. Or by recording two pages, then "losing" two pages, then recording the next two pages, then "losing" the next two two pages, etc. Always make sure that your letters and documents have page numbers.

 

  • Your own documents can also be falsified if the wrong date is put on them. Your documents can be dated one month after they were actually written, creating a falsified impression that your document was written after a decision to put you on MUP had been made. Always date and sign any document that you write. Then make an FOI application for the official record of your document, and check that the date on the document is correct.

 

  • Decisions concerning you may be based on these falsified "records"

 

  • This may disadvantage you for several years.

 

  • If you complain that your "official records" have been falsified in March 2004, your complaint may not be investigated till December 2006. The investigation report may then be concealed from you till January 2009. The "Final Outcome Advice" of the investigation may be concealed from you till April 2009.

 

  • The "independent investigator" may have been prevented from investigating your complaint that your documents have been falsified. This may not be obvious to any ordinary person reading the "Final Outcome Advice", because it will state " all other allegations remain unsubstantiated", whereas the real truth is that - "all other allegations remain uninvestigated. One we had established that the documents had been secretly placed on her file, we stopped the investigation."

 

  • So your "records" can still be being falsified in 2009, five years after you first complained that your "official records" had been falsified.

 

  • The abusive administrator may have told the "independent investigator" that they don't know how the falsified records got on your file. And the abusive administrator will be sent an official letter thanking them for their patience and wishing them well. That's the process. The process that facilitates the ongoing abuse of Queensland teachers.

 

  • If you make an FOI application and it becomes obvious that you are going to find the falsified records (and that you are going to complain that your Departmental record has been extensively falsified), the Premier and senior Queensland public servants will all agree that they will not respond to your letters. They will all agree that your letters will be filed without being read.

 

  • So, when you find the falsified "records" and write letters complaining that your Departmental record has been falsified, no Queensland public servant will read your letters and "know" what you are complaining about. 

 

  • And no Queensland public servant can be held responsible for not reading your letters, because that is what the Premier and senior public servants had instructed them to do - not read your letters.

 

  • When you appeal to other Queensland public servants, members of parliament, ministers and Queensland "accountability organisations", they all passively agree to allow the process of not reading your letters to continue.

 

  • This Queensland public service process of not reading your letters and not being responsible for "knowing" what it is that you are complaining about may continue for years.

 

  • The Education Queensland Freedom of Information (FOI) process is also delayed for many years.

 

  • This FOI delay provides public servants with the opportunity to falsify your documents after reading your complaint to the CMC / Ombudsman, etc.

 

  • The "internal reviewer" of a Freedom of Information application for documents related to your complaint about discrimination may be an Education Queensland / Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission -Trained Education Queensland "Discrimination solicitor".

 

  • Many of your documents may vanish during this "internal review" process.

 

  • Or your documents may vanish during the "external review" process.

 

  • Or documents  - quick scribbles on loose scraps of paper - may strangely appear, years after the other documents - and introduce significant changes to the "official story". These strange documents may not be numbered like the other documents. You might conclude that it would be very quick and easy for an abusive administrator to falsifiy "new evidence" in this manner.

 

  • When you receive your documents under Freedom of Information, you may discover several references to "District Office Reports" and "Stage 2 Grievance investigations" and "external reviews" that you know nothing about. When you make an FOI application for copies of these "District Office Reports" and "Stage 2 Grievance investigations" and "external reviews", all copies of these documents will be "lost". But decisions concerning you will have been based on these "lost" reports.

 

The above conclusions are based on real-life experience over a period of several years.

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

 

In Term 4 2000 Mr EL, the usual principal of Lynch-Mob State School, was on leave.

On 13 October 2000, the tenth day that she was acting principal of Lynch Mob State School, acting principal Mrs GR seems to have began collecting falsified "records" concerning me.

And she put her falsified "records" secretly on my Education Queensland "official records", in breach of Natural Justice, the Education Queensland Code of Conduct and the Public Service Regulations.

 

On 9 October, the sixth day that she was acting principal, Mrs GR, who had not looked at my program or been into my classroom all year, claims - in her falsified "records" - that she rang the District Office and began boasting to the staff of the District office that she wanted to put me on Diminished Work Performance.

You would expect that alarm bells would have immediately rung out throughout the District office, and that the District Office staff would have sprung into action to protect me from Mrs GR's obvious inexperience.

But no!

The District Office staff did nothing to protect me from acting principal Mrs GR.

You might think that this was disgraceful negligence.

I certainly do.

 

This is my story:

Wednesday, 4 October, 2000 : An aggressive and possibly violent mother confronted me in my office. I was isolated and felt unsafe. I took the mother to the acting principal's office.

This was the second day of Term 4, 2000.

And the second day that Mrs GR was acting principal of Lynch-Mob State School.

At about 3:10 PM, I took Mother DA to acting principal Mrs GR's office, because I was worried by Mother DA's violent and abusive manner towards me.

Mother DA thought that I had put her son, Grade 7 NT student RDA on detention.

It had not happened.

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 54-55 - numbers on top right hand corner of document.

This seems to be a true copy of a yellow “Student misbehaviour slip" that I filled out at 3:00 PM that afternoon and handed to Mrs GR as I took Mother DA into Mrs G's office.

The "yellow slip" is dated 3/10/00. This is not correct. It should have been dated 4/10/00.

Really I should not have used a "yellow slip" because I was not really reporting student RDA's misbehaviour.

I just wanted to to inform acting principal Mrs GR that there might be a problem with student RDA's mother, because I knew that Mother DA had been very upset earlier in the year.

But there was no form to fill in just to advise the principal of a possible problem with a parent, so I filled in the "yellow slip".

 

"RDA’s mother was very distressed earlier in the year.

I told RDA 2x to go to the toilet before an excursion.

He did not go and then wanted to go at City Place.

We were just leaving so I told him to go when he got back to school.

 

Today we were watching a five minute video.

I saw his hand was up and motioned to him to wait till the video was over. …"

 

I should point out that I had no idea why RDA had his hand up.

I was translating the subtitles in the video and could not stop the video to talk to him.

Children often put their hands up to tell me that they did not understand something in the video, or becuause they wanted to talk about the video, and it was not fair on the rest of the class to stop the video to answer one child's questions.

I only realised that RDA wanted to go to the toilet when I noticed that he was asking his class teacher if he could go to the toilet.

 

" … he asked his class teacher if he could go to the toilet.

Seeing that there could be another drama, I spoke to him at 3.00pm.

I said:

1. If there is a medical need for his urgent need to go to the toilet he could go any time.

2. He can go at the start of every LOTE (Indonesian) lesson.

3. The best time to go to the toilet is before school and at afternoon tea, etc.

4. Ask when a video is not on, especially one that lasts 5 minutes.

 

RDA was rude.

I made him repeat what I was saying."

 

Student RDA did not seem to be listening to me.

He had thought that I was telling him that he could not go to the toilet.

I asked him to repeat back to me what I had said to him because this is a recognised strategy to encourage effective listening.

I use it myself at certain times, for example, when my doctor gives me instructions about how often to take medication.

I was teaching student RDA a useful listening strategy.

 

Student RDA repeated what I was saying.

If Student RDA had not wanted to repeat what I was saying, he would have refused to do it.

You could not make Student RDA do anything that he did not want to do.

 

"Mum came in shouting at 3.10.

I advised her that there was a law against abusing a teacher in front of children.

If it happens again I will contact the union."

 

This is exactly what the QTU had advised us to say in these circumstances.

I began writing this "yellow slip" when I was talking to RDA.

I went to my office to finish writing the "yellow slip"

While I was writing, Mother DA bust into my room shouting that I had put RDA on detention for going to the toilet.

She is a large lady and she was standing behind me, her legs apart, her arms stuck out at her side, and she was shouting at me.

It was a pretty amazing sight.

I tried to explain that I had not put RDA on detention, but Mother DA was too "wound up" to listen".

She was very aggressive and abusive.

I felt that the situation was unsafe- I was alone in my office and the school was closing down.

So I took Mother DA to the office and continued to write the note as we sat in the entrance area, waiting to see acting principal GR.

 

There is a law against abusing a teacher in front of one of her students.

I did not want to walk through the school with Mother DA shouting at me, so I told Mother DA about this law before we left my office.

As we moved into the outdoor playground area Mrs DA became loud and abusive again, so I pointed to the children sitting about and said, "We are in public."

I told Mrs DA that I would contact the union if she continued to abuse me in public.

She was quiet as we walked through the school.

But, while we waited in the school office to speak to Mrs GR, Mother DA had become loud and abusive again.

When I had finished writing I offered to read the note to Mother DA.

The note made clear that I had been telling Student RDA that he could go to the toilet.

I hoped that listening to what I had written on the note would calm Mrs DA down.

Mother DA said, "Yes, I’d like to hear what you have to say for yourself".

She was very loud and abusive in her manner.

Then acting principal Mrs GR came out and we went into her office.

I gave the "yellow slip" to acting principal Mrs GR.

From memory, Mrs GR did not read the "yellow slip" at that time.

 

When we went into acting principal Mrs GR's office Mother DA abused me in front of her son and acting principal Mrs GR for about twenty minutes.

For the first ten minutes she abused me for putting Student RDA on detention.

When she eventually realised that this had not happened, Mother DA did not apologise.

She simply "changed tack" and abused me in a more personal manner.

Acting principal Mrs GR did not give me any support.

She passively allowed Mother DA to abuse me.

Acting principal Mrs GR sat turned away from me.

She spat words at me over her shoulder.

She repeatedly told Mrs DA, "I will speak to (my name) about that later."

Mrs GR seemed to imply that I had done something wrong.

A more experienced principal would have suggested to Mother DA that she owed me an apology.

 

Mrs DA was very aggressive, but the acting principal could have controlled her behaviour.

I had been able to control her behaviour as we walked through the school.

Acting principal Mrs GR could have controlled Mother DA's abuse.

Acting principal Mrs GR simply did not make the effort to control Mother DA's abuse.

 

I presumed at the time that acting principal Mrs GR was handling the situation poorly because she was so inexperienced.

Or that Mrs GR was afraid to say very much to Mother DA because Mother DA was so behaving so aggressively.

 

Mother DA repeatedly called me "this woman".

"Look at her body language!" (jeering and pointing at me).

"I don't give a sh*t about Indonesian!"

"I don't give a sh*t if he passes Indonesian or not!"

 

This was by far the most abusive experience that I had in thirty years of teaching.

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State College documents 9-11- numbers at the top right hand side of the document.

and also -

2469 File F The District Office documents 82-84.

By 27 October 2005 the 2421 Lynch-Mob State College version of this document had vanished from the "official records".

This document is acting principal Mrs GR’s secret record of this meeting with abusive Mother DA.

Acting principal Mrs GR's "record" is horribly falsified.

I first realised that this secret "record" existed when it was described in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from by Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.

Stephannie did not release this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

 

"These (2421 File F) documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with ..."

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

 

I first read this document after 27 April 2004 when it was released to me by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.

 

I complained that the document was falsified-

On Monday 24 May 2004 at 2:03pm I emailed Keith Hynes.

I copied the email to the CMC (postmaster and complaints) and the Ombudsman.

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

 

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

Basically the other documents are just more of the same.

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

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

 

By 27 October 2005 the 2421 File F documents had all been reversed in order and given new numbers on the bottom of the page. A.

And this document had vanished from the "official records".

 

The 2421 F 9-11 documents were headed-

"CONFIDENTIAL

RECORD OF INCIDENT BETWEEN (MOTHER D.A.) AND (MY FULL NAME) 04/10/00"

Acting principal Mrs GR has edited her own name out of this heading.

The document is unsigned and undated.

 

"The problem appeared to be about (me) not allowing (Mother DA)'s son (RDA) to attend the toilet during the LOTE lesson."

 

This had not happened.

This was not the problem.

 

Either-

Acting principal Mrs GR wrote this document long after the event and could not remember clearly what happened.

or

Acting principal Mrs GR has deliberately and maliciously "spun" this "record" to my disadvantage.

 

I had been translating subtitles on an Indonesian video.

I saw that student RDA had put his hand up but I could not attend to him because I was busy reading and translating the subtitles aloud for the class.

I had to concentrate on the screen because the subtitles were changing so quickly.

After the lesson I tried to tell student RDA that he didn't have to ask me if he needed to go to the toilet, especially in the middle of a video.

 

"She also stated that there was a law against parent (sic) abusing teachers and that she would contact the union solicitor to have a restraining order taken out (against Mother DA)."

 

" ... to have a restraining order taken out ..."

I did not say this.

I do not know enough about the law to think up these words.

I told Mother DA exactly what the Queensland Teachers' Union had instructed us to say to abusive parents - that I would refer the matter to the union solicitor.

But when we went into acting principal Mrs GR's office Mother DA did complain to acting principal Mrs GR about me telling her that I would refer the matter to the union solicitor.

And, if I remember correctly, Mother DA did not use the same words that I had used. 

Mother DA may have herself introduced the idea of a restraining order.

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 54

This is the "yellow slip" that I had written during the incident and handed to acting principal Mrs GR at the time:

 

"Mum came in shouting at 3:10.

I advised her that there was a law against abusing a teacher in front of children.

If it happens again I will contact the union."

 

Similarly, in my document "The Incident at City Place", which I gave to acting principal Mrs GR a few days after this incident :

 

"I did not want to walk right through the school with her screaming abuse.

I said, "You know, there is a law that says you are not allowed to abuse me in front of students.

If you do not stop I am going to contact the union solicitor and ask him to deal with it."

 

Mrs GR's "record" 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 9-11 seems to me to be a disgracefully falsified record of what took place during that meeting.

Acting principal Mrs GR failed in her duty of care to protect me from this abusive parent.

 

At the time I presumed that acting principal Mrs GR was overwhelmed and too inexperienced to deal with Mother DA's aggression.

But acting principal Mrs GR's behaviour after the meeting suggested to me that she had deliberately chosen to passively facilitate Mother DA's abuse of me.

Fredom of Information Document 2421 F 9-11 suggests that acting principal Mrs GR then "spun" the situation to do me professional harm.

 

At no time did Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR demonstrate any concern for my welfare, even though it was obvious that her behaviour, in allowing this parent to subject me to irrational abuse, and then abusing me herself, was affecting my health.

 

Possibly that evening, certainly very shortly after 4 October:

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 17-19.

2469 File F The District Office documents 75-77.

 

Acting principal Mrs GR obviously knew very little about student RDA and about what had happened before I had brought his abusive mother to her office.

After abusive Mother DA had left, acting principal Mrs GR had shouted me down, abused me, refused to listen, said she had not time to listen, etc.,

Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR had refused to listen to me.

Just as she had refused to listen to me one year earlier, when she claimed that the teachers' aides were "very upset" that I had asked them to check the photocopying that they were doing for me.

Mrs GR seemed to me to be a person who refused to listen to the facts because she enjoyed the excitement of  "beating things up".

So I wrote a document for Mrs GR to explain what had happened before I had brought abusive Mother DA to her office.

This is a true copy of that document.

I explained what had happened on the excursion earlier in the year:

 

"Before the excursion I met with the children and explained that the toilets at City Place were not very good (strange place, not really suitable for children, dirty, possibly unsavoury characters, drugs, etc.) so it was important to go to the toilet before we went to City Place.

On the day of the excursion I asked each teacher to make sure that their class went to the toilet before leaving the school.

I reminded several groups to go to the toilet."

 

I described what had happened in the classroom on October 4 2000-

 

"I showed Grade 7NT a five minute (Indonesian) video with no subtitles.

After we had watched it once, I stopped the video and asked the class some questions about the video.

Then I started the video again.

This time there were subtitles and I was facing the screen translating the subtitles which were passing pretty quickly.

At one point I noticed that student RDA had his hand up.

I pointed to the screen but did not stop translating.

After a moment I noticed RDA asking the class teacher if he could go to the toilet.

I remembered the earlier incident , so at the end of the lesson I asked RDA to stay behind at 3:00 PM.

I told him that if he had a medical reason for going to the toilet he had my permission to go freely at any time, he did not have to put his hand up and wait to get permission.

He began to protest and argue with me and I suspected that he had not attended to what I had said.

I asked him to tell back to me what I had said to him.

He had not been attending and had thought that I had said he could not go to the toilet.

I realised that he was too emotional to be thinking logically so I asked him to listen again and repeat what I said after me.

 

I understood this to be a common technique to encourage listening as opposed to self-listening."

 

“Has RDA’s mother subjected her son to a form of toilet training that is going to be a problem to him throughout his life?

She has trained him to refuse to go to the toilet at break times or when asked to go.

She has trained him only to go to the toilet when he feels “the need”.

She has taught him that if he delays at all when he feels “the need” he might die.

… Do we have any responsibility to offer help to RDA?”

 

Thursday, 5 October 2000 : The acting principal claims that she gossiped about me with the acting deputy principal, another school principal and a member of the District Office staff. They all say that this is not correct.

Acting principal Mrs GR was supposed to be my supervisor in the year 2000, but she had not been into my classroom or looked at my program all year.

She had showed no interest in my work.

But in document 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State school document 9, acting principal Mrs GR claims that on the day after she had allowed the aggressive mother to abuse me, she gossipped about me with -

  • acting deputy principal Miss AL (for the second time),
  • The Beach State School principal LW
  • and District Office employee AG.

 

Acting principal Mrs GR actually claims that on the third day of Term 4 she had -

"... further discussions with Miss AL ..."

 

So it seems that this was not the first time that Mrs GR had gossiped about me with Miss AL.

You might suspect that Mrs GR was grooming Miss AL to attack me.

You might also suspect that Mrs GR had chosen Miss LA to be acting deputy principal because she was inexperienced and easily manipulated.

 

"... further discussions with Miss AL (acting deputy principal) the next day ..." 

i.e. on October 5, 2000, the third day that Miss AL was acting deputy principal and that Mrs GR herself was acting principal.

 

"... over concerns she (Miss AL) had ..." 

 

This seems to be an example of "Mrs GR's waggle the puppet" strategy.

"Waggle the puppet" seems to have been Mrs GR's most frequently used strategy.

Mrs GR seems to have put words that are damaging to me into the mouths of vulnerable / easily manipulated people.

Many, many times those people have reported to me, to the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity trained "Discrimination Solicitor" and to Infocomm Officers that that they did not have these conversations.

 

"... over concerns she (Miss AL) had ... regarding-

  • (my) classroom management,
  • (my) negative relationships
  • and (my) rigidity with students ..."

 

Three-day-old acting deputy principal Miss AL had never seen me teach.

She had never looked at my program.

Miss AL was actually the reading teacher at Lynch-Mob State College.

During Term 1 and 2 2000, Miss AL had been sitting at the next desk to me in our shared office.

 

How could acting deputy principal Miss AL possibly have had-

 "discussions over concerns she had regarding (my) classroom management" ?

 

Acting deputy principal Miss AL liked to chat in the mornings.

There was a sound-proof screen between us.

Miss AL would often shout to me over the screen.

Being older, I did not feel comfortable engaging in this sort of shouted conversation.

And my hearing was not very good.

So when Miss AL called out to me, I would get up and walk around the screen so that we could speak to each other face-to-face.

One morning, after she had called out to me three times and I had left my work three times to walk around the screen that separated us, I told Miss AL that I did not have time to chat to her in the morning because I had to prepare for my lessons.

I knew that Miss AL was upset about this, because she never called out to me again in the mornings, but the plain truth was that I had to get my work done.

I just didn't have time to chat to Miss AL in the mornings.

 

"... her negative relationships ..."

Did acting deputy principal Miss AL support acting principal GR in putting me on DWP because I would not chat to her in the mornings?

 

Didn't any of the investigators who have, it seems, conducted investigations into these hidden documents, have the common sense to think that this was a ridiculous conversation for an acting principal - who had not looked at my program or been into my classroom all year - and an acting deputy principal to have -

- on their third day in the job?

 

What negative relationships?

This claim is so ridiculous, it is funny.

  • Seven teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years totally supported me.

These teachers told Mrs GR and Miss AL very, very clearly that they supported me.

They had a formal meeting with Mrs GR and told her that there was no problem with my "classroom managent practices".

They amazed each other by how firmly and clearly each one of them told Mrs GR that they supported me and that she was making a mistake. 

But Mrs GR made no record of their protests.

Mrs GR was not "recording" reality.

  • My 'relationship' with the Grade 6 children in 1999 had been so good that usual principal Mr EL and the teachers had urged me to teach them in Grade 7 in 2000.

  • The children's behaviour only became a problem when they moved into the Grade 7 class, just as the Grade 7 children's behaviour had been a problem for their Indonesian teacher the previous year.

  • My relationship with student RDA (the child with toileting problems) was usually good.

It is true that he abused me on 4 October 2000, but I had seen him abusing Grade 7 teacher LR, his class teacher, in exactly the same manner.

It was the way that he had learned to relate to adults.

Student RDA had talked to me without ceasing on 11 May 2000, when I took him in my car on an excursion to a local Indonesian restaurant.

(The bus had been too small and I had to take three children in my car.)

And he talked all the way back from town as well.

He told me that his friends had teased him because he had talked to me so much.

I have often wondered if he talked to his mother about me, and if she became jealous.

After the excursion I took a special interest in student RDA.

He had talked about being "kept down" a year at school. I decided to give him an opportunity to perform in an Indonesian play at City Place.

I thought that a child like RDA would not have many happy memories of school, and I wanted to give him something that he could remember.

Many parents would have appreciated the opportunity that I had given their child.

But if you take an interest in a child who has problems, sometimes the child's parents also have problems - and they can turn on you in an irrational and abusive manner.

This is always a risk that a teacher takes when they try to do something to support a child like RDA.

  • I have no record of any other problem with student R.D.A.'s behaviour during the rest of Term 4 2000.

  • When I first started working at Lynch-Mob State School my relationship with acting principal Mrs GR was terrific.

We were both members of the Labor party and we often used to talk about Labor party related matters at lunch time.

We worked together on the Labor party stand at the local "show" and joked about being the Lynch-Mob State School branch of the Labor party.

Then, towards the end of 1999, I became less enthusiastic about the Labor party.

I met Judy Spence at a fundraising dinner that Mrs GR had organised at the home of the Local Member.

I asked Judy Spence for help with a real estate problem. 

Judy Spence told me that it was not her responsibility.

I was very disappointed.

I grumbled about Judy Spence during school lunchtimes.

I had not really enjoyed the fundraising dinner.

My interest in the Labor party had been the opportunity that it provided to get out into the community and help people.

They told me about local problems and I told the Labor party candidate and she got the problems fixed.

At the time it seemed to me to be a community service.

Now that the Local Member had been elected, there was no need for me to do this sort of work.

And I was not interested in socialising with other Labor party members.

I told Mrs GR that I was going to be less involved in the Labor party in future.

Mrs GR suggested to me two, possibly three times that I join her branch of the Labor party.

She told me that the branch meetings were fun.

But I did not join her branch.

And I continued to complain about Judy Spence at lunch times.

There is a possibility that I may have rabbited on about Judy Spence rather too much at lunchtimes.

In early 2000 Mrs GR turned on me very, very aggressively when I was grumbling about Judy Spence during a school lunchtime.

She told me what Judy Spence thought about the situation.

It was almost exactly what Judy Spence had said to me at the dinner. 

Mrs GR gave me the impression (possibly incorrect) that she had been gossiping with Judy Spence about me during Labor party functions.

To me, grumbling about the Government at lunchtime seemed to be normal behaviour.

For the acting principal to go and tell the Government Minister what I had been saying about her at lunchtimes seemed to be totally abnormal behaviour.

I was deeply shocked to think that Mrs GR would tell Judy Spence the dopey things that I had been saying about her at lunchtimes.

I was very worried to think that  the acting principal seemed to have been gossiping about me to other members of the Labor party during Labor party functions.

So, from that point onwards, I did not discusss politics with Mrs GR at school again.

  • My relationship with Miss AL was fine till she wanted to chat to me three times one morning.

There was a sound-proof screen between our desks.

I had to keep getting up from my work and walking around the screen so that I could hear Miss AL properly.

Finally I told her that I didn't have time to chat in the mornings because I had to prepare for my classes.

Miss AL was more relaxed and chatty in the mornings because she taught small groups of children in our office and so she did not have to do so much preparation.

  • My relationship with the child at White-Wash State School who told me that his teacher often hit him must have been one of trust because he (and his class) told me about the abuse.

  • My relationship with the staff of White-Wash State School was affected when I followed Departmental policy and reported the child's disclosure to the principal.

In particular, I believe that the White-Wash State School staff's attitude towards me was affected by the principal's behaviour towards me during an in-service on child abuse.

  • I am quite sure that I had an excellent relationship with the children of White-Wash State School.

They gave me a huge welcome when I returned briefly. In 2000 they (and their parents) followed me around their local shopping centre, asking me why I had "left them".

  • And at least one Lynch-Mob State School parent, M-- R-----, certainly thought that I was a great teacher because she asked if she could write a newspaper article about my work in June 2000.

She told me that there had been lots of articles in the local paper about the Indonesian activities that I had organised for the children, and now she would like to write an article that was more about me.

This newspaper article may have caused some professional jealousy.

You will not find this newspaper article on my Lynch-Mob State School "official record".

Mrs GR was not "recording" reality.

  • In about 1985, three weeks after I became an Indonesian teacher, I attended an in-service for all of the Language Other Than English teachers in the local area and I was nominated and elected president of the Modern Language Teachers' Association in Far North Queensland.

I held this position for two years.

I was a confident and articulate speaker at that time.

People recognised that immediately and responded positively.

I don't think that I am that sort of person now.

I would not feel safe working for the Queensland Department of Education again.

My confidence in the Queensland Department of Education as rational and reasonable employers has been destroyed.

My confidence in the Queensland Government has been destroyed.

My confidence in the Labor party and the Queensland Teachers' Union has been destroyed.

My concept of my life in Queensland has been destroyed.

At Lynch-Mob State School I demonstrated initiative, calm professionalism and leadership skills.

There was a problem with unsupervised groups of Grade 7 children roaming about the school and disrupting the other classes.

I tried to deal with this problem in a professional manner.

Acting principal Mrs GR and usual principal Mr EL attacked me and destroyed my health and my career because I tried to deal with a problem in a professional manner.

 

Either-

This record is true, in which case-

  • acting deputy principal Miss AL - who never, ever saw me teach - was not the "decent" person that she appeared to be.

 

  • And Miss AL was engaging in very, very damaging, unprofessional and unsubstantiated gossip concerning me which were then being recorded and placed secretly on my professional record by acting principal Mrs GR

 

  • and it was this unprofessional and unsubstantiated gossip by acting deputy principal Miss AL that had triggered acting principal Mrs GR's attack on me.

 

Or- 

This record is false, in which case-

 

  • Miss AL did not make these statements at all. Acting principal Mrs GR was creating an entirely falsified "record".

 

Surely-

  • common-sense would suggest to usual principal Mr EL - or any other investigator - that this conversation was a ridiculous conversation for two people to have on the third day that they were both in acting positions?

 

  • this record of this conversation radiated inexperience and the possibility of workplace abuse?

 

  • this record, if it is genuine, not only provides evidence of Miss AL's malicious gossip and poor professional conduct, but also of Mrs GR's inappropriate behaviour in documenting Miss AL's unsubstantiated, malicious gossip and placing it on my official record.

 

  • this "record" of this purported conversation seems so obviously unlikely, it suggests that the document was carelessly falsified at some later date, when acting principal Mrs GR did not realise how ridiculous it was to claim that acting deputy principal Miss AL had drawn such conclusions concerning me on her third day "on the job".

 

  • this "record" of this purported conversation also suggests that acting principal Mrs GR may have selected AL to be acting deputy principal during Term 4 because she already knew that AL was annoyed with me (because I had told her that I was too busy to chat to her in the mornings). If acting principal Mrs GR had chosen one of the seven more experienced Grade 5 or 6 teachers who had actually seen me teach to be her "acting deputy principal", they would not have allowed her to put me on DWP. They all fully supported me.

 

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 7 - number at top right hand corner of page.

and

2469 File F The District Office document 72

By 27 October 2005 the 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents had all been reversed in order and given new numbers at the bottom of the page.

The first twelve 2421 F documents, including the 2421 F 7 copy of this document had all "vanished" from my official record.

This document purports to be acting deputy principal AL's record of a series of incidents with the Grade 6/7 OB class that took place during the first days of Term 4.

I am not totally certain of these dates, because the FOI officers seem to have concealed the dates on the children's documents.

But I am quite sure that it was on October 5 2000 that I met acting deputy principal AL in the playground, because it was the day after I had taken abusive Mother DA to acting principal GR's office.

I had needed Mrs GR's support in dealing with Mother DA's violent and aggressive manner towards me.

 

I realise now that on Thursday 5 October and Friday 6 October 2000 I was suffering from "Post Traumatic Shock" from the long episode of abuse the previous afternoon, first by student DA, then by Mother DA, and finally by acting principal GR.

I felt that I could not take sick leave on the third day of term, but on Thursday 5 and Friday 6 October 2000 I was wandering about Lynch-Mob State School in a very distracted state and I was often on the verge of tears.

 

"I also spoke about the strategies that were not working with regards to behaviour management."

This is a "spin". It is true, but it creates the false impression that Miss AL told me that my teaching strategies were not working.

In reality,  I was concerned about Miss AL's handling of students who were sent to her because of their poor behaviour.

I had said to Miss AL, "But can't you see that you are rewarding their behaviour?"

 

This was Miss AL's third day in the job.

She had never seen me teach.

At this time A.L.'s opinions about my own "strategies" could only be based on the stories told to her by two children that I had sent to her because of their poor behaviour.

Was this "record" falsified at a later date, to try to create the impression that Miss A.L. raised "concerns" with me about behaviour management before I asked for a mediated meeting with acting principal Mrs G.R.?

 

I had sent either student BOJ or BOS , or possibly both of them, to acting deputy principal Miss AL with a yellow slip because of their poor behaviour.

Acting deputy principal Miss AL told me that students BOJ and BOS had told her that they found LOTE (Indonesian) very difficult, etc.

I explained to Miss AL that students BOJ and BOS had a long history of unco-operative behaviour.

I told her that the BOJ and BOS  were very manipulative girls.

They were trying to "pull the wool over her eyes" because Miss AL was new to the job.

They really had been naughty.

I asked Miss AL to go back to BOJ and BOS and tell them that she had checked their story with me and that she knew that they were "having her on".

Acting deputy principal Miss AL refused to do this.

 

Miss AL said that she "did not want to get into all of that too-ing and fro-ing".

She said that she had no way of telling who was telling the truth, me or the children.

 

No other principal or deputy principal had adopted this sort of attitude to me before.

 

Once again, I felt that I was being undermined, although I recognised that Miss AL was inexperienced rather than deliberately unco-operative.

I had followed the school behaviour management program and acting deputy principal Miss AL seemed to have simply allowed the children to "get away with it".

 

This was when I first realised that "Natural Justice" actually meant just writing down any silly excuse given by the children - and not making any efort to check the story.

The Education Queensland Grievance process also seems to work the same way.

It is a really lazy approach to management.

Contrast the way that AL allowed these children "Natural Justice" with the way that she (and acting principal GR and usual principal EL) treated me, a teacher:

 

On 29 November, when acting principal Mrs GR gave me a letter to advise me that she and Mr EL had decided to put me on Diminished Workplace Performance in 2001, acting deputy principal Miss AL told me,

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

Miss AL (and Mrs GR and Mr EL) had not allowed me, a teacher, the Natural Justice that she had allowed the children BOS and BOJ.

On the contrary-

Miss AL told me that I  "had to be" punished because I had tried to respond to her (and Mrs GR's) vague allegations.

I had the overwhelming impression that I was dealing with really stupid thinking.

 

I began to realise that, when I followed the Lynch-Mob State School Behaviour Management Program, giving the children three warnings for poor behaviour and then sending them to the office with a "yellow slip", the children could just give any silly excuse - and they could say anything that they liked to Miss AL about me -  and their lies would be copied down without question.

No effort was going to be made to check that their story was true.

I said to Miss AL, "But can't you see that you are rewarding their behaviour?"

I had seen children that I had sent to the office striding confidently back to their classroom, calling out to their classmates, "Nothing much!".

I felt very depressed about this situation.

At some stage in this conversation I began to cry.

I told acting deputy principal Miss AL that I was feeling unwell.

I told her about the abusive episode the day before.

I told her that it was not Mother DA's abuse that had upset me, it was the way that acting principal Mrs GR had behaved after Mother DA had left the office.

I knew that a problem with Mrs GR was a bit much for Miss AL to deal with on her third day "in  the job", so I told Miss AL that I would have a meeting with acting principal Mrs GR and speak to her myself about her behaviour.

 

Maybe later on 5th October, or in the next few days, certainly well before the meeting on the 12th October:

When students BOJ and BOS next misbehaved I was at a loss to know what to do.

If I sent them to acting principal GR, she would abuse me again.

If I sent them to acting deputy principal AL, she would simply accept their excuses and their lies about me.

I turned my face to the blackboard, leaned against the blackboard and I cried.

I did that a few times.

How could I prove to AL that students BOJ and BOS were really misbehaving?

I tried to teach the other children but BOJ and BOS got louder and louder.

I decided to ask the rest of the class to make a list of the four children who had most disrupted the class.

I thought that acting deputy principal AL would believe the children, even if she would not believe me.

To my horror I found that almost all of the children said that they had noticed nothing.

This was a class of "nice" children from "good" families.

I was really shocked by the children's lies.

Only one child told the truth.

I showed AL the children's statements and told her how disturbing I found them.

 

I asked her-

Were we teaching the students to lie?

 

There was no wonder that the specialist teachers were getting no support if the children were so ready to lie.

AL took the statements. I presumed that she would "follow up" but I heard no more about any action that was taken on this issue.

Now I realise that AL simply gave the statements to GR to put on my official records. 

 

Document 2421 F 7 is quite a confused "record" of events.

Acting deputy principal Miss AL seems to have jumbled all of these events together, which suggests to me that this "record" was actually falsified at a later date.

 

"On the 5th of October students BOJO, BOT, BOJ and BOS where (sic) sent to the office for disruptive classroom behaviour."

This is not correct.

I handed the student's responses to acting deputy principal Miss Al and told her how shocked I was that almost all of the children in the class had lied.

One child had told the truth (BOJO the first child listed, from memory).

 

"... (See attached student documents) ..."

The folder of statements by children was not attached to this document, so I did not realise when I received this document after 27 April 2004 that the children's "records" had been falsified - student BOJO had been honest about the misbehaviour, and her statement is missing.

I also suspect that the 2421 F 7 record of the conversation with the four children is falsified, because if acting deputy principal Miss AL had really spoken to the children, BOJO would not have made excuses.

It would have been obvious to Miss AL that the children had misbehaved.

 

"I responded that without the students being offered a consequence for their behaviour I couldn't really enforce a consequence other than to talk to them."

 

Acting deputy principal Miss AL did not say this.

I have no idea what Miss AL is trying to say with these words.

 

"(I) agreed to this."

Perhaps Miss AL said that she would talk to the children and I thanked her.

 

"I spoke with the children. ... they talked about the concerns they had with the way the teacher did not respect them."

Mrs GR and Miss AL did not know the children very well.

This was the basic problem.

BOS and BOJ were naughty, manipulative children.

They showed little resect for me, for the other specialists and for casual teachers.

Miss AL became more aware of this later in Term 4 2000.

 

  • I had followed the school behaviour management policy.

 

  • As a consequence of my following the school behaviour management policy, Miss AL claimed that these children made damaging allegations against me.

 

  • This inexperienced and gullible acting deputy principal then secretly recorded what she claimed were the children's allegations and placed them on my official record, in breach of several Education Department policies.

 

  • The children's "allegations" are recorded in such vague terms that, even when I discovered the document, it was impossible for me to respond effectively.

 

  • While I do not suggest that acting deputy principal Miss AL was either malicious or a bully, she was inexperienced and gullible. And her gullibility put me at risk of harm, as this document demonstrates. 

 

"A meeting has been set down for the 16th October, pupil free day, to discuss better strategies for specialist teachers."

 

If this document existed during Term 4 2000, and if the usual principal Mr EL had seen this document during Term 4 2000, he would immediately have known that acting deputy principal Miss AL had misunderstood the reason for this meeting.

During Term 3 2000 the specialist teachers had been discussing the Grade 7 behaviour problems with usual principal Mr EL. 

We had discussed with him a system of recording the behaviour of children in Grades 6 and 7 during specialist lessons.

We had developed the idea further during the first weeks of Term 4 2000, and we discussed it with usual principal Mr EL when he came to visit the school during one lunchtime.

Usual principal Mr EL had suggested to us that we organise a meeting and discuss the behaviour-recording strategy, and the consequences for poor behaviour, with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers.

 

But I doubt that this document existed in this form in 2000.

This sentence in particular seems to have been "spun" to conceal the fact that dealing with the Grade 7 behaviour problems was an initiative led by the specialist teachers.

This confused document seems to have been written after 25/01/2001, when usual principal E.L. asked me to provide him with a "Time Line" of events during Term 4 2000.

 

If the falsified "records" had been written before that date, why did Mr EL need a "Time Line"?

 

This suggests to me that acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL may have needed the information on my "Time Line" in order to be able to create their falsified records.

Which would explain why the falsified records were not shown to me or discussed with me during 2000.

 

 

2469 File F The District Office document 72

This copy of the document has been changed.

Acting principal Mrs GR seems to have hand-written an unsigned and undated message for usual principal Mr EL on the bottom of this document:

 

"Confidential request made to (Grade 7 teacher NT) to act as 'supportive colleague' to (me) to try to give her some positive B.M. strategies. 

(Grade 7 teacher NT) agreed to try to do this."

 

In writing this unsigned and undated note on this document dated 13 October 2000, acting principal Mrs GR creates the impression that this confidential request was made to Grade 7 teacher NT on 13 October 2000.

The statement cannot be said to be a lie, because the note is unsigned and undated.

 

  • I do not believe that this happened. This "record" seems to have been falsified to try to create the impression that acting principal Mrs GR had "concerns" about me before I asked for a mediated meeting.

 

  • Before the mediated meeting on 27 November 2000, Grade 7 teacher NT was never (or very, very rarely and very, very briefly) in the Grade 7 classroom when I was teaching. During my Indonesian lesson Grade 7 teacher NT had non-contact time and, naturally, she did not want to be in her classroom during her non-contact time. NT was often late back to her classroom at the end of my lesson. I often had to stand outside her room, looking around the school buildings, searching for her, while Grade 7 teacher LR stood outside her own classroom, demonstrating her irritation that I was late to teach her own class. Sometimes NT would arrive early. Then she would sit outside, around the back of the classroom door. So, as the lesson ended, I also had to keep rushing aound the back of the classroom door to see if NT had arrived. After the mediated meeting on 27 November 2000, however,  I had the impression that acting principal Mrs GR had told the Grade 7 teachers to "lift their game". I noticed that their behaviour had changed. I seem to remember that, after the mediated meeting on 27 November 2000, Grade 7 teacher NT did stay in the classroom for part of some LOTE Indonesian lessons. I had the impression that she was writing her end-of-year reports.

 

  • I had a good impression of Grade 7 teacher NT's integrity. I do not believe that Grade 7 teacher NT would agree to behave in this sort of underhanded, unprofessional "spying " way towards another teacher without that teacher's knowledge or consent.

 

  • If acting principal Mrs GR and Grade 7 teacher NT really made an agreement of this kind, it would demonstrate that Mrs GR was undermining me in my relationships with other teachers, by asking them to conduct secret procedures on me without my knowledge or consent.  

 

  • It would also demonstrate that Mrs GR was directing teachers to act in breach of Natural Justice, the Code of Conduct and the Public Service regulations towards me.

 

  • And shortly after I returned from sick leave Grade 7 teacher NT seemed to express support for me. She said that the children in her class were liars and that the child who had forced his hat onto my head was a particular liar. And that the child mentioned in the falsified record of what seems to have been an entirely imaginary conversation - 2421 F Lynch-Mob State School documents 41-43 - was continually complaining to usual principal Mr EL.

 

  • And Mrs GR’s falsified note 2421 F 21 - number at the top right hand corner of page - records that Grade 7 teacher NT did not want to be involved in the gang-attack on me that Mrs GR was trying to organise with the Grade 7 teachers on the day before the 10 November 2000 Staff Meeting.

 

A copy of this hidden / falsified document 2421 F 7 was released to me for the first time after 27 April 2004.

On 19 May 2004 I emailed my response to 2421 F 7 to Keith Hynes, Education Queensland.

I copied my response to 2421 F 7 to the postmaster and complaints CMC and to the Ombudsman.

On 21 June 2004 I wrote to Ken Smith.

I copied the letter to the CMC and the Ombudsman.

I attached a letter to Ken Smith, my response to 2421 F 7 and my response to four other falsified documents.

 

I understand that this letter was simply "lost".

 

On 22 June 2004 12:45 PM I hand-delivered a printed copy of my letter to Ken Smith, my response to 2421 F 7 and my response to four of the other falsified documents to the front desk of the District Office.

3:37 PM I emailed Ken Smith to advise him that I had handed a printed copy of my letter and the five responses to falsified documents to the District office.

I told him the name of the person to whom I had handed the documents.

 

I understand that this printed copy of my letter and the five documents were also "lost".

12 October, 2000 : I met the acting principal. I wanted to discuss her behaviour during and after the meeting with the abusive mother.

Mrs GR had refused to listen to me after the meeting with the abusive mother.

She said she did not have time to listen to me.

But she said that we needed to have another meeting to "analyse" the meeting with abusive Mother DA.

I knew that Mrs GR was a very poor listener, so I wrote a document describing what had happened in my classroom before I brought the abusive mother to Mrs GR's office.

And then I asked acting principal GR if we could have a meeting.

Acting principal GR did not seem to be so keen to have this meeting after she had read the document that I had written to explain what had happened in the classroom before abusive Mother DA and I arrived at the office.

 

I prepared the following notes for this meeting:

 

"1. Confrontation or support? Which would have been the best approach?"

 

After the abusive mother had left, acting principal Mrs GR  "... began by saying that I should not have asked the child to repeat what I said after me.

This is exactly what the abusive mother herself did - jump into criticism without asking the important questions to find out the facts. 

So after trying to calm student D.A. and then enduring her abuse, I then had to deal with yours.

Why?

 

The same thing happened with the teachers' aides last year. ...

 

The mother abused me over an extended period of time.

I behaved calmly and did not engage in argument or abuse in return.

When we were alone I said I thought she was so thick ...

You interrupted me and said you strongly objected to that word.

Yet you had allowed her to abuse me.

You said my use of that word made you think maybe I had been rude to her earlier.

This implied that I am a liar.

You had just seen me behave calmly and with courtesy in the face of prolonged abuse. ..."

(The Department of Education have a copy of my notes - 2606 File F Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, documents 285-286)

 

But acting principal Mrs GR insisted on speaking first.

She said that she had something to say that might change what I was going to say.

(So Mrs GR knew that I was going to protest about her behaviour!)

 

One of Lynch-Mob State College acting princiipal Mrs GR's regular strategies was to insist on speaking first at a meeting and then entirely change her story.

This was really disconcerting.

Talking to Mrs GR was like trying to find your balance on quicksand.

She was continually changing her "story".

 

Mrs GR said that I had done exactly the right thing in dealing with abusive Mother DA.

Mrs GR had entirely changed her "angle" on the situation, with no warning, explanation or apology.

I said, "But that wasn't what you said at the time, was it, Mrs GR?"

I described the abuse that I had endured from the child, the mother and finally from acting principal Mrs GR herself.

Mrs GR had accused me of lying.

She had said that she thought that I might have been rude to the mother before we arrived at the office.

Yet Mrs GR had just observed me behaving calmly while the mother abused me for an extended period of time!

Acting principal Mrs GR said that this was not what had happened.

She either said or implied that she would take action against me if I talked about her behaviour on 4 October.

Mrs GR then rushed out of the room to fetch acting deputy principal Miss AL.

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School, document 12.

2469 File F The District Office, document 78

These documents are copies of acting principal GR’s falsified "record" of the first part of the meeting on 12 October.

I first realised that this "record" existed when it was sighted by Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator and described in letter to me dated 23 March 2004.

Stephannie did not release the document to me because-

“ These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with ...

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

This document was first released to me after 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Discrimination solicitor.

By 27 October 2005 the 2421 documents had all been reversed in order and given new numbers.

And File F Lynch-Mob State School document 12 had vanished from the "official records"!

 

This "record" is falsified in that-

1. I did not know that the document existed. I did not know the contents of the document. The document was not discussed with me before either-

  • Acting principal GR, acting deputy principal AL and usual principal EL's 29 November 2000 agreement that I would be put on the DWP process in 2001.

 

  • Or before acting principal GR and acting deputy principal AL invited me to a formal meeting at which they advised me that I would be in the DWP process in 2001. And acting principal GR gave me a formal letter to that effect during the meeting.

 

Education Queensland still have a copy of this formal decision on my "official record", for example, at FOI 340/5/1295 Document 2588, and also at FOI 340/5/1295 Document 2622, and also at FOI 340/5/1295 2986.

 

  • Usual principal Mr EL's 5 February 2001 decision to dismiss my Stage 1 Grievance about acting principal Mrs GR's, acting deputy principal Miss AL's and his own abuse of the DWP process.

 

  • And his 5 February 2001 decision (as I now understand) to put me into the first stage of the MUP.

 

2. Acting principal GR  has "spun" this "record" to my disadvantage.

 

"... Because concerns had been raised with me by both the acting deputy principal (name) ..."

If I had been given the opportunity to respond to this document, I would have responded that -

 

  • AL had only been acting deputy principal since Tuesday 4 October - eight days - AL had been a reading teacher, sitting next to me in our shared office just eight days earlier.
  • AL had never seen (me) teach
  • AL's opinions were based on the complaints of two chldren I had sent to her because of their poor behaviour.

 

"... and another teacher ..."

  • notice that this teacher is not named.
  • the seven Grade 5 and 6 teachers, who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years all supported me absolutely.
  • consider how easy it would be for a malicious principal to make up this sort of vague allegation and place it secretly on a teacher's "official record".

 

"... and because many of these... "

  • Many? Just how many concerns about me could these two children have created?
  • Consider how easy it would be for a malicious principal to make up this sort of vague allegation and put it secretly on a teacher's "official record".

 

" ... were similar to the concerns I myself had, ..."

  • acting principal G.R. was supposed to be my supervisor but she had not looked at my program or been into my room all year.
  • Her "concerns" were either entirely falsified or based on AL's malicous gossip.

 

" ... My ideas was (sic) that we might together be able to get (me) to look at some of her strategies in particular those which belittle or embarassed students, or which failed to take into account individual needs. ..."

  • acting principal GR had never been into my classroom or looked at my program all year.
  • her "ideas" were either totally falsified or based on Miss AL's malicious gosip.

 

Notice that acting principal GR had, before she had discussed the situation with me even once, already made her mind up that the gossip about me was true. 

  • GR's own notes demonstrate her denial of natural justice.
  • And her lack of awareness of Natural Justice.

 

"I began the discussion by stressing again to (me) that she had handled a very volatile situation extremely well and noting that this must have been very difficult for her. ..."

  • Not only does G.R. entirely change her "angle" on the situation, she claims that this is not the first time that she has told me about her new "angle".

 

"(My name) claimed that I had asked her to stay back and then attacked (me) (verbally) after the incident.

I responded that-

1. She had made it clear by getting up and half shutting the door after Mother D.A. left that she wanted to talk."

  • This is not a truthful record. As Mother D.A. left the room, I stood up and moved in front of G.R.'s desk to follow Mother D.A. out of the room. As I passed in front of her desk, G.R. said to me something to the effect of "Would you stay behind for a moment (my name)." So I half-closed the door and stayed.
  • While Mother D.A. was abusing me, G.R. said nothing in my support. From time to time she would tell Mother D.A., "I will talk to (my name) about that later". I think G.R. asked me to stay behind because she wanted to create the impression in Mother D.A.'s mind that she was "talking to me".

 

2. I had spoken at length about how well she had handled Mother DA's behaviour.

GR's "story" does not make sense.

GR claims that she spoke to me at length on 4 October 2000 about how well I had handled Mother DA's behaviour, then on 9 October she rang the District office and discussed putting me on DWP, then on 12 October she told me again how well I had handled the situation.

Surely it would be obvious to any investigator that either GR's "story" or her behaviour does not make sense?

GR's own notes record her continually changing "story".

Dealing with GR's continually changing "story" was disconcerting.

That is why I told the staff welfare officer that I did not feel safe talking to acting principal GR.

 

" ... She also made allegations that I was lying about what happened. ..."

 

I said that she had changed her "story".

And she had.

 

I also complained that GR had implied that I was a liar-

 

"... You said my use of that word made you think maybe I had been rude to her earlier.

This implied that I am a liar.

You had just seen me behave calmly and with courtesy in the face of prolonged abuse. ..."

 

And I said that GR's "angle" today was not the same as the "angle" she had taken on October 4. 

And it wasn't.

It was entirely different.

" ... I decided that there needed to be a second person in the room to take notes about what was said for the rest of the meeting so that it would not jeopardise any further action if this was necessary. ..."

 

G.R. claims that I had misunderstood her abuse and that she was actually telling me that I had done well

- but she was secretly telling other people about her plans to put me on D.W.P.

G.R.'s "story" suggests that she was behaving toward me in quite a deceptive manner.

And, at the time, I had the feeling that G.R. changed her "story" every time that I spoke to her.

I felt very unsafe talking to acting principal G.R.

 

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

So, let's keep track of the changes in acting principal GR's "story" to date -

 

  • 4 October 2000 - G.R. seemed to me to be calling me a liar, abusing me and refusing to listen to me.

 

  • AND 5 October 2000 - G.R. claims that she and A.L. engaged in unprofessional gossip concerning me. G.R. claims that this was not the first time that she and A.L. had engaged in unprofessional gossip concerning me.

 

  • BUT neither of them had seen me teach. Their opinions were based on the complaints of two children that I had sent to A.L. because of their poor behaviour, and the abuse of Mother D.A. who I had taken to Anne because of her irrational and abusive behaviour. Acting deputy principal A.L. had never seen me teach. She never, ever saw me teach. G.R was supposed to be my supervisor but she had not been into my clasroom or looked at my program all year. (Refer to FOI 2469 The District Office, file F document 82.)

 

  • AND 5 October 2000 continued - on this same day, G.R. also claims that she spoke to L.W., the principal of The Beach State School "who appeared to be experiencing very similar problems when constructive suggestions are offered". (Refer to FOI 2469 The District Office, file F document 82.)

 

  • BUT In December 2004 L.W. told Anne Lindon, Administrative Review officer, Queensland Information Commissioner, that "she did not recall having had any conversation with G.R. about you". (Refer to 14 December 2004 letter to me from Margaret Newbery, Assistant Information Commissioner.)

 

  • AND 9 October 2000 - G.R. claims that she spoke to District Office Employee G.Y. about the possibility of putting me on Diminished Work Performance. (Refer to FOI 2469 The District Office, file F document 82).

 

  • BUT in 2004, G.Y. told the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal opportunity-trained discrimination solicitor that she did NOT remember this conversation.

 

  • BUT THE STORY CHANGED on 12 October 2000 - when G.R. told me that when I thought she was abusing me, she was actually telling me that I had handled a volatile situation very well and that this must have been difficult for me. And that, on 4 October she actually spoken at length about how well I had handled Mother D.A.'s behaviour. (Refer to FOI 2469 File F The District Office document 78).

 

  • AND when acting principal A.L. came into the meeting G.R. stated that, "she thought (I) had handled the situation very well". ( Refer to FOI 2469, The District Office file F , document 74, A.L.'s notes on this meeting.)

 

  • BUT 12 October 2000 - while telling me that I had misunderstood what she was telling me and that she had actually been telling me that I had handled the situation "very well", G.R. was actually making careful preparations to take "further action if necessary" against me.

 

  • AND after this meeting, G.R. seems to have instructed acting deputy principal A.L. to make detailed records of every meeting with me and to give the records to her to be put secretly on my "official record". (refer to FOI 2469 The District Office file F document 72 - number at the top right hand side of the page - which is dated 13 October 2000.

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

 

I was not clear why GR wanted acting principal AL to be present at this meeting.

I had asked for the meeting to discuss GR's behaviour during the meeting with abusive Mother DA

Acting deputy principal AL was not at the meeting with abusive Mother DA and I was not keen to behave unprofessionally by discusing GR's poor handling of busive Mother DA's behaviour in front of acting principal AL.

 

It is possible that acting principal GR simply wanted to enjoy "showing off" to inexperienced acting principal AL-

 

"Bullies love ... displaying their power ... there is nothing secretive in their methods.

One of the best ways to display power and ward off rivals is to bully with an audience.

This is one of the favourite techniques of a bully boss."

  • Workplace Bullying: Curing the Cancer of the American Workplace, Peter M. Glendinning, pp.276-277 Public Personnel Management, Volume 30 No 3 Fall 2001

 

Also Thursday 12 October 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 14-15.

2469 File F The District Office documents 73-74

Acting deputy principal AL's notes on the second half of my meeting with GR to discuss GR's behaviour during the meeting with abusive Mother DA and after abusive Mother DA had left her office.

 

I first knew that this document existed when it was described to me in a letter dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

“ These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process.”

 

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

 

The document was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Discrimination solicitor.

The 2421 version of this document was not released to me till after 27 October 2005.

 

I first saw a copy of AL's "record" of this meeting when it was released to me after 12 July 2004 in 2469 File F The District Office documents 73-74.

On the left hand side of document 2469 F 74 you can see a note written in usual principal EL’s handwriting ( compare it with EL’s handwiting on 2469 F document 146).

 

“ Communicative interpretation”

 

Which seems to prove that, during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process, usual principal EL read and thought about the falsified “records” that were being concealed from me.

 

"... (My name) then asked if GR could ask (my name) questions about how she handles situations, before telling her that she is 'wrong'. ..."

 

These notes demonstrate that acting deputy principal A.L. grasped my concern about G.R.'s impulsive decision-making.

On 12 October 2000, I made it clear to GR that her impulsive decision-making was causing me concern and that I wanted her to discuss any concerns with me before jumping to conclusions.

 

" ... G.R. stated that was exactly what she had done. ..."

And it also demonstrates that G.R. would not listen to my concerns. 

 

The only part of this document that is really falsified is the last sentence.

"... (I) will request another meeting with GR ..."

From memory, we did agree to have another meeting.

But I certainly did not understand that it was my responsibility to organise this meeting.

 

I was one of the specialist teachers who organised the new "behaviour management strategy", and the meeting with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers on 16 October 2000.

The behaviour problems in the Grade 7 classes were discussed at some length during that meeting.

After the 16 October 2000 meeting GR and AL could have had no doubts that there were problems with the Grade 7 student's behaviour for all specialist teachers.

This seems to have been "spun" into-

"... with regards to difficulties she is having with Grade 6/7 B.O. ..."

" ... and some strategies she has planned to deal with the situation. ..."

I may have told G.R. and A.L. about the meeting with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers that the specialist teachers were organising.

 

I also -

  • told GR and AL that I had problems with my heart banging and thumping, and that I had been warned that I was at very high risk of a heart attack because my cholesterol levels were very high. I had been told that stress was a factor and I had been advised to try to minimise stress. I told them that I sometimes took time off after stressful incidents to give myself time to recover. I hoped that they would understand that I was not "slacking" or being unco-operative, I was just trying to look after my health.

 

  • And, realising that neither of them knew much at all about Indonesian teaching, I offered to write a "LOTE UPDATE" to explain what had been "going on" in LOTE (Indonesin) recently. I wrote that document a few days later. Usual principal E.L. had a copy of that document on his file 2469 File F The District Office documents 40-43.

 

Also Thursday 12 October 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 16

2469 File F The District Office document 79.

This purports to be a letter that acting principal GR sent to abusive Mother DA on 12 October 2000.

The 2421 version of the letter is dated 12 November 2000, the day after I had rung GR at school and she had confirmed that I was "the person" that she had been talking to to the staff about.

But above the date on the 2469 The District Office version of the letter, GR has drawn an arrow to a message that she has written to usual principal EL:

 

"Dated wrongly. Was sent on 12/10"

 

GR first gave me a copy of this letter to abusive Mother DA on 5 December 2000, the day after her meeting with the seven Grade 5 and 6 teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years, and who all fully supported me.

Mother DA had abused me for twenty minutes on the afternoon of 4 October 2000, two months earlier.

GR had not mentioned the letter to me before.

GR seemed very nervous about the letter and particularly asked me not to discuss it with abusive Mother DA.

I had the strong impression that the letter was falsified - that it had never been sent to Mother DA.

 

Student RDA's father was in the navy.

At about this time he arranged for the Grade 7 children to visit his boat.

I had the impression that GR and abusive Mother DA were friendly.

I did not think that they would be so friendly if abusive Mother DA had received this letter.

It seemed to me to be inappropriate for GR to suggest to abusive Mother DA that -

 

"What I would ask, however, is that where you have concerns in future you come to see me personally ..."

 

- because both abusive Mother DA and acting principal GR herself both seemed to me to have a similar approach to situations - they both seemed to grasp at any opportunity to yell abuse and to refuse to listen.

As

  • I recorded in my notes for my meeting with GR,
  • and as I discussed during the meeting with GR and AL,
  • and as AL herself recorded in her notes of the meeting,

 

I felt that GR needed to encourage Mother DA to ask questions and to establish the real facts of the situation before she began complaining.

And that GR herself needed to do this as well.

Acting deputy principal Miss AL began making secret notes on me and putting them on my "official records".

Friday 13 October 2000

This is the date on acting deputy principal Miss AL's secret "record" of our conversation on Thursday, 5 October 2000, the day after I had been abused by Mother DA.

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 7.

 

  • Which suggests that, after the meeting on 12 October 2000, acting principal Mrs GR instructed acting deputy principal Miss AL to make notes on every conversation that she had had with me since she had become acting deputy principal.

 

  • Acting deputy principal Miss AL, in making secret notes on me, and putting them secretly on my official record in this way, was acting in breach of Natural Justice, the Code of Conduct, the Public Service Regulations, etc.

 

  • Was acting deputy principal Miss AL writing secret records and putting them on the files of all of the teachers at Lynch-Mob State School?

 

I first realised that this document existed after 23 March 2004, when it was described in a letter to me from Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland FOI liaison officer.

Stephannie Kalas denied me access to this document because-

“ These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process.”

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

 

I first saw this document after 27 April 2004, when Mr ME, the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained "Discrimination solicitor", provided me with a copy of the document.

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

 

On 19 May 2004 at 3:14 I emailed Keith Hynes keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

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

I attached my six-page response to  2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 7.

 

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

N.B. document 2421 F 58 is another document that has been entirely falsified.

It appears to be a confidential note to me but I was never shown this document and it was never discussed with me. ... "

 

I asked the QTU what I should do about the falsified "records" that I was finding on my "official record".

On 17 June 2004 Jeff Backen (QTU Officer) wrote to me to advise me that I could consider lodging a complaint with the Director-General regarding a breach of sections 15 and 16 of the Public Service Regulation 1997.

 

On 21 June 2004 at 12:35pm I emailed Ken Smith, copied to the CMC and the Ombudsman.

I attached a letter to Ken Smith.

 

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

 

On 22 June 2004 12:45pm I hand-delivered a printed copy of the 21 June 2004 letter to the District Office of Education Queensland.

I enclosed a printed copy of my response to 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 7 (and to each of the four other falsified documents listed in the letter.)

 

At 3:37 PM I emailed Ken Smith to advise him that I had hand-delivered a copy of my letter to him and copies of my responses to five of the falsified documents to the District Office.

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

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

For more details see: http://www.badapplebullies.com/freedomofinformation.htm 

 

It is now more than four years since I first responded to 2421 File F document 7.

It is distressing to me to have to keep on responding over and over again for four years to this and so many other falsified "records" because Education Queensland officers, CMC officers and the Queensland Ombudsmen will not / are afraid to read / understand / "know" about my response.

Or they repeatedly claim to have "lost' it.

 

16 October 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 8, number at top right hand corner of the page.

  • By 27 October 2005 the 2421 F 8 version of this document had "vanished" from my official record.

 

2469 F The District Office document 59, number at the top right hand corner of the page. 

 

This document purports to be (in part) acting deputy principal Miss AL's record of the meeting that usual principal Mr EL had suggested that the specialist teachers organise with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers to explain the new "behaviour management" strategy that we had planned to deal with behaviour problems in Grade 7 and, to a lesser extent, in Grade 6, and to agree on some sactions for poor behaviour.

The specialist teachers had been working on this plan since Term 3.

Usual principal Mr EL had been involved in the discussions concerning the development of the new "specialists behaviour management strategy" in the last weeks of Term 3 2000, and also when he was on leave but came to Lynch-Mob State School during one lunchtime in the first weeks of Term 4.

During this meeting one of the other specialist teachers said that, after taking the Grade 7 classes, all she wanted to do was to go home, pull the covers over her head and go to sleep.

One of the other teachers said, "And (my name) has them three times a week!"

Because the other specialist teachers only taught the Grade 7 classes once a week, whereas I taught them three times a week.

 

Acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL were both at this meeting.

So, by 16 October 2000, Mrs GR and Miss AL were both fully aware that there was a problem with the behaviour of the Grade 7 children and that I was not alone in my concern.

 

After the meeting this same specialist teacher told me that, at a recent staff meeting that I had not attended, there had been discussion of the development of a "Middle School".

She had told the meeting that if the behaviour of the Middle School children was going to be as bad as the behaviour of the Grade 7 children, she wanted nothing to do with it.

She told me that this had caused some consternation.

 

Also on about 16 October 2000:

2469 File F The District Office documents 40-43

 

This is the LOTE (Indonesian) update that I wrote for acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL after the meeting on 12 October 2000.

They had both agreed, at the end of the 12 October 2000 meeting, that I could write this document for them.

I had realised by that time that neither of them knew very much about Indonesian or about language teaching and that this was going to be a problem.

The date on the first page of this document - document 43 - is falsified.

Mrs GR seems to have written “19/11”, which was the Sunday before I returned from sick leave after the shock of Mrs GR’s announcement to the staff concerning me.

The true date of this document would have been about one month earlier, 16 October, 2000.

I gave this document to several members of staff because I felt quite ashamed of the way that LOTE had been limited during Term 3 2000.

I explained that there was no carpet in the LOTE (Indonesian) classroom and the chairs in the LOTE classroom had made a lot of noise.

The teacher in the class next door complained to me that every half-hour she was being disturbed by the noise of twenty-five chairs being moved as twenty-five children got up, then twenty-five chairs being moved again as twenty-five children sat down.

I had classes coming and going every thirty minutes all day long, and I got very stressed worrying about the noise.

I did not explain this in the document but actually I had spoken to usual principal Mr EL about the noise.

He told me that he would ask the caretaker to put squares of carpet on the bottom of the chairs.

I waited for this to happen for a few weeks, but nothing was done.

So then I discussed the noise of the chairs with Mrs GR.

She just said that the school could not afford to buy me a carpet.

"By 11:00am my ears were buzzing with the noise of the chairs and I had a bad headache from the stress of trying to minimise the noise"

(I did not realise it at the time, but this was tinnitus, which was being triggered by the stress.)

When you are teaching a language, you want the children to speak in the language.

You often ask the children to ask each other questions in the second language.

Unfortunately the noise of the children all speaking to each other also disturbed the teacher next door.

The plays that the children loved doing were also too noisy.

I tried doing the plays outside but that was also too noisy.

 

I had to think of a way of teaching Indonesian that did not involve using the chairs and tables and minimised speaking.

So the children sat on the floor and played team games in Indonesian while we waited for the chairs to be fixed.

We waited for the rest of the term.

Nothing was done.

The children were bored and I was increasingly stressed.

After a few more weeks I spoke again to Mr EL.

I had the impression that he had simply forgotten all about the chairs and the carpet.

I also talked about the lack of support for Indonesian at that time because every night the news was showing Indonesian troops beating East Timorese people.

Members of the local community were urging me to refuse to teach Indonesian.

The children were telling me that Indonesians were horrible people.

I wrote about the limitations of the generic booklets, and the teaching materials that I wanted to produce-

"… but it does take a huge commitment of my own time to create the materials and the school will need to commit to support the LOTE program with the teacher aide time needed to produce the new materials."

 

17 October 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 8, number at top right hand side of the page. 

By 27 October 2005 the 2421 F 8 copy of this document had "vanished" from my official record.

2469 File F The District Office document 59, number at top right hand side of the page.

This document purports to be (in part) acting deputy principal Miss A.L.'s record of her conversations concerning me with students that I had sent to her because of their poor behaviour.

 

18 October 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 8.

2421 F 8 -The Lynch-Mob State School version of this document - had "vanished" from my official record by 27 October 2005.

2469 File F The District Office document 59

I first realised that this document existed when it was described in a 23 March 2004 letter to me from Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland FOI co-ordinator. 

Stephannie advised me that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

“ These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process.”

 

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

I first saw this document after 27 April 2004, when it was released to me by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.

 

"Documentation of behaviour management issue with (me) (LOTE teacher) No 2."

This heading is not logical.

It puts an offensive "spin' on the situation.

I was a teacher.

The behaviour management problems were not with me, they were with the Grade 6/7 class BO and with two children in particular - BOS. and BOJ.

I was following the school Behaviour Management Program.

I had sent two misbehaving children to acting deputy principal AL - and AL wrote this 'record' on me and put it on my file!

This document purports to be (in part) acting deputy principal AL's record of my conversation with her about her behaviour.

AL seems to have grasped some part of the point that I was making to her.

She states:

 

"After lunch (I) came into my office and asked me not to listen to complaints about her from students in the future.

She said it was damaging to her professionally."

"... (my name) was quite insistent and wanted me to make sure the students weren't telling lies."

 

I had sent these students to AL because of their poor behaviour.

I was following the school Behaviour Management Program by giving poorly behaved children three warnings and then sending them to acting deputy principal AL.

But the children seemed to be manipulating AL and complaining to her about me.

AL did not seem to me to have the experience to realise that she was being manipulated.

It worried me that AL was allowing the children to "get away with" their poor behaviour by telling her lies about me.

Then, when I told AL that the children were "having her on", she was refusing to go back to them and "follow up".

I felt that AL was encouraging the children to lie.

And that AL was undermining me.

 

" ... I re-stated that I have to listen to students and I am not willing to make students feel uncomfortable about voicing concerns. ..."

 

These children had been sent to Miss AL because of their disruptive behaviour.

They had been disrupting specialist lessons for months.

Miss AL needed to make them feel uncomfortable about their poor behaviour.

 

  • It is interesting that AL was willing to  "listen to students and ... not willing to make students feel uncomfortable about voicing concerns." , but she was not really willing to listen to me, make me feel comfortable about voicing concerns, etc.

 

  • And AL must have been aware that my health was being affected - she had seen me crying at school,  I had taken sick leave, I had told her that was was at high risk of a heart attack and was trying to minimise stress - but there is no document in which AL expresses any concern for my welfare.

 

However AL demonstrated no malice towards me at any stage during Term 4 2000.

I do not consider AL to be a bully.

The problem with acting deputy principal AL was her inexperience and her gullibility.

She was much, much too easily manipulated by acting principal GR and by the Grade 7 children.

AL's gullibility put me at risk of harm.

 

"... (I) went off to class but did not appear happy with the outcome of the discussion. ..."

 

So, on 18 October 2000, acting deputy principal AL knew that I was worried about her behavior-

  • allowing the children who were sent to her for poor behaviour to defame the teachers,

  • and simply accepting the children's lies as facts.

 

"(My name) and (name of other specialist) volunteered to put this in writing. ..."

Again, if this document existed in 2000, and if usual principal Mr EL had seen it in 2000, he would have immediately known that either acting deputy principal A.L. had innocently misunderstood the situation, or she had been instructed to put a "spin" on the situation to conceal the fact that this meeting was an initiative of the specialist teachers.

Usual principal EL knew that the specialists had organised this meeting to discuss the "behaviour-recording" strategy that they had developed.

 

  • Was acting deputy principal AL making secret records of this nature about every teacher at the school?

 

  • Who had instructed AL to do this? 

 

  • AL's behaviour was in breach of Natural Justice, the Code of Conduct and the Public Service Regulations.

 

Friday 27 October 2000 

Acting deputy principal AL came into the Grade 6/7 BO class during my lesson and told them that she was tired of all the complaints that she was getting about them from other specialists and casual teachers.

So, by 27 October 2000, acting principal Miss AL knew that Grade 6/7 OB were poorly behaved for several teachers.

 

Wednesday 1 November 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 56.

This purports to be a letter from a mother, I presume Mother BOJ, written to Grade 6/7 teacher BO.

It purports to be dated 1st November 2000.

I first knew that this document existed when it was described in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, A/FOI Co-ordinator, Education Queensland.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance Investigation process.

The document was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Discrimination solicitor.

As this note was not shown to me or discussed with me at the time, I have no way of knowing if the note has been fabricated.

It seems very calm, almost functional.

The tone of the letter suggests to me that Mrs GR might have prompted this student BOJ to ask her mother to write such a letter.

 

2469 File F The District Office document 57

Acting principal Mrs GR wrote a message for usual principal Mr EL on this 2469 document before giving it to him / putting it on my file.

GR states:

 

" (acting principal Miss AL) rang to find out why (presumably Mother BOJ said that (presumably student BOJ) was trying hard to behave in LOTE classes but that she was still getting into trouble.

Acting principal Miss AL had come into the 6/7 OB class just the Friday before this purported phone call and told the class that she was tired of all of the complaints that she was getting about their behaviour from specialist teachers and casual teachers.

 

(acting principal Miss AL) suggested (student) write to (me) to draw attention to the fact that she really was trying (words off the bottom of the sheet) ..."

 

I find it hard to believe that Miss AL would be so gullible.

 

Acting deputy principal Miss AL did not discuss this situation with me.

Class teacher OB did not discuss this situation with me.

I not given any letter from the student.

The mother's letter was simply placed secretly on my official record.

 

And acting principal Miss AL made no mention of this situation in her copious secret "notes" on me.

Which again suggests to me that this situation was simply being "beaten up" by acting principal Mrs GR to create "evidence" to put on my "official record".

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 46

2469 File F The District Office document 56

 

This document is a handwritten note to me, presumably it is the note from BOJ mentioned above.

This note was never shown to me or discussed with me.

I first knew that this note existed when it was described to me in a letter dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

 

The note was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.

I first saw this note after 12 July 2004, when the 2469 F The District Office document 56 copy of the document was released to me.

 

"11.00 Wednesday

To (My Name),

I am going to make a concious effort to be good in class which I am sure you will notice this improvement. Because I would Really like to go to ten pin Bowling (options) , and I want you to see that I have Change and that I have put all the bad things that I have done in the Past!

From (Presumably BOJ)"

 

The child BOJ did not give this note to me.

I can only presume that acting deputy pricipal Miss AL took the note from the child, telling the child that she was going to give it to me, but actually handing it to acting principal Mrs GR to put on my "official record".

Again, the primary purpose of the activity seems to have been to generate secret "evidence" to put on my "official record".

If student BOJ was waiting for me to respond in some way, she would have felt let down.

 

From my notes-

Term 3 2000

On Monday 11 September 2000 BOJ disrupted P.E. by back-chatting the teacher.

On Wednesday 13 September 2000 BOJ disrupted the Indonesian lesson by giggling.

During this Term I spoke to usual principal Mr EL about student BOJ’s behaviour.

I told him that, when I told BOJ that I would follow the School Behaviour Management Program and send her to the office for disrupting the Indonesian lesson three times with poor behaviour, BOJ would say, "Oo-ooh! Scarey!" in a sarcastic tone of voice.

The next time that I sent her to usual principal Mr EL, he instructed her to ring her brother at home and tell her brother what she had done.

BOJ’s behaviour seemed to improve a little after this.

 

Term 4 2000

On Monday 9 October 2000 BOJ disrupted the P.E. lesson.

On Thursday 12 October 2000 BOJ disrupted the Indonesian lesson by giggling.

On Friday 20 October 2000 BOJ disrupted the Indonesian lesson with continual chatting to BOS.

I took BOS and BOJ to acting principal Mrs GR and told her that I had been following the School Behaviour Management Progam but it did not seem to be improving BOS and BOJ's behaviour.

BOS and BOJ spoke to Mrs GR in "little baby girl" voices.

When she left the room they chatted to each other in their normal voices, arranging what they would do that evening.

When Mrs GR returned, they resumed their "little baby girl" voices.

Mrs GR should have told them to talk to her sensibly, but she said nothing.

Mrs GR agreed with BOS that BOS would finish her work by the next week.

Then Mrs GR seemed to forget about the agreement, and the work was not done.

On Monday 30 October 2000 Jenny disrupted the Music lesson by talking.

On Tuesday 31 October 2000 Jenny disrupted the Indonesian lesson by talking and back-answering.

 

On Wednesday 1 November 2000 Jenny’s mother seems to have written to ask if she could be excused from Indonesian.

The note seems very calm.

There is no explanation.

I would wonder if somebody had suggested to Jenny that she ask her mother to write such a note.

BOJ seems to have written a note to me to tell me that -

"I am going to make a concious effort to be good in class which I am sure you will notice this improvement. Because ... I want you to see that I have Change and that I have put all the bad things that I have done in the Past!

 

On 3 October 2000 BOJ was eating during the Indonesian lesson.

On 6 November 2000 BOJ disrupted the Music lesson by talking.

This was the day that I wrote the “yellow slip” about BOS disrupting three classes with her rude and unco-operative behaviour

On 7 November 2000 BOJ was eating during the Indonesian lesson.

On 10 November 2000 acting principal Mrs GR told the staff "there is a person on the staff who is humiliating children".

 

Friday 3 November 2000

I was worried by the numbers of Grade 7 children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms when I arrived to take them for Indonesian.

I knew that these children were just roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes, because they continually disturbed my lessons with other classes, coming into the room and demanding to use the computer "now!" or wanting to take groups of children out of the room to discuss a disco that they were planning to run, etc.

I was worried that I was responsible for the safety of these roaming groups of Grade 7 children if they were supposed to be having Indonesian with me.

Acting principal GR advised me to discuss the problem of the roaming groups of unsupervised Grade 7 children at a staff meeting.

 

GR put it on the agenda for discussion at the next Friday staff meeting on 10 November 2000.

Then she moved it to the top of the agenda.

GR's "records" are falsified in that she has edited our conversation - and her advice to me - out of her "records".

 

Monday 6 November 2000

2421 File F documents 51-52.

2469 F The District Office documents 54-55.

 

This document seems to be a true copy of a Student misbehaviour slip dated 6/11/00.

It concerns student BOS.

Student BOS had been disrupting Indonesian and other specialist classes for months.

Student BOS made personal remarks and was rude to me when the lesson began at 10:00 AM on Monday 6 November 2000, so I warned her once and then I took her to 6R.

During the meeting with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers on 16 October, it had been agreed that I would send poorly behaved students to the "buddy teacher" of the teacher whose class I was teaching.

But, when I was teaching the Grade 7 classes, their "buddy teacher" was often on "non-contact time" and their class would be with the Music or Sport teacher, and it did not seem to be appropriate to send poorly behaved children to Music or Sport.

So, when student BOS was poorly behaved on Monday 6 November, I left the 6/7 OB class to take her to 6R - a class that was nearby - and asked the teacher to take her for the rest of the lesson.

Leaving a class in this way was risky, but I was worried that BOS would just wander about the school if I did not take her to 6R.

At 10:30 AM I was supposed to go directly to Grade 7 LR, but I had to resolve BOS's situation first, so I went to 6R.

BOS was still loud and abusive.

The 6R teacher later commented, "No teacher should have to put up with that sort of behaviour".

I did not feel that I should send BOS to the next specialist teacher because she was still loud and defiant.

I did not have time to take BOS to another class because Grade 7 LR were unattended while I was trying to deal with BOS.

So I decided that the quickest and easiest thing to do was to take her to 7LR with me.

It was also more or less in accordance with the School Behaviour Management Policy that poorly behaved students should be sent to a "buddy class".

 

When we arrived at grade 7 LR, BOS began by hiding from me and laughed while I looked around the room and in the side rooms for her.

I told her to sit on the carpet, in the middle of the room, where I could see her, and watch groups of 7 LR children who were acting at the front of the room.

As I recorded on the "yellow slip"-

BOS made loud remarks about me - "She reckons ...".

BOS referred to me as "She ..." several times.

She shouted "show off" at the children who were acting, and was generally disruptive.

 

So I told BOS to turn around and face (in the direction of) the back wall so that she would be less able to disrupt the class.

As I have explained many times since, BOS was nowhere near the wall.

There was never any question of BOS "putting her nose to the wall".

But I had to fill in the "yellow slip" while I was busy teaching, so my wording was ambiguous:


"… I asked her 4x to face the wall before she followed the instruction.

She called out "show off" when people were acting.

(Her) behaviour is rude, un-cooperative and her attitude to me is inappropriate.

She shows no remorse.

She shows off to other children and appears to be entirely defiant.

She denies her behaviour."

 

Acting principal Mrs GR did not discuss this note with me, so I had no idea that Mrs GR had, or purported to have, "misunderstood" the note and believed that I had told BOS to stand close to the wall and / or to "put her nose to the wall".

 

Thursday 9 November 2000

This was the day before the staff meeting.

During this week I had shown each of the Grade 7 teachers the records that I had been keeping of the children who were missing from the classrooms when I arrived to take Indonesian.

I had discussed the particular children who had been missing from their own classes and the reasons that the children had given for being out of the rooms.

I had told each of the teachers that it was not only a problem with their own class, that it was a problem with several classes and that I was going to speak to the staff about it on Friday.

I had spoken three separate times to Grade 7 teacher LR about three separate groups of children from her class who had disrupted my lessons with other classes, demanding that I leave the class that I was teaching and go to my office to get a book that they wanted, etc.

They stood at the door arguing with me while I tried to introduce the lesson.

It really disturbed a 30 minute lesson.

I asked Grade 7 teacher LR to instruct her children not to disturb my lessons with other classes.

She told me to tell them myself.

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 20-21.

2469 File F The District Office documents 51-52.

 

These handwritten scribbles on scraps of paper / large sticky-notes are 'records" of discussions that GR claims to have had with these Grade 7 teachers on the day before the staff meeting.

I first knew that these "records" existed when they were described to me in a letter dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

 

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

 

But these documents were not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

I first saw these documents when they were released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.

GR had advised me to discuss the situation with the whole staff at a staff meeting.

But she had this meeting with the Grade 7 teachers without me.

And she seems to have arranged with the Grade 7 teachers that they would not attend the staff meeting.

 

I felt that acting principal Mrs GR had betrayed my trust.

 

Mrs GR’s scribbled notes-

“9/11

(Name of Grade 7 teacher L.R.) re Annie.

Inflexible - won’t move at all.”

I had spoken three separate times that week to Grade 7 teacher LR about three separate roaming groups of her children who had burst into other classes when I was teaching. One group in particular demanded that I leave the class that I was teaching and go to my office to get a book that they wanted.

But-

  • I was not allowed to leave a class unsupervised.

 

  • I was standing at the front of the class, trying to introduce the lesson.

 

  • I only had half an hour for the lesson and the arguments of the Grade 7 LR children were draining my time.

 

I asked Grade 7 teacher LR to tell her children not to disrupt my lessons with other classes.

She had told me to tell them myself.

She did not seem to realise how disruptive her children were being.

 

During Term 3 2000 I had spoken to usual principal Mr EL about the roaming groups of children disrupting my lessons with other classes.

He told me that several other teachers had complained to him about this situation.

He spoke at a staff meeting, asking the teachers not to disturb other classes by sending children "on messages".

At this stage neither usual principal Mr EL nor I realised that the children were not being sent "on messages", they were simply roaming about the school, disturbing the other classes on their own initiative.

 

“Maybe help with Rich Tasks.

Dogmatic.

Humiliating students.”

 

In 2001 (I understand that) Grade 7 teacher LR told the Grade 5 and 6 teachers that acting principal Mrs GR “had taken that right out of context” when she had put me on DWP.

I took this comment to mean that Mrs GR had "beaten up" something that Grade 7 teacher LR considered to be a small issue.

 

Not interrupting her.

MON PM - see Annie with (name of Grade 7 teacher LR).”

 

So, on 9 November 2000, Mrs GR seems to have changed her mind and decided not to discuss the situation at a staff meeting - because she knew that at least one (possibly two, I am reasonably sure she approached another person) - of the teachers supported me.

 

Acting principal Mrs GR was now arranging a different meeting from which people who supported me were excluded.

And she was concealing this from me.

 

“10/11 Annie not available Mon (see note)

(arrow) Made a strong point about the interruptions to her lessons at staff meeting.”

 

I spoke briefly, clearly, calmly.

Several teachers told me afterwards that I had spoken really well.

 

(arrow) Made a strong point about the interruptions to her lessons at staff meeting.”

 

It would be a lot more more truthful for Mrs GR to record:

Annie spoke to the staff - as I had advised her to do.

I had put this issue on the agenda.

I had moved this issue to the top of the agenda.

 

Notice the two arrows on this document.

Mrs GR often uses arrows when she hand-writes falsified “records”.

 

(Name of Grade 7 teacher NT) says she has worked out a strategy with Annie (not at meeting) but (Name of Grade 6/7 teacher BO) would also like to be involved as she is also finding Annie very inflexible.”

 

Grade 7 teacher NT seems to have had no problem with me, so GR excluded her from the meeting that she was secretly planning.

 

"... but (Name of Grade 6/7 teacher BO) would also like to be involved as she is also finding Annie very inflexible.”

Grade 6/7 teacher BO was BOJ and BOS's teacher.

BOJ had been sent to the office on Monday for being rude to me, disrupting three classes and refusing to follow instructions.

 

On Friday 27 October 2000 acting deputy principal Miss AL had come into the Grade 6/7 BO class and told them that she was tired of all the complaints that she was getting about them from other specialists and casual teachers.

So Miss AL, at least, knew that this class were poorly behaved for everybody.

And I had each of the Grade 7 classes three times a week.

The other specialists only had them once a week.

 

Friday 10 November 2000

My concern about the roaming groups of Grade 7 children had been put at the top of the agenda for the staff meting.

But acting principal Mrs GR spoke before me.

She announced to the staff that "there is a person on the staff who is humiliating children".

Mrs GR talked at length about this "person".

Her talk had not been on the agenda.

 

2469 File F The District Office document 5

  • This document was not included in the 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents.

 

This document is a true record of what I said at the Staff Meeting on 10 November 2000.

I have included it here because Mrs GR "beat up" what I said in her own notes.

Acting principal Mrs GR had advised me to speak to the staff about the numbers of children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms when I arrived to teach Indonesian.

The Grade 7 teachers did not attend the staff meeting.

I was very worried that this would give Mrs GR an opportunity to "beat up" what I had said and cause problems for me with the Grade 7 teachers, so I gave each of the Grade 7 teachers a copy of these notes.

This is pretty exactly what I said.

Several staff told me afterwards that I had spoken very well.

 

"I would like to talk about an issue of professional ethics or plain good manners, really.

I’d like to talk about four possible model for a classroom teacher to bring about a significant change in the way that the LOTE program operates.

 

Model 1.

You discuss your ideas with me and we agree on a change.

 

Model 2.

You tell me that you have decided to make a change.

 

Model 3

You meet me at the door as the lesson starts and tell me about the change that you are making.

A group of children might have already have gone somewhere else, be packed up and ready to go, or be in the middle of doing something else.

You ask me if this is O.K.

I can only agree.

To refuse would cause great ill-will.

 

Model 4

You tell me nothing.

You are missing from the room when the lesson starts.

A group of two, three or four children are also missing from the room.

The other children tell me that they are in the library or on computers in other rooms.

They say their teacher has told them to do this.

I have no way of knowing if this is true or not.

The next lesson a different group are missing.

 

Model 1 is the model that I prefer.

I would like to look at alternatives to continual disruption to LOTE.

In the case of Grade 7, I would be very interested in looking at integrating LOTE into the Rich Tasks activities next year.

At the moment there is friction between the unstructured nature of the Rich Task activities and the more formal LOTE lessons.

The children cannot wander in and out of the room “doing their own thing” in a 30 minute LOTE lesson.

I hope I am a reasonable person.

I understand emergencies, special events, one-off situations, etc.

This is the first time that I have objected to something in this way.

This time I felt that the disruption to LOTE had become too great.

 

Think about last year.

Throughout the year I heard many, many complaints about the disruptions to the LOTE program.

For this reason and that the Grade 7 children missed many lessons and the teachers complained bitterly.

This year they wanted a full-time LOTE teacher so that you could offer a more regular, consistent LOTE program.

And that is what I am asking for now."

 

Immediately after I had finished speaking, acting principal Mrs GR said that she had already had a meeting with the Grade 7 teachers and they were going to continue to withdraw groups of children from the LOTE lessons.

I was startled.

Mrs GR did not seem to have listened to what I had just said.

I had just been asking to be included in decision-making about disruptions to Indonesian lessons.

Mrs GR clearly had not been listening to what I was saying.

Mrs GR never seemed to listen.

I said, “But we need to discuss that, don’t we?” and Mrs GR said that we could meet to discuss it the next Monday afternoon.

Mrs GR said that we could meet to discuss it the next Monday afternoon.

I knew Mrs GR well enough by then to know that she probably did not want the Grade 7 teachers at the staff meeting because she wanted to "go-between" and "beat my comments up" to the Grade 7 teachers, so I prepared a print-out of exactly what I had said to the staff and gave a copy to each of the Grade 7 teachers.

 

Several teachers told me that I had spoken very well.

And it was quite funny that Mrs GR had so obviously not listened to what I was saying.

 

Presumably later on Friday 10 November 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State school document 39 and 40 - numbers at top right hand corner of document.

  • This "record" of acting principal Mrs GR's first version of "Why I told the staff that there was 'a person' who was humiliating children" does not appear in the 2469 F Cairns and Cape District Office file.

 

These notes were never mentioned to me or shown to me during any meeting.

I first knew that the notes existed when they were described to me in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland FOI officer.

Stephannie refused to allow me to have a copy of these notes because she said that-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

But these "notes" were not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance investigation process.

 

This document was first released to me after 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.

But he had "blacked out" the names of all of the teachers.

I believe that this should not have been done under the FOI rules.

So this document made little sense to me till I was provided with a better copy on 27 October 2005, one month before the Verifact investigation began.

 

The unsigned notes are headed-

 "8:30 Fri 10/11 Staff Meeting"

This is acting principal Mrs GR’s first version of why she had announced to the staff at the November 10 2000 Staff Meeting that there was “a person” on the staff who was humiliating children.

Actually Mrs GR had told at least one teacher - and probably all of the Grade 7 teachers - that I was “the person” that she was telling the staff about.”

 

In this first version Mrs GR claims that-

 

8:30 Fri 10/11 Staff Meeting.

 

“Following complaints that Annie had been (again) humiliating students (Name of Grade 7 teacher LR, …”

 

I had asked acting principal Mrs GR the previous week for her support in dealing with the groups of Grade 7 children who were missing from their classrooms when I arrived to teach Indonesian.

During the next week I had spoken to Grade 7 teacher LR three times about roaming groups of her children who had disrupted my lessons with three other classes.

I also showed her my records of the number of children who were missing from the classroom when I arrived to teach Indonesian.

Notice that Mrs GR edits out of her falsified "record" my own request to her the previous week that she support me in dealing with the problem of the groups of children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms when I went to teach them Indonesian.

And she edits out of the "record" her advice to me that I speak about the problem at a staff meeting.

And she edits out of her "record" the fact that she put the issue on the white-board agenda for the meeting.

And that she moved it to the top of the agenda.

And that she made sure that the Grade 7 teachers were not at the staff meeting.

 

Acting principal GR spoke to the staff before me.

She announced that there was "a person" on the staff who was humiliating students.

She spoke about this "person" at length.

I had no idea at all that she was talking to the staff about me.

Another teacher told me the next day that I was "the person" that acting principal Mrs GR had been talking about.

 

This seems to have been GR's "begin every meeting with a red herring" strategy.

 

This is a significantly falsified "record".

 

In this document Mrs GR claimed that she made the announcement to the staff because of allegations made concerning me in- 

"notes to Leigh from Desley".

 

These "notes to Leigh from Desley" were never shown to me or discussed with me.

Now they seem to have vanished.

To this date I have not been allowed to know these allegations against me.

I have never been allowed Natural Justice.

 

But the allegations made in the "notes to Leigh from Desley" must have been very serious because Mrs GR goes on to state that-

"I further said that as far as I was concerned, humiliating students was a disciplinary offence by teachers."

 

Only 14 Queensland teachers were put on DWP in 2001.

So the allegations made in the "notes to Leigh from Desley" must have been very, very serious indeed.

 

"I further said that as far as I was concerned, humiliating students was a disciplinary offence by teachers."

If Mrs GR really did make this statement, I would not have realised that-

  • I was "the person"-

because I had not humiliated any child.

Mrs GR had either misunderstood or maliciously "beaten up" the situation. 

 

nor would I have realised that-

  • "the person" was being threatened with the DWP-

because I knew nothing about the DWP.

And it would have been beyond my imagination to believe that a teacher working in a civilised country could be punished for trying to deal with the unsupervised groups of children roaming about the school.

 

Notice that acting principal Mrs GR was humiliating me in front of the staff - she may actually have been defaming me - at this meeting.

So she should, by her own reasoning, put herself on DWP.

But acting principal Mrs GR never seemed to apply her professed “fundamental beliefs” to her own behaviour.

 

This is the sort of behaviour that suggested to me that Mrs GR might have some sort of mental health problem.

 

I have spoken to Desley -------, a teacher working at my school at that time.

Desley's comments to me suggest that these "notes to Leigh from Desley" may actually have concerned the behaviour of a scripture teacher, a casual teacher or an incident that took place in 2003.

Desley was never in or near the Grade 7 classes when I was teaching Indonesian during 2000.

 

Acting principal Mrs GR seems to have realised during the week that I was on sick leave that she had made a mistake concerning the allegations in the-

"notes to Leigh from Desley"  

-and that her impusive and unprofessional behaviour at the staff meeting on Friday 10 November 2000 had made me ill.

 

Acting principal Mrs GR does not seem to have wanted to attend a meeting with the Behaviour Management Committee, or to attend a mediated meeting, because she did not seem to want to admit that she had made a mistake and to apologise to me for her behaviour.

 

Mrs GR may also have been apprehensive that I might make a WorkCover claim because her impulsive and unprofessional behaviour had made me ill.

 

So acting principal Mrs GR seems to have abused her powers to fabricate backdated new "concerns" about me -

  • partly to "pay me back",

  • partly as a distration from the meetings that I had requested,

  • and partly to prevent me from claiming WorkCover.

 

On 10 April 2006 I described my conversation with Desley -------- in detail in a letter to Tom Barton, Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations.

I asked Tom Barton to pass my letter to the Minister of Education for his attention because the Minister would not respond to my letters.

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 57

2469 File F The District Office document 50.

 

I first realised that this document existed when it was described in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, A/FOI Co-ordinator, Education Queensland.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

 

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance Investigation process.

 

I first saw a copy of this document when it was first released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.

This version of “Why I Did it” needs to be compared with the "story" told in 2421 F 39-40.

This document 2421 File F document  57 is Mrs GR’s Second version of why she had announced to the staff that there was "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

The reasons given in this second version of "why I did it" are quite different.

 

In this version, Mrs GR claims that she made her announcements about “the person” who was humiliating children to the staff because of-

 

a) the wording of the "yellow slip".

 

b) "Student BOS’s insistence that "although she knew she was misbehaving, she was doing so because she was very angry about the way (my name) treated her".

 

Student BOS had disrupted three separate classes.

BOS had been really enjoying herself.

BOS had been disrupting my classes and the classes of other specialist teachers for months.

 

c) "Grade 7 teacher Mrs LR’s comments (unsolicited)"

 

"unsolicited" but, I would presume, based on Mrs GR’s own "beaten up" version of events.

Grade 7 teacher Mrs LR did not discuss the situation with me.

But in November 2001 Mrs LR said to the staff (I understand) "Oh, Mrs GR took that right out of context", by which I presume she meant that Mrs GR had beaten the situation up.

 

“about student BOS being taken to her class and publicly disciplined in front of them.”

 

This was the School Behaviour Management Program.

Student BOS was simply told to sit on the carpet and watch the children practise a play.

BOS called out "show off" to the children who were acting.

She disrupted the lesson.

BOS was instructed to turn around and face away from the actors.

BOS refused three times.

The wording of this version of "why I did it" is very similar to the wording Mrs GR used in 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 39-40.

But Mrs GR has now entirely changed her “reasons”.

 

The fact that Mrs GR made two quite different versions of this "why I did it" note suggests to me that Mrs GR may have prepared multiple versions of other "why I did it" documents.

 

Also after the staff meeeting on Friday 10 November, 2000-

 

2469 File F The District Office document 49

  • There was no copy of this document in the 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents.

 

This seems to be a true copy of a hand-written note from me to acting principal Mrs GR.

It would have been written on 10 November 2000, after the staff meeting at which I had asked Mrs GR if we could discuss the numbers of Grade 7 children who were missing from the Grade 7 Classrooms when I arrived to take Indonesian, and Mrs GR had suggested that we meet the next Monday afternoon.

 

At this stage I had not been warned that “the person” that Mrs GR had been telling the staff about at the staff meeting was me.

 

"(First name of Mrs GR),

Can we make it - the meeting - Tuesday before school?

I have the two advisors from Brisbane in town next week & the meeting I have organised is on Tues after school.

I would prefer to get organised for that meeting and be available if they need me.

Thanks,

(my name)"

 

I had been in contact with two LOTE advisory teachers by email for several weeks, helping them to organise an inservice for LOTE teachers in my local area.

 

Mrs GR wrote a message to me on the top of this note:

"(My name)  - This suits me fine. Can you liaise with (first name of Grade 7 teacher Mrs LR) and ( first name of Grade 6/7 teacher Miss BO) to see if they are also available.

Thanks

GR.”

 

I was never given this note, it was simply placed secretly on my "official record".

If I had received it, I would have wondered why only Grade 7 teacher Mrs LR and first name of Grade 6/7 teacher Miss BO were being involved in the meeting.

Acting principal Mrs GR seems to have been secretly "setting up" a meeting which excluded anybody who agreed with me.

 

And in Anne’s imaginary note to me she asks me to "liaise" - or organise - this "Get Annie" meeting myself!

 

Notice how often Mrs GR writes notes to me - and to other people concerning me - that are not actually sent, they are simply placed on my “official record”.

 

Then, in addition to the note to me that was never given to me, Mrs GR wrote a message to usual principal Mr EL at the right hand side of this document:

 

" * This was re a meeting to discuss concerns about students being out of class in 7F and 6/7 OB …"

 

Notice that Mrs GR excludes the Grade 7 NT class.

But groups of children were also missing from the Grade 7 NT class when I went to their room.

I did not know that their teacher was to be excluded from this meeting.

 

" … during LOTE lessons & to come to some sort of consensus.

 

I had asked (my name) to attend on Mon. …"

 

Not exactly true.

I had raised this issue with Mrs GR on 3 November 2000.

She had suggested that I discuss it at a staff meeting.

She put it on the agenda for the Staff Meeting.

But she met with the Grade 7 teachers before the staff meeting and agreed that they would continue to withdraw children from Indonesian lessons.

I spoke at the staff meeting.

The Grade 7 teachers did not attend the meeting.

Mrs GR then said that she had already agreed that they Grade 7 teachers could continue to withdraw children from Indonesian.

I said, "But we need to discuss that, don’t we?"

 

And Mrs GR suggested meeting the next Monday.

 

"(My name) was off sick for the entire week (after the telephone incident) & didn’t follow up."

 

I was off sick because of the shock of being told - and Anne confirming - that I was "the person" that she had been talking to the staff about at the staff meeting.

 

…& didn’t follow up."

  • Notice the way that Mrs GR has "spun" her imaginary message to me, asking me to "liaise" the meeting with Grade 7 teacher Mrs LR Grade 6/7 teacher Miss BO, into a failure, on my part, to "follow up" on a message that I knew nothing about.

 

  • In addition, Mrs GR fails to demonstrate insight into the impact of her seemingly irrational behaviour on other people. When I returned to work, I felt that I was trapped in the school, being held hostage by a mad woman who might turn on me and attack me at any time for any trivial “reason”. I was walking about in a coma for the rest of the term. All I wanted to do was to keep as far away from Mrs GR as possible.

 

Saturday 11 November 2000

It was Saturday afternoon on the day after I had spoken to the staff about the need to involve me in discussions about changes to the Indonesian timetable.

Several people had told me that I had spoken really well, so I had no sense of danger.

I rang a friend who taught at my school.

We chatted generally and them she said that I should be very careful and documents everything because,

 

"She's got it in for you."

 

This was the first moment that I knew that there was anything wrong.

 

I asked my friend what she meant.

She said,

"You know that "person" that she was talking about, the one who's been humiliating children?

That's you!

Apparently you told student BOS to put her nose to the wall!"

 

She told me that Mrs GR had said that she was going to put me on DWP if "it" continued.

 

I was astounded.

 

I kept saying,

"I didn't do it!

It can't be true!"

My friend realised that I was very upset and was reluctant to tell me any more.

She said that Mrs GR had told her that "the person" was me at some sort of meeting.

 

I immediately rang acting principal Mrs GR at home.

Her husband told me that she was at school, so I rang her at school.

I said that I had just had a very disturbing phone call from a friend who had told me that I was 'the person" that Mrs GR had been talking about to the staff.

Was it true?

Mrs GR said that it was.

I said, "And you did it because you believe that I told student BOS to put her nose to the wall?

Mrs GR replied,

"That and other things (that you have done), Annie."

She spoke to me in a very harsh tone of voice.

I asked her if she really believed that I would tell a child to put her nose to the wall.

Mrs GR said,

"Well, you told her to turn to the wall."

I said,

"Thank you for confirming that, Mrs GR," and hung up.

I was very shocked.

 

Student BOS had been sitting in the middle of the classroom, shouting out at the children who were acting at the front of the room

I asked her to turn to face (in the direction of) the back wall so that she would be less able to disturb the actors.

She was sitting on the carpet in the middle of the room.

She was metres away from the wall.

There had never been any question of her “putting her nose to the wall”.

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 47-48

 

This is Mrs GR's falsified record of that phone call.

I first knew that this falsified "record" existed when it was described to me in a letter dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

 

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance investigation process.

I first sighted this document when it was released to me on 27 April 2004 by Mr ME, the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor".

 

" * Said that she had been speaking to another staff member."

 

"Phone call Sat pm

(part of two lines seem to be missing or blank)

... 12 50 am (probably means PM) re

Confirmation* that I had been referring to Annie with comment about humiliating children re asking student BOS to "put her nose against the wall"."

 

"I said

(arrow up to) not her nose against the wall but

( back to main text) that having Shara face the wall.

"Yes, that was one of the things"

"Well, thank you for confirming that"

Phone slammed down."

 

I simply put the phone down. 

Acting principal Mrs GR "beats up" everything.

She can "beat up" something as simple as putting the phone down into a "big issue".

 

Mrs GR demonstrates no insight into my shock at her unprofessional behaviour.

It was this sort of total lack of insight into the effect of her irrational and deeply unprofessional behaviour on other people that suggested to me that Mrs GR could have a mental health problem.

 

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

I had never known any school principal to behave in such an irrational and unprofessional manner towards a teacher.

I presumed that student BOS must have lied to acting principal Mrs GR.

And that Mrs GR had impulsively made her announcement to the staff concerning me without bothering to check the facts.

 

This was not the first time that Mrs GR had behaved in a seemingly irrational, impulsive and aggressive manner towards me.

 

I was very afraid of what Mrs GR might do next.

She seemed to be irrational, impulsive, capable of anything.

I became very ill.

I was continually crying.

I felt "jittery" and unable to think clearly.

I was afraid that I might really do something wrong if I went to work, because I could not think properly.

My heart was thumping and banging.

I had pains on both sides of my heart.

I had a loud roaring sound in my right ear (tinnitus).

I was on sick leave for the next week.

 

2469 File F  The District Office documents 47- 48.

 

I first saw this second version of Mrs GR's falsified "record" when it was released to me after July 12 2004.

Acting principal Mrs GR had hand-written the date "Sat 11/11" at the top of the District Office document, 2469 File F document 48.

And she had hand-written a message to usual principal Mr EL at the bottom of the second document, 2469 File F document 47:

 

"Annie played a tape recorded message to me on the phone the following Monday saying she was sick.

She was on sick leave for the week 13/11-19/11."

 

Monday 13 November 2000

The local QTU officer was not available, I rang Lesley McFarlane at the Queensland Teachers' Union (QTU) office in Brisbane.

I told her that I had been worried about the school Behaviour Management Program for a long time because when teachers followed the program and filled in "Yellow Slips" (after giving students three warnings for poor behaviour) and then sent the children to the acting principal or the acting deputy, they were being being allowed to complain about the teacher.

And the children's complaints / lies were simply being accepted as fact.

So teachers who followed the school Behaviour Management Program were being defamed, and the children were "getting away with" poor behaviour.

I told Lesley McFarlane that I had tried repeatedly to discuss this problem with the acting principal and the acting deputy, with no success.

Lesley McFarlane suggested that I write a memo to the Behaviour Management Committee at the school and ask them to convene a meeting of the Committee at which I could discuss my concerns about the Behaviour Management Program at the school.

 

I also discussed with Lesley McFarlane my concern that acting principal Mrs GR might be collecting defamatory statements concerning me from the children.

That Mrs GR might, in fact, be encouraging the children to make such statements.

Lesley McFarlane told me that a file of this type on me should not exist.

 

Probably that week, while I was on sick leave:

2469 File F The District Office Document 53.

  • This document did not appear in the 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents.

 

I first saw this document after the 2469 documents were released to me on 12 July 2004.

This document was never discussed with me, so I have no idea why it was placed on my "official record".

Presumably there is something in these scribbles that Mrs GR was "spinning" into an allegation against me.

 

This document seems to have been written in a variety of styles at a variety of times.

At the top of the page, in what seems to be Mrs GR’s writing, is -

 

"Week of 10/11"

 

This was the week before the staff meeting at which Mrs GR announced to the staff that there was “a person” on the staff who was humiliating children.

But this seems to me to most probably be a note written by Grade 7 teacher NT to a casual teacher who was taking my LOTE lesson while I was on sick leave.

The teacher probably had to be given some other sort of work to do, if they were not able to speak Indonesian.

 

"Jelly-Babies are for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Cleaned up mess left in Art Room

(My first name spelt incorrectly)  (written on left)

 

2:00 - LOTE

 

Bu - (My name) 

 

BOOKS (written on right)

 

Ex.5

* In English BK

4 Rule Page in 1/4’s

- LOTE RULES -

* NO COMPUTERS

 

during LOTE

 

Some children - XXXXXXXX

* LATE for lessons

* NO DRINKS ; NO TOILET

 

Is Mrs GR trying to "beat up" an allegation that I did not allow Grade 7 NT children to have drinks or go to the toilet during LOTE lessons?

If so, this allegation is not correct.

 

This is circled and an arrow leads to the left.

Nothing is there.

Because Mrs GR often uses arrows when she re-falsifies documents, I would presume that GR added a falsified message to MR EL here, and that the message has later been concealed or rubbed out.

 

"XXXXXXXX to Write a Letter

I never received any letter from any child in relation to this incident.

 

Re

Hat incident hit (arrow to) TODE a hat & hit LOTE teacher as he took it.

Disruptive behaviour in Lote Lesson.”

 

This seems to be a reference to my talk with Grade 7 teacher NT during the week before the staff meeting on 10 November 2000.

Our discussion concerned the behaviour of the disruptive boy whose father is mentioned in what seems to be a totally falsified "record" of a phone conversation at the bottom of 2469 File F The District Office document 20.

I spoke to this father in early 2006, and he told me that he never had any such conversation with Mrs GR or any other principal at Lynch-Mob State School.

 

The children had been lining up to go into the classroom.

This boy had been forcing his hat onto the heads of a group of about five girls.

They protested.

I told him to stop.

He forced his hat onto my head.

This boy was continually “joking around” but he always seemed to me to be a “joker” rather than a malicious child.

I described the incident to Grade 7 teacher NT and asked her to speak to her class about nits and the importance of not sharing hats, combs, etc.

I would guess that this note was written by Grade 7 teacher NT, possibly to the teacher who took her class during LOTE while I was on sick leave.

Shortly after I returned from sick leave NT was sitting near me at a table in the in the staffroom.

She loudly remarked that all of her class were liars and the boy involved in the hat incident was a particular liar.

So it is possible that he told a casual teacher some sort of joke / lie about me.

 

  • This note demonstrates the disgraceful, unprofessional standard of Education Queensland "record" keeping, and the way in which this disgraceful standard of "record" keeping facilitates workplace abuse.

 

  • Clearly some sort of allegation is being "spun" against me with this note, but the note itself is of such a poor standard that it is impossible for me to understand the allegation and to respond. I have been denied Natural Justice.

 

  • And, because the meaning of the note is not clear, the note can be "spun" to imply almost anything. If I manage to figure out the allegation that is being suggested with this note, the allegation that is being "spun" can easily be changed.

 

Monday 20 November 2000

This was the day that I returned from sick leave after the shock of being told that "the person" that acting principal Mrs GR had been talking about to the staff was me.

As soon as I arrived at school I asked K--, the school QTU rep if she was willing to attend a mediated meeting with acting principal Mrs GR, to discuss the problems between us.

I had been advised by the QTU, two advisory specialist teachers and the staff welfare officer to ask for this meeting.

K-- offered to organise the meeting herself.

 

Then I put a letter to the School Behaviour Management Committee in acting principal Mrs GR's "in-tray".

I also put a copy of the document on acting deputy principal Miss AL's desk.

I also put a copy in the lockers of two other teachers who, I had been advised, were on a "sort of" School Behaviour Management Committee.

 

2469 File F The District Office Documents 45-46

This is a full copy of my note to the School Behaviour Management Committee.

 

Acting principal Mrs GR seems to have written “Circulated 19/11” at the top of document 46.

So Mrs GR seems to have given this full copy of the document to usual principal Mr EL.

 

  • This document demonstrates that Mrs GR knew, by 20 November 2000, that I had not asked a child to "put their nose against a wall".

 

I did not "circulate" the document.

I gave a copy to acting principal Mrs GR, acting deputy principal AL and to the two other teachers that, I had been told, were on a "sort of" School Behaviour Management Committee.

The date on the document should be Monday 20 November 2000, the morning that I returned from sick leave after the shock of Mrs GR’s behaviour during the staff meeting on 10 November 2000.

I requested a meeting of the School Behaviour Management Committee to discuss my concerns about the implementation of Behaviour Management at the school.

I had been advised to ask for this meeting by Lesley McFarlane, a Queensland Teachers' Union (QTU) organiser in the Brisbane office.

 

"I have become aware that when children are actually spoken to by the administration about their behaviour it is possible for them to make untrue statements to excuse their behaviour.

These statements are not discussed with the teacher concerned. …"

"… In my opinion this process rewards children for misbehaving.

They have all the fun of talking their way out of the consequences of misbehaviour. …"

"… non-critical listening passively supports poor behaviour.

Children need to be questioned, facts need to be found out and the values of truth and honesty need to be upheld."

 

I spoke about the staff meeting.

 

"This child was sitting cross-legged in the middle of the carpet.

She had been told to turn away from the class towards the wall because she was totally disrupting the class laughing, joking and calling out “Show off!” when other children were acting in a play. …

 

At no time was this child close to the wall.

There was never any suggestion that she should put her face or her nose close to the wall."

 

2421 File C The District Office document 35 is the first page of this letter to the School Behaviour management committee.

This version of document is falsified in the sense that only the first page of my letter to the School Behaviour Management Committee has been recorded.

 

The missing page reads -

"The situation was not discussed with me.

I could have clarified the situation in a moment.

Instead an announcement was made to the staff and a rumor was started.

In my opinion the manner in which "yellow slips" are processed teaches children to manipulate the truth in order to mislead the administration and to avoid the proper consequences of their behaviour.

They learn that telling lies is a fun activity and very smart."

 

I had followed the School Behaviour Management Program and sent children to the office for poor behaviour, and then watched the children walking proudly back to their class again, calling out to their friends, "Nothing much!" and laughing.

 

"I believe that children who lie their way out of the consequences of disruptive behaviour are regarded by their peers as heroes and role models.

I believe that the system teaches them that they can tell lies with impunity because the teachers have no way of finding out.

In my opinion this situation has serious long term implications for both individual teachers and for the Education Department."

 

The Staff Welfare officer had advised me to make this point.

 

"I am fortunate that I have found out about this particular misunderstanding at a time when it will be reasonably easy to demonstrate that I am telling the truth.

It would have been a great deal harder in five years' time.

The children would hear the story repeated and would very soon agree that it was true.

Even twelve-year-old children rapidly believe in the truth of a lie, once it has been told by one of their friends.

The teachers would have heard the rumour and would suppose it to be true.

The principal would believe it to be true.

Who would believe that it had never actually happened?

 

Further Points -

1. I am not alone in my concerns about the behaviour of this child.

Other specialists have asked for support in the management of the behaviour of the Grade 7 classes, and this child in particular.

One other specialist described at the last meeting how she felt, after taking the Grade 7 classes, like going home, getting into bed and pulling the covers over her head.

 

2. The "Buddy System" in which a teacher sends children who repeatedly misbehave to another class, does not work very well for the LOTE (specialist) teacher.

By the time that you have been through the process of giving three warnings, the thirty minutes that you have for the LOTE lesson are almost over and the class has been really disrupted.

There seems to be little point in sending a child to another teacher for five minutes.

The "Buddy Teacher" is often on non-contact time.

You cannot be sure that the child will go where he / she has been told to go.

At the end of the lesson you have to go and collect the child and return them to their class.

This takes time."

 

And there was no time between lessons because the next teacher was waiting for you to arrive at his or her classroom.

 

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document  58

  • This falsified "record" is not in the 2469 File F The District Office file.

  • Several of the falsified 2421 documents that I complained about seem to have "vanished" from the "official records" by 12 July 2004, when the 2469 The District Office file was released to me.

 

I first knew that this document existed when it was described in a letter to me dated 23 March 20004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

 

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance Investigation process.

 

I first sighted this document when it was released to me after 27 April 2004 by Mr ME, the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor".

 

On 19 May 2004 at 3:14 I emailed Keith Hynes keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

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

I attached my six-page response to  2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 7.

 

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

N.B. document 2421 F 58 is another document that has been entirely falsified.

It appears to be a confidential note to me but I was never shown this document and it was never discussed with me. ... "

 

This document is a totally falsified "record" of either-

  • a note "to me" that was never given to me
  • or an imaginary conversation with me.

 

It is not dated or signed.

It seems to be a response to my note to the Lynch-Mob State School Behaviour Management Committee (2469 File F documents 45-46).

On Monday 20 November 2000, the day that I returned to work after taking sick leave because of the shock of Mrs GR's behaviour, I had given a copy of my note to the Behaviour Management Committee to acting deputy principal Miss AL, acting principal Mrs GR and two teachers who were, I was told, on a "sort of" School Behaviour Management Committee.

 

Note Mrs GR’s statement that-

 

"Xit may interest you to know that at no stage did I talk about you to others …"

 

This statement contradicts Mrs GR's claims in earlier "records" that she had already gossiped about me with-

  • Acting deputy principal AL on 5 October 2000, etc. (see 2421 File F doc 9, etc.)

  • The Beach State School principal Mrs LW on about 5 October 2000 (see 2421 File F doc 9)

  • District Office Employeee Mrs GY on 9 October 2000 (see 2421 File F doc 9)

etc.

So not only are my "official records" being falsified, they are being fasified badly, by somebody who is continually changing their "story"!

 

“… except where direct complaints (by two teachers) about your discipline strategies were made”

 

All of the Grade 5 and 6 teachers had seen me teach for periods of up to two years.

They all supported me.

I had taught the Grade 7 children when they were in Grade 6.

They had loved Indonesian.

It was because the Grade 5 and 6 classes had loved Indonesian so much in 1999 that Richard had repeatedly asked me to teach the Grade 7 classes in 2000.

The behaviour problems had only developed when the children moved into Grade 7.

 

“ … I consciously avoided talking to you as an individual. … I was hoping that this would serve as a more gentle way to address that problem than to start looking at more formal processes, which I believe to be the next step if changes are not made to the way in which you deal with students.”

 

This imaginary note to me / record of meeting with me seems to have been falsified to create the impression that Mrs GR had followed some sort of formal process, and given me warning that she was thinking of putting me into a punishment process.

 

Note the change of tone from "gentleness" to threats in one sentence.

Mrs GR always communicated in this threatening manner when she spoke to me.

If Mrs GR had spoken to the Grade 7 students in the way that she spoke to me, we might have had fewer Grade 7 behaviour problems to deal with.

 

"Xin addressing the meeting I did not refer to "a" teacher, but rather to …"

 

This is not correct.

Mrs GR told the staff that there was “a person” on the staff who was humiliating children.

That was why I asked  usual principal Mr EL to speak to the seven teachers who had met with Mrs GR and told her that she was making a mistake.

These seven teachers could have confirmed to usual principal Mr EL exactly what acting principal Mrs GR had said at the staff meeting.

 

That, I presume, is why usual principal Mr EL refused to speak to them.

And that, I presume, is also why this totally falsified "record" was concealed from me.

 

 

On the morning of 20 November 2000 I also gave acting principal Mrs GR and (probably) acting deputy principal Miss AL a copy of the comments of the Language Other Than English consultants:

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 44

2469 File F The District Office document 44.

 

While I was on sick leave I had sought advice from two LOTE advisory teachers on how to deal with acting principal Mrs GR's seemingly irrational and unprofessional behaviour.

The 2421 version of this document is a true copy of my document.

At the top right hand side you can see that I had written "Mrs GR", so this is a copy of the document that I gave to acting principal Mrs GR on the morning of 20 November 2000.

 

At the top of the 2469 version of this document Mrs GR has written a message for usual principal Mr EL-

 

“Circulated 19/11.”

 

Then Mrs GR has crossed out “Circulated”.

The date is also incorrect.

19/11 was a Sunday, the Sunday before I returned from sick leave.

 

 

Note the points that I made in this document:

 

  • "We are liable if the children are unsupervised.

 

  • … class teachers cannot give children permission to go somewhere else in LOTE unless it has been clearly agreed with me beforehand.

 

  • No child should be out of the room without my permission.

 

  • I have a duty of care.

 

  • I must know where the children are.

 

  • Some teacher must be responsible for them at all times.

 

  • LOTE classes must not be disrupted with groups of children going off here and there to do other things.

 

  • … Children should not interrupt LOTE lessons for trivial reasons.

 

  • Again, some teacher must know where these wandering children are and be responsible for them.

 

  • Five minutes before LOTE starts children involved in free-ranging activities should be brought together.

 

  • They should sit down, arms folded, ready for LOTE."

 

21 November 2000

2421 File F Lynch Mob State School document 2 

By 27 October 2005 the 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 2 version of this letter had vanished from the “official records”.

 

As soon as I arrived at school I went to see the QTU rep.

She told me that Mrs GR would probably be free on Thursday afternoon for the meeting.

She said that Mrs GR was not entirely sure if she would be available because she had bus duty.

Mrs GR was going to confirm when she would be available.

But at 1:30PM I found this letter to me from GR in my locker.

 

It seemed like a crazy letter.

It was back-dated to the day before.

Mrs GR seemed to be pretending that she was the person who was organising the meeting.

I showed the letter to the school QTU rep.

She suggested contacting the local QTU organiser.

I emailed the staff welfare officer and asked her to help.

At this stage I knew nothing at all about the DWP.

I realised after the meeting that the staff welfare officer and the QTU rep both knew that I was at great risk of being put in the DWP process, but I still thought that it was a communication problem.

I phoned the QTU organiser and he offered to help, but I told him that I had asked the staff welfare officer to mediate the meeting, because she knew the background to the situation.

 

2469 F The District Office document 39

 

I first saw the 2469 version of this letter after 12 July, 2004.

Mrs GR had hand-written a message to usual principal EL on the right-hand-side of the 2469 F 39 version of the document.

 

"On 19/11 (should be 20/11) K-- (the school QTU rep) requested a mediation meeting."

"I said that I did intend to meet with (me) , and that this meeting was somewhat sensitive - + that I was awaiting advice on the matter (from District Office employee GN)."

 

Acting principal Mrs GR claims in this falsified “record” that she was already “seeking advice from” - or grooming - District Office Employee GN before the school QTU organiser asked her for a mediated meeting on 20 November 2000.

This is a slightly different “story” to the one that Mrs GR told me for the first time at the meeting with usual principal Mr EL on 5 February 2001.

On 5 February 2001 Mrs GR and usual principal Mr EL told me at the start of the meeting that Mrs GR’s letter of 20 November 2000 had been FAXED to District Office Employee GN for her advice BEFORE the school QTU rep had asked Mrs GR to attend a mediated meeting with me.

 

This is an example of Mrs GR’s abusive strategy of opening meetings with a "red herring".

 

At the time this stunned me, because, if this new claim was true, it meant that I could not complain that Mrs GR had refused my request for a mediated meeting.

But over the next few months I realised that this new "story" could not be true because the incidents described in the letter had happened during 20 November-

  • I had put the request to meet with the school Behaviour Management Committee in Mrs GR’s mail tray on the morning of 20 November, directly after asking the school QTU rep to organise a mediated meeting.

 

  • Mrs GR had come into the staff room and sat next to me during the first break - after 11:00 AM.

 

  • When I spoke to K-- (the school QTU rep) on the morning of 21 November 2000, she had told me that when she asked Mrs GR to meet me for a mediated meeting, Mrs GR had not been sure if she would be free on Thursday afternoon because she had bus duty. But, by the time that she wrote this letter, Mrs GR knew that she would be able to meet me on Thursday at 3:30 PM. So this letter was written AFTER Mrs GR had spoken to K---

 

  • And there is also no fax cover dated 20 November 2000 either at Lynch-Mob State School or at the District Office.

 

I would suspect that this hand-written note was written after Mrs GR had had an opportunity to read my December 23 2003 complaint to the CMC, because I had explained why the “fax story” must be untrue in that complaint.

 

So the fax has been edited out of this 2469 version of the “story”.

 

This is why I specifically asked the Verifact investigator to discuss any "new story" that Mrs GR told him with me, because Mrs GR’s "new stories" always sounded so convincing - but when you thought them over, you could usually figure out that they were not true.

 

"Once District Office Employee GN had OK’d letter contents … suggested to K-- that she talk to (me) about asking (name of the local QTU organiser). Spoke to (name of the local QTU organiser) & let him know meeting was about performance issues."

 

Mrs GR demonstrates here how she was able to groom the local QTU organiser into ignoring my request for a mediated meeting.

I had no idea that Mrs GR was manipulating K--, the school QTU rep, to manipulate me to ask the local QTU organiser to "mediate" the meeting.

I had intended to ask the Staff Welfare Officer to mediate the meeting, because it was she who had suggested to me that I ask for a mediated meeting.

If the Staff Welfare Officer had mediated the meeting, it would have been more difficult for Mrs GR to "spin" the meeting into a meeting "for the purpose of putting me on DWP".

But K--- persuaded me to ask the local QTU organiser to mediate the meeting - and unbeknown to me, he was being groomed by Mrs GR to ignore my request for a mediated meeting and to accept Mrs GR's "spinning" of the mediated meeting into one to discuss her sudden concern about my "performance issues".

So, as this note demonstrates, actually there was nobody at the 27 November 2000 meeting who was there to support me - even the QTU rep was being groomed by Mrs GR.

 

2421 File C The District Office document 34

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 2

 

Are true copies of Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR's letter to me.

The letter is dated Monday 20 November 2000.

But it was actually put in my mailbox after morning tea on 21 November 2000.

It is a falsified record of what was "going on".

 

In her letter Mrs GR refuses to meet me for a mediated meeting.

She seems to "pay me back" for asking for this meeting by changing the mediated meeting into one to discuss her sudden concerns about my difficulty with behaviour management.

Mrs GR makes no mention of my request to her on November 3 2000 for support in saying that too many groups of children were being allowed to roam unsupervised about the school during my specialist lessons.

Or of her own suggestion that I discuss the situation with the teachers at a staff meeting.

Or that she put the topic on the agenda for discussion at the November 10 2000 staff meeting.

Or that she later moved it to the top of the agenda.

Or that she met the Grade 7 teachers without me before the staff meeting and agreed to allow groups of children to continue to be taken out of my lessons.

And agreed that the Grade 7 teachers would not attend the staff meeting.

 

And Mrs GR does not mention the long, long speech that she made at the staff meeting about "the person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

Or that at least one other teacher at that staff meeting knew that "the person" she was talking about was me.

Or that the shock of her own seemingly irrational and unprofessional behaviour had made me very, very ill.

I have never been so ill in my life before or since.

I was in no condition to go to work for the next week.

Mrs GR does not mention in her letter to me that I could claim WorkCover for the week that I was ill.

 

Mrs GR does not mention in her letter the fact that, as soon as I arrived back at school from sick leave on Monday 20 November, I had asked the school QTU rep. if she would attend a mediated meeting with G.R.

And that the school QTU rep had offered to go to Mrs GR and make the arrangements for the mediated meeting.

All of this has been edited out of Mrs GR's letter.

 

Mrs GR’s letter to me demonstrates her refusal to allow me to meet the school Behaviour Management Committee.

 

Mrs GR states -

"I understand that you are currently feeling unwell ..."

But Mrs GR does not make clear that it was the shock of her own irrational and unprofessional behaviour that had made me sick.

 

In her letter to me, Mrs GR refuses to allow me to meet the School Behaviour Management Committee.

And Mrs GR makes no mention of my request that the school QTU representative organise a mediated meeting to discuss the breakdown of our professional relationship.

 

And Mrs GR makes no mention of the allegations made against me in the "notes to Leigh from Desley" that she claims, in document 2421 F 40, triggered her attack on me at the staff meeting.

 

In this letter Mrs GR makes three new allegations -

 

'... slamming the phone in my ear ...'

On Saturday 11 November 2000 a fellow teacher warned me that I should be very careful and document everything because "She's got it in for you!".

I asked my friend what she meant.

My friend told me, "You know that person that she was talking about, the one who's been humiliating children? That's you! Apparently you told S---- to put her nose to the wall!"

Apparently Mrs GR had said that she was going to put me on Diminished Workplace performance "if it continued".

I was astounded.

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

I rang Mrs GR at school.

I said that I had just had a very disturbing phone call from a friend who said that I was the person that Mrs GR had been talking to the staff about.

Was it true?

Mrs GR said that it was.

I said, "And you did it because you believe that I told student BOS to put her nose to the wall?"

Mrs GR replied, "That and other things, (my name)". She spoke to me in a very harsh voice.

I asked Mrs GR if she really believed that I would tell a child to put her nose to the wall.

She said, "Well, you told her to turn to the wall".

I said, "Thank you for confirming that, Mrs GR" and hung up.

I was very shocked.

I did not slam the phone in mrs GR's ear.

I spoke courteously and then put the phone down in an entirely normal manner.

But Mrs GR can beat an allegation out of something as simple as putting the phone down.

 

This is an example of Mrs GR's lack of insight into the effect of her own behaviour on other people.

GR had defamed me in front of the staff of my school.

I had never known any school principal behave in such an appallingly unprofessional manner.

I was deeply shocked by GR's seemingly irrational behaviour. I put the phone down because I was so shocked.

 

'... leaving the staff room when I sit near you. ...'

GR and I often sat at a table together and chatted at lunchtimes.

At lunchtime on my first day back at work from sick leave GR walked into the staff room and sat next to me.

I had just had a week off work because of the stress of GR's seemingly irrational and unprofessional behaviour.

I felt like an animal being stalked by a dingo. I didn't want to sit next to GR.

I did not feel safe sitting next to her.

I did not feel safe talking to her.

I felt that GR. was stalking me and wanted to harm me.

I quietly, calmly got up and moved over to the sign-in book and then moved out of the room.

GR has "beaten this up" into an allegation against me.

GR had no insight into the effect of her irrational and unprofessional behaviour on other people.

 

(Similarly, when I left the school, the staff organised a farewell afternoon tea.

They told me that they had to organise it secretly because, if they had put the date and the time of the afternoon tea in the staff sign-in book, GR was so insensitive that she might have come along.

GR did not understand how her irrational behaviour made other people feel.)

 

'... playing tape recorded messages to me ...'

 

This is another example of GR's lack of insight into the effect of her irrational behaviour on other people-

  • Friday 10 November 2000 GR had announced to the staff that there was "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

  • Saturday 11 November 2000 I had been warned by another teacher that I was "the person" that GR had been talking about to the staff.

GR had confirmed that this was true.

  • Sunday 12 November 2000 I cried all day.

By the next morning I was unable to function.

I was feeling very "jittery". I was unable to think clearly, forgetting things and thinking very slowly. I was afraid to go to school in case I really did something wrong.

I knew that I had to ring GR to tell her that I would be away sick.

The only way that I could deal with the situation was to record a message and play it to whoever answered the phone.

And GR beat that up into another allegation against me.

GR's own words demonstrate her inability to understand how her irrational and deeply unprofessional behaviour affected other people.

 

In writing this letter, GR abused her powers to refuse to participate in a mediated meeting.

GR seems to "pay me back" for asking for the mediated meeting by changing the mediated meeting into a meeting to discuss the sudden concerns that she claims to have about my-

"... difficulty with behaviour managment. ..."

GR was supposed to be my supervisor but she had not come into my classroom once during the previous twelve months.

GR's sudden "concerns" seem to be a fabrication, invented to avoid discussing the problems caused by her own irrational behaviour at the staff meeting on 10 November 2000.

 

On the evening of 21 November 2000 I wrote a response to acting principal GR's letter.

The Staff Welfare Officer had suggested quite a lot of the wording of the letter during our meeting.

" 21 November 2000

GR

Acting Principal

(The) State School.

 

Dear GR

Thank you for the letter that I received this afternoon and for your willingness to attend the meeting that I asked (the school QTU Rep) to organise.

You are right in thinking that the breakdown in our relationship after the incident with Mother DA has been affecting my health.

Last week I consulted a union officer who advised me to write to the Behaviour Management Committee outlining my concerns with the processing of the yellow slips.

I also consulted two (Indonesian language) advisory teachers about the situation and they made some comments and suggestions.

I had consulted my doctor about the situation that arose after mother DA's visit. Obviously I consulted her last week as well.

I also consulted (the Staff Welfare officer). She suggested that I ask you to have a formal meeting with me in which we both have the opportunity to raise our concerns. She suggested that we have a mediator and I suggested (the school QTU Rep). She suggested that I give you time to think through your concerns and that you might bring (acting deputy principal AL) with you if you prefer.

My main concerns are firstly the breakdown in my relationship with you. I need to feel that you support me. I need to feel safe talking to you. And secondly I am concerned about the way that (Indonesian) is valued in the school.

On Monday morning I asked (the school QTU Rep)  if she would be willing to attend the meeting. She offered to organise it with you. Today she told me that you would probably be free on Thursday afternoon. Then I found your letter in my mailbox.

As there are some things in this letter that concern me I would like to ask (the local QTU organiser) to be present as a mediator. I believe he will be free on Monday afternoon. I will confirm this and then liaise with you.

I appreciate your willingness to particpate in this process. Hopefully we will come through it with a better relationship and a better (Indonesian) program for the school.

Sincerely,

(my name) "

 

On 23 March 2004 Stephannie Kalas saw this letter at FOI document 2421 F 3-4, 6.

But she denied me access to the 2321 copy of this document.

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

And by 27 October 2005  the 2421 F documents had all been reversed in order and given new numbers.

And this document had vanished from the offical records.

To this date, 26 March 2008, this 2421 F copy of my letter has not been provided to me.

 

When I discused my Stage 1 Grievance with the usual principal Mr EL on 25 January 2001, he read each part of this letter very closely.

He had not read it before agreeing with acting principal Mrs GR to put me on Diminished Workplace Performance.

He said to me, "I expect it will be on a file somewhere".

Which suggested to me that not only had usual principal Mr EL made the decision to put me on DWP without discussing the situation with me, he had not even looked at my file.

This seemed seemed negligent.

 

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 58

This seems to be an entirely imaginary "record" of a note that acting principal Mrs GR believes that she gave to me or a conversation that she believes that she had with me.

It is undated and unsigned but seems to have been written in response to my letter to the Scchool Behaviour Management Committee.

 

On 19 May 2004 at 3:14 PM I emailed Keith Hynes keith.hynes@qed.qld.gov.au

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

"... N.B. document 2421 F 58 is another document that has been entirely falsified.

It appears to be a confidential note to me but I was never shown this document and it was never discussed with me. ..."

For details see:  http://www.badapplebullies.com/freedomofinformation.htm 

 

"Xit may interest you to know that at no stage did I talk about you to others except where direct complaints (by two teachers) about your discipline strategies were made. ... "

This statement contradicts claims made by acting principal Mrs GR in several other documents that she had discussed me with District Office staff, other principals and teachers.

Mrs GR even claimed that she had secretly asked Grade 7 teacher NT to spy on me.

During the mediated meeting on 27 November 2000, I noticed that acting deputy principal Miss AL corrected Mrs GR when she made a similar statement. Miss AL said that one teacher had complained, one had commented.

And the point is, of course, that the Grade 7 teacher who complained, complained-

  •  after I had asked Mrs GR to support me in dealing with the unsupervised groups of Grade 7 children who were roaming about the school during Indonesian lessons,
  • and after I had  shown the Grade 7 teachers the records of the Grade 7 children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms when I went to take them for Indonesian,
  • and after I had spoke three separate times to Grade 7 teacher LR about three separate roaming groups of children from her class who had disturbed my lessons with other classes.
  • and possibly also after Mrs GR had "beaten up" my complaint about the roaming groups of children with them.

 

"XIn addressing the meeting I did not refer to "a" teacher, ... "

This statement was not in accordance with the facts.

I presume that is why this document was hidden from me.

And why Mrs GR did not want to meet the School Behaviour Management Committee, because at least one person on that Committee knew what she had said to the staff.

Mrs GR had told the staff that there was "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

 

I asked for this situation to be investigated.

Mr EL was asked to investigate this situation.

I asked usual principal Mr EL to speak to the staff about this incident.

If Mr EL had any doubt at all about what Mrs GR had said, the teachers could have clarified the issue.

Mr EL told me on 5 February 2000 that he had not spoken to the teachers.

Mrs GR told me that she had told Mr EL that there was no need for him to speak to the teachers.

 

"Three teachers other than yourself also asked if I had been referring to something that they had done."

Three other teachers had asked Mrs GR if they were "the person" that she had been taking to the staff about.

 

I know.

I spoke to two of these teachers.

They told me that they had been distressed by Mrs GR's comments.

They felt that Mrs GR had handled the situation very badly.

They commented to me that Mrs GR should have spoke to "the person" privately.

 

During the mediated meeting on 27 November 2000, I asked Mrs GR and Miss AL if they had put any of these other three teachers who "had humiliated children" on DWP.

They told me that they only wanted to put me on DWP.

 

22 November, 2000

2421 File F document 62 - number at the top right hand corner of the document.

  • This document was not contained in 2469 File F The District Office.

This is a Fax coversheet dated 22/11/00.

I first knew that this Fax coversheet existed when it was described in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

 

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

 

It is true that during the "Grievance Investigation Report meeting" on 5 February 2000, Mrs GR and Mr EL had begun the meeting by claiming that acting principal Mrs GR had told the school Queensland teachers' Union (QTU) rep that she had already faxed a copy of her letter to me dated 20 November 2000 to District Office employee Mrs GN for her advice.

 

This letter can be found at:

2421 File C The District Office document 34 - number at the top right hand side of the page.

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 2 - number at the top right hand side of page.

  • The 2321 File F copy of this letter had vanished from the "official records" by 27 October 2005.

But I later realised that this claim could not be true.

Mrs GR's letter describes events that took place after I had spoken to the school QTU rep and after the school QTU rep had asked Mrs GR to attend a mediated meeting with me.

I responded to this allegation, pointing out that it had to be untrue.

 

Then, on 12 July 2004 the 2469 documents were released to me and I discovered that Mrs GR had secretly changed her "story".

The 2469 version of the story was-

"I was awaiting advice on the matter (from District Office Employee Mrs GN). Once Mrs GN had OK'd letter contents ..."

So the fax had vanished from this second version of "the story".

 

And there is no fax dated 20 November 2000 or earlier.

This is the first fax cover sheet.

It is dated Wednesday 22 November 2000 - two days after I had asked the school QTU to organise a mediated meeting with Mrs GR.

 

This document was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Discrimination solicitor.

This document was first released to me on 27 October 2005, one month before the Verifact Investigation began.

 

There is no marking on this document to prove that it was actually sent.

The district office had no record of this fax cover or of the "discussion" described below.

 

“ Hi District Office Employee Mrs GN,

As discussed, following is a draft letter for your comments.

Hope you’re still keeping ahead of the end of year R U S H .

 

(smiley face) first name of acting principal Mrs GR."

 

So Mrs GR seems to have been gossipping about me with this senior member of the District Office staff and involving her in the decision to put me on DWP from at least 22 November 2000.

This could be seen as a form of grooming.

Because any complaint about the abuse of the DWP would be sent to people who had been part of the decision-making process.

And I had no way of protecting myself against Mrs GR’s gossip.

 

Note the smiley face, which seems to indicate-

 

  • Mrs GR is enjoying gossiping about me with district office staff and being the centre of attention.

 

  • Mrs GR's immaturity / disturbed affect.

 

23 November 2000.

2421 File C The District Office document 31

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 63.

 

This document is a true copy of acting principal Mrs GR's letter to me dated 23 November 2000.

 

But the letter is a falsified "record" of what was "going on" at the school.

In this document GR states -

"I have concerns regarding your performance … it is important that you are aware that the meeting on Monday is to discuss these concerns."

 

This document demonstrates how acting principal GR was abusing her powers.

I had followed the advice that I had been given by the QTU, the staff welfare officer and two specialist advisory teachers.

I had asked for a mediated meeting with GR to discuss her behaviour at the staff meeting on 10 November 2000.

This document demonstrates that GR refused mediation.

GR insisted that the meeting would be about her sudden "concerns".

 

My "official records" also contain two falsified versions of this document:

 

a)

2469 File F The District Office document 36

I first saw this version of GR's 23 November 2000 letter to me after 12 July 2004.

GR seems to have hand-written a note to usual principal EL on the bottom of this letter:

"Confirmed with The Beach State School that they shared similar performance difficulties."

 

This comment was not shown to me or discussed with me before the 29 November 2000 "agreement" by acting principal GR and usual principal EL that-

 "the (DWP) process is warranted".

Or before usual principal EL's "decision" of 5 February 2001 to dismiss my Stage 1 Grievance about the abuse of the DWP process.

 

G.R. had also claimed that she spoke to LW, the principal of The Beach State School on 5 October 2000,

"who appeared to be experiencing very similar problems when constructive suggestions are offered". 

2469 The District Office, File F document 82

 

But in December 2004, The Beach State School principal LW told Anne Lindon, Administrative Review officer, Queensland Information Commissioner, that

"she did not recall having had any conversation with GR about you".

14 December 2004 letter to me from Margaret Newbery, Assistant Information Commissioner.

 

Acting principal GR seems to have been having and "recording" lots of imaginary conversations.

 

b)

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document  61

This is a totally falsified document.

It is headed-

 

"Dear (my name) …"

 

It seems to be an unsigned and undated copy of an imaginary letter to me.

2421 File F 61 seems to be a falsified version of Mrs GR's real letter to me dated 23 November 2000, a true copy of which can be found at 2421 File F document 63.

I have the impression that this note may have been falsified and placed on my "official record" to create the false impression that Mrs GR had been following some sort of official warning process in deciding to put me on DWP.

I first saw this document when it was released to me by Education Queensland Acting FOI Co-ordinator Stephannie Kalas on 23 March 2004.

I immediately reported that this document was falsified.

 

Stephannie's letter arrived on Friday 26 March 2004.

At 11:12 AM I emailed David Turner, Education Queensland FOI officer:

 

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

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

What should I do about falsified documents?

Who should I report this to?"

 

At 11:18 AM I emailed the QTU qtu@qtu.asn.au -

"Hello QTU,

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

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

By this I mean that it was never given to me  (Document )063 (should be 2421 File F 061).

What should I do about this sort of falsified evidence?

Who do I report it to?

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

 

I rang the office of my local member.

 

I rang the QTU and asked for advice.

What could I do about falsified evidence?

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

 

I rang Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland FOI officer to ask the same question.

I was told that Stephannie would ring back on Monday.

 

At 4:21 PM  an unnamed person from EXECLEGL tried to email a letter to me. 

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

 

At 8:47 PM I replied to this email, as requested.

And I was attacked by backdoor subseven trojan horse 211 243 9 138 3586

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

What should I do about falsified documents?

Who should I report this to?

Was - nobody.

 

Nobody in Education Queensland was going to read my letters complaining that a mass of falsified documents had been secretly placed on my Education Queensland record.

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

 

Document 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 61 purports to be an unsigned and undated letter to me.

"I note your letter of 21 November ..."

 

So 2421 File F document 61 purports to be a response to my letter of 21 November 2000, explaining that the Staff Welfare Officer, the Union and two advisory specialist teachers had advised me to ask acting principal Mrs GR for a mediated meeting to discuss the problems between us.

This deeply offensive document seems to have been written in malice and placed secretly on my official record to do me as much professional harm as possible.

 

" ... I suggested to (the school Queensland Teachers' Union Representative) that the involvement of (the local QTU organiser) might be more appropriate. ..."

 

So the involvement of the local QTU organiser in the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000 had been initiated by GR.

I did not realise this at the time.

So, in fact, there had been nobody at that 27 November 2000 meeting who was there to support me.

 

"... We all acknowledge that your curriculum planning is of a very high standard indeed. ..."

 

Acting principal Mrs GR was supposed to be my supervisor but she had neither been in my classroom nor looked at my program for the past twelve months. 

But Mrs GR repeatedly made confident statements of this nature.

 

Acting deputy principal Miss AL had never seen me teach and had never looked at my program.

 

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

I discussed FOI 2421 F 61 -

"This appears to be a falsified document.

It was never shown to me.

It could have been written two weeks ago.

I have been advised that this letter should not be on my file.

I presume that the purpose of including it is to suggest that these were the concerns on GR's mind when she wrote the letter dated 23 November 2000.

It was never given to me. ...

The letter demonstrates Mrs GR's fragile grasp on reality.

Mrs GR's pompous 'opinions' are just bluff - they are based on nothing.

She has not seen me teach all year.

She has not looked at my program all year.

Mrs GR states " ... we all acknowledge that your curriculum planning is of a very high standard indeed."

If Mrs GR or any of the other bullies had known the slightest thing about my curriculum work in 2000, they would have known that it was not good.

I was struggling to teach effectively using the limited resources available to me.

I had been forced by Mrs GR's lack of support to abandon the booklets based on 'realia' collected in Indonesia because of GR's 'beating up' of dramatics when I asked the aides to photocopy them.

But my curriculum work had been really good in 1999.

White Wash State School principal Mr NG knew how good it was.

I used to work on the school computer next to his office, producing the Indonesian workbooks.

I became very involved in making these books and took great joy in them.

The more I enjoyed my work, the more irritated Mr NG appeared.

"We all" must include Mr NG.

He was the only administrator who knew how terrific my curriculum work was.

But when I disclosed to Mr NG that one of the male teachers at White-Wash State School was abusing a child (the child had disclosed to me that he was often being hit) I am pretty confident that the male teacher with a long history of abusing children was not put on DWP."

 

In fact White-Wash State School Mr NG made no written record of my disclosure that this male teacher was regularly hitting one of his students.

 

"This falsified letter supports my claim that I was being victimised because I had disclosed child abuse.

  • I demand all notes made, in whatever form, of the discussions / communications between "we all" that led Mrs GR to make her pronouncements on my work and to conclude that I needed to be punished. ..."

 

On 12 April 2004 I asked for the members of  "We all" to be identified and for the documentary evidence that supported "We all"s professional opinions of my "curriculum planning".

But to this date, 14 November 2008, Education Queensland FOI officers have refused to ask Mrs GR to identify "We all" .

 

When the 2469 File F The District Office documents were released to me on July 12 2004, this totally falsified document was not in the file.

 

  • This document demonstrates the quality of Mrs GR's professional opinions. Her "professional opinions" were little more than malicious gossip.

 

  • The document also demonstrates the quality of the "professional opinions" of the unnamed - and probably imaginary - "We all" who agreed with Mrs GR's "professional" opinion concerning me.

 

  • And the document demonstates the confidence with which Mrs GR made her impoverished "professional" opinion known to others.

 

27 November 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 28-32

2469 File F The District Office documents 27-31.

 

I first realised that this "record" - of the "mediated" meeting with GR that I had requested - existed when it was described in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland FOI officer.

She described the document as:

"Notes of meeting between (name of acting principal GR), (name of acting deputy principal AL), (name of usual principal EL) and (my name) on 27/11/00."

 

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

 

But-

a) this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

and-

b) usual principal Mr EL was not present at the meeting. The QTU organiser was present. 

 

Was this "record" falsified to create the impression that usual principal Mr EL had been at this meeting, and had discussed the situation with me before agreeing with acting principal GR that "the process is warranted"?

Was this document falsified to conceal the fact that Mr EL had not discussed the situation with me - allowed me Natural Justice - before making this agreement?

 

On 12 April 2004, I wrote to Mr ME, the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" who was acting as the Internal Review Officer-

 

"I presume that this is a typo.

I met with Mrs GR, Miss AL and (NAME OF THE LOCAL QTU ORGANISER).

Usual principal Mr EL was not at the meeting."

 

And on 27 April 2004 Mr ME, the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor", released to me a document titled:

 

“Meeting with (my name), (Name of the Local QTU Organiser) , acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL, 27th November, 2000.”

 

These were different names, in a different order.

Acting deputy principal Miss AL seems to have signed - but not dated - the last document, 2421 File F document 28.

I was not aware that Miss AL was making notes at this meeting, although the detail in the notes suggests to me that the meeting was recorded in some way.

 

"37. Acting deputy principal Miss AL recalled that the Complainant was informed by acting principal Mrs GR that she would be placed on a Diminished Work programme the following year ...

Miss AL added that this decision was made by usual principal Mrs GR ..."

Verifact investigator's report : 340/5/1295 document number 1433

 

During the meeting on 27 November 2000 acting deputy principal Miss AL stated to me,

"We have to do it to you, so that you will take it seriously, (my name)".

 

So Miss AL's words during the mediated meeting demonstrate that she felt part of the process of deciding to "do it to me". 

  • Miss AL knew I had sick leave after being abused by student RDA, Mother DA and acting principal Mrs GR on the second day of term. 
  • She had seen me crying on the third day that she was acting deputy principal.
  • She knew I had taken another week of sick leave after Mrs GR's announcement to the staff concerning me on 10 November.
  • She was aware that I had sought advice from the QTU, the staff welfare officer and two advisory specialist teachers about how to deal with Mrs GR's seemingly irrational behaviour.

 

But still acting deputy principal Miss AL wanted to put me on DWP because she considered that I was not "taking it seriously".

 

How Miss AL could possibly believe that I was not taking her threats to my health and my career seriously, I cannot imagine.

 

I had the overwhelming feeling that I was dealing with seriously stupid thinking and reasoning.

 

When the seven Grade 5 and 6 teachers (who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years) told acting deputy principal Miss AL that they did not agree with putting me on DWP and asked for a meeting with Mrs GR, I understand that Miss AL told them that-

"We want to change the way that (my name) is thinking."

 

  • This comment again seems to demonstrate that acting deputy principal Miss AL felt that she was contributing to the decision-making process concerning me.

 

  • And that Miss AL intended to punish me till I was able to convince her that I thought like her.

 

28 November 2000

 

2469 File F The District Office document 26

  • This document does not appear in the 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents.

 

This document is an unsigned, handwritten note on a small piece of paper.

It seems to have been written by acting principal Mrs GR.

The date 28/11 seems to have been written in later.

28 November 2000 was the day after the "mediated" meeting with the local QTU organiser.

And it was the day before Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL told me that Mrs GR and usual principal Mr EL had agreed that I would be on DWP in 2001.

 

“28/11

Specialist teachers

 

BLANK

10 minutes late for lunch

kept in? LOTE?

Copping punishment for whole class.

BLANK throwing rubbers & blu tak a student E NT.

Kids who are willing not getting full opportun.

to learn.

Phone notes from conversation with BLANK (seems to be Mother E NT)”

 

I did not keep any class in at lunchtime during the whole of Term 4 2000.

I was teaching in other people’s classrooms.

They would have been using their rooms at lunchtimes.

It simply didn’t happen.

This complaint was never discussed with me.

Why was this note put secretly on my "official record"?

 

This seems to be a falsified "record" which was created to suggest that acting principal Mrs GR had spoken about me to student E NT because Mother E NT had complained about me.

 

1) The 2421 File F, Lynch-Mob State School State file, contains no "note" of this conversation with Mother E NT.

2) And the 2421 F Lynch-Mob State School document 43 record of the conversation with student E NT has no "Instigated by BLANK" written above it.

3) The 2469 File F The District Office document 22 record of the conversation with student E NT has had "Instigated by BLANK" introduced at the top of the note.

4) But by 27 October 2005, the 2469 F The District Office version of document 22 - with "Instigated by BLANK" introduced at the top - had vanished from the “official record”.

 

And, as student E NT told me that the "record" of his conversation with Mrs GR was imaginary, possibly based on a similar conversation with usual principal Mr EL during Term 3 2000, I presume that this “record” of a conversation with student E NT’s mother was also falsified.

 

Later on 28 November 2008 (in acting principal Mrs GR's imaginary "records")

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State Schoool documents 41-43

 

These "documents" consist of handwritten notes on three small pieces of paper, possibly rectangular sticky-notes. The notes are unsigned. They appear to have been made by School Administrator Mrs GR

The documents purport to record a conversation with a child that I will call student E NT.

Student E NT was a disabled child who used a wheelchair.

I took his class three times a week but student E NT missed many of my lessons because he went to specialist lessons.

After I had introduced the lesson to the whole class I would go to student E NT's special desk and arrange his books and pens, etc. so that he could reach them.

I would also discuss any aspect of the lesson that was not clear to him because of missed lessons, and any aspect of the activity that needed to be adapted because of his special needs.

I liked and respected student E NT.

He was a very intelligent boy and did well in my classes.

I felt that I made a good effort to support him effectively.

I was never aware of any problem between myself and student E NT. 

 

I was very surprised to find what purported to be a record of detrimental comments concerning me made to School Administrator Mrs GR by student E NT and placed secretly on my file.

 

Student E NT will be easily identified by members of my local community.

I regret the need to expose student E NT in this manner.

 

I have been forced into this position by-

  • acting principal Mrs GR's abuse of student E NT as a "puppet" to "speak" words critical of me,

  • and by Mrs GR's  "recording" her seemingly imaginary conversation with student E NT

  • and by her placing her "record" of her seemingly imaginary conversation with student E NT on my official records.

I first knew that Mrs GR's notes existed when they were described in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from by Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

But I knew nothing about this conversation, and this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

 

This document was first released to me after 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.

He had blacked out the names of all of the teachers, children and a father, so it was very hard for me to understand and respond to Mrs GR's note.

 

I knew nothing about this seemingly imaginary conversation, so I was not able to understand this scribbled "note" until after 27 October 2005, when I was provided with better copies - 2733 F documents 21-23 - when a huge number of FOI documents were released to me one month before the Verifact investigation began,

 

2469 File F The District Office documents 20-22.

This is the same document, but acting principal Mrs GR had hand-written messages to usual principal Mr EL on the 2469 File F District Office documents.

 

On Wednesday 15 February 2006 at 1:44 I emailed Rod Welford, the Ombudsman, Ken Smith, EQ Assistant Director R.S., CMC complaints, EQ Employee S.E. and EQ HREOC-trained discrimination solicitor M.E.

I sent them copies of the notes that I had made of my telephone conversations with student E NT, student C NT's father and teacher Desley, the people who seemed to have been named in the imaginary "records" that acting principal Mrs GR had placed secretly on my file.

I had phoned these people myself because the Verifact investigator (employed from late 2005 to mid 2006 by the Department to investigate my complaint) had told me that Education Queensland might not allow him to do interviews during his investigation because it was "too expensive".

And an Education Queensland "Discrimination Solicitor" told me quite aggressively that if I wanted to find evidence of anything I would have to find it myself.

So, on this advice, I threw away my inhibitions and began to phone the people mentioned in the documents that had been secretly placed on my file.

 

On document 2469 F document 22, the first document, Mrs GR had written-

 

“Instigated by BLANK”

 

-and a long arrow to the words below.

This is another example of Mrs GR using an arrow in her hand-written falsified "records".

 

Above-

 

"Discussion with student E NT requested by E NT"

 

"28/11/2000"

If this is a truthful record of this conversation - and it probably is not - this discussion with student E NT took place on the day after the "mediated"
meeting with the QTU organiser, acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal AL on 27 November 2000. 

And the day before I was given a letter from acting principal Mrs GR to advise me that she and usual principal EL (who had been on leave all term and had not discussed the situation with me) had decided to put me on Diminished Workplace Performance (DWP) in 2001.

 

"Student E NT concerned about class misbehaviour when they have specialist teachers."

When I discussed this "record" with E NT on the evening of 11 February 2006, his responses suggested to me that acting principal Mrs GR had adopted the term "specialist teachers" as a euphemism to cover not only the school specialist teachers - the Indonesian language teacher, the music teacher, the P.E. teacher - but also casual teachers, scripture teachers and possibly a teacher who was being re-habilitated because of ill health.

Was this note also placed secretly on each of these other teachers' files?

Why was it secretly placed on my file?

On 11 February 2006, Student E NT told me that he never had any conversation of this nature with school administrator G.R.

 

Student E NT told me that he had discussions with usual principal Mr EL from time to time.

Student E NT did not remember ever having had any meetings with acting principal Mrs GR.

 

"Complained about XXXXXXXX throwing yellow tak and bits of rubber at him before (my lesson)."

Student E NT told me that there could have been one rubber-throwing incident.

A rubber may have been thrown at him once.

It happened in the morning.

He said it could have been in my lesson - or in any other lesson that took place in the mornings.

Student E NT remembered that a male student had thrown the rubber.

 

Student E NT suggested that usual principal Mr EL may have told acting principal Mrs GR about the rubber-throwing incident.

After speaking to speaking to student E NT, I began to realise that usual principal Mr EL - a man I respected and trusted absolutely - may have been far more actively involved in the abuse than I had previously understood.

 

Usual principal Mr EL was on leave in Term 4 2000.

If student E NT is correct, it suggests that the one "rubber-throwing incident" actually took place months earlier, during Term 3 2000.

And that usual principal Mr EL had helped acting principal Mrs GR to falsify this "record".

 

The rubber-throwing incident was not mentioned during the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000, or during any other meeting that I ever attended with acting principal Mrs GR or usual principal Mr EL.

But Mrs GR claims to have had had this imaginary conversation with E NT concerning me the day after the "mediated" meeting - on 28 November 2000, and then to have placed these records of her imaginary conversation secretly on my file.

And the next day, 29 November 2000, Mrs GR wrote a (real, not imaginary) letter to me to advise me that she and Mr EL had decided to place me in a punishment program in 2001.

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 59.

 

"Complained about XXXXXXXX throwing yellow tak and bits of rubber at him before (my lesson)."

If this rubber-throwing incident took place BEFORE my lesson, it did not concern me.

So why was this note placed secretly on my file?

 

"Said behaviour was bad for all specialists and most relief teachers."

If this is a true record, why was this note placed secretly on my file?

Was it placed on the file of all of the "specialist" teachers?

Were these teachers all put on a Diminished Workplace Performance program?

 

"XXXXXXXX chats back & XXXXXXXX occasionally does too.

kids show off - don't do this for Grade 7 teacher NT "because she'll enforce things".

 

N.B. Notice the speech marks around these words.

And notice Mrs GR's claim that this child used the word enforce.

Notice how many times Mrs GR uses the word enforce or reinforce.

And how many times Mrs GR places these words into the mouths of her puppets.

 

"Raymond felt his class must be the worst because (my name) brings in good reports of (the other grade 7 class) and therefore they're the worst behaved."

I know nothing at all about this.

As far as I can recall, it did not happen.

"Students pick who they can get away with things with. (My name) has a low level of control - (names two other specialist teachers) reinforce things."

 

  • If this were a true record, it would be a disgraceful, unprofessional conversation for acting principal Mrs GR to be having with one of my students.

 

  • and for Mrs GR then to record and place secretly on my file.

 

  • it would demonstrate how Mrs GR secretly undermined me with my students.

 

  • and it would demonstrate that acting principal Mrs GR did not have the common sense to understand how unprofessionally she was behaving.

 

  • acting principal Mrs GR and usual principal Mr EL both knew that the two other specialists teachers were as concerned as I was about the behaviour of the Grade 7 classes. The specialists had discussed the problem late in Term 3 2000 with usual principal Mr EL and during Term 4 the three specialist teachers introduced a new recording strategy to try to encourage better behaviour. Mrs GR did not need to be told about the Grade 7 behaviour problems by a child. Mrs GR seems to be using student E NT as a puppet to suggest that the Grade 7 behaviour problems were particular to my own lessons.

 

"Student E NT felt reinforcing the yellow sheet system would work well.

XXXXXXXX gets annoyed at (me) because she says certain things & then forgets."

 

  • Now acting principal GR seems to be using student E NT to suggest something else to my disadvantage - that I have a poor memory.

 

  • Again, if this were a true record, it would be a disgraceful, unprofessional conversation for acting principal Mrs GR to have with one of my students.

 

  • and for Mrs GR then to record and place secretly on my file.

 

  • it would demonstrate how Mrs GR secretly undermined me with my students.

 

  • and that Mrs GR did not have the common sense to understand how unprofessionally she was behaving.

 

"I reinforced the idea that teachers needed to use their yellow sheets."

The "yellow sheets" were supposed to be filled in by teachers when children misbehaved.

Any teacher will sense that it does not "ring true" for a school administrator to have a conversation of this nature - 

"that teachers needed to use their yellow sheets"

- with a child, and then to place the record of the conversation secretly on the teacher's file without discussing the "yellow sheets" with the teacher.

 

Note-

 

“ Said behaviour was bad for all specialists & most relief teachers.”

 

So, once again, on 28 November 2000, the day after the “mediated” meeting with the QTU organiser, acting principal Mrs GR was being told that there was a problem with the behaviour of the Grade 7 NT class.

Actually all of the Grade 7 classes were fairly unpleasant to teach.

 

Also 28 November 2000

2469 File F The District Office documents 23-25

  • This document does not appear in the 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents.

 

"28/11/00

Discussion (phone) with (name of local Queensland Teachers' Union Organiser)."

These are acting principal Mrs GR's "notes" on her phone conversation with the local Queensland Teachers' Union (QTU) Organiser on 28th November 2000, the day after the "mediated" meeting that I had requested with the QTU Organiser.

Mrs GR's "record" of this conversation is entirely different to what the QTU Organiser himself had told me about the meeting, so one of these two people seems to be lying.

Mrs GR makes no mention in her notes of the "lot of" secret allegations against me. Or of the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened". Or of the allegations made in the "notes to Leigh from Desley".

She and the QTU Organiser do not seem to have discussed these purported allegations against me at all.

Which seems odd.

But Mrs GR introduces a new allegation against me -

"My concern (i.e. Mrs GR's concern) re statement allegations she has made against me - particularly claiming on several occasions that I have lied about things."

Because, of course, when I saw the mass of falsified "records" that Mrs GR seems to have been secretly placing on my "official record", I was going to say that Mrs GR's "records" were falsified.

 

At the beginning of this conversation, the DWP seems to be only a possibility -

2 aspects-

  • Possible DWP (my name)

 

But suddenly, in the middle of this conversation, the DWP becomes a certainty.

And still no reason is given for the decision.

And I seem to already know it is a certainty.

And I seem to have already asked to be told about it being "shifted" to 2001.

 

"We discussed the point that Robina had requested that (name of local QTU organiser) should tell her what was happening re the DWP being shifted to next year & overseen by usual principal EL."

 

Mrs GR introduces the new idea that I had asked the local QTU organiser to tell me what was happening re the DWP being "shifted" to 2001.

"We discussed the point that (my name) had requested that (name of local QTU organiser) should tell her what was happening re the DWP being shifted to next year & overseen by usual principal EL."

 

But actually it was the QTU organiser himself who kindly offered to tell me what punishment Mrs GR and her "superiors in the Department" had chosen for me.

 

"We agreed that as her superior I should do this & that she needed to understand that she must take direction from Miss AL and I & couldn't go through (name of the QTU organiser) in the day-to-day course of things."

 

Mrs GR has transformed the QTU Organiser's kindly offer to tell me what punishement Mrs GR and her "superiors in the Department" had chosen for me into a refusal on my part to take direction from Miss AL and herself "in the day-to-day course of things".

And remember that it was Mrs GR herself who had manipulated the QTU organiser into the situation (see her own handwritten notes on 2469 F 39)!

 

Was Mrs GR trying to spin a new "reason" to put me on DWP?

 

  • Notice how useful the QTU Organiser is to abusive administrators. They can use the QTU Organiser as a puppet at meetings, "spinning" his words to create a new allegation against a teacher. And the QTU Organiser is helpless to prevent this abuse, because he cannot support a member who is is dispute with another member.

 

29 November 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State College document 59 - number at top right hand side of page.

2469 File F The District Office, document 19 - number missing from top right hand side of page.

 

Both documents are true copies of Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR's letter to me dated 29 November 2000.

 

But I have the impression that acting principal Mrs GR, acting deputy principal Miss AL and usual principal Mr EL pretended to the Verifact Investigator in 2006 that this letter did not exist.

And also that the meeting with Mrs GR amd Ms AL on that date did not happen.

 

During the meeting with Mrs GR and Miss AL on 29 November 2000 I was given Mrs GR’s letter dated 29 November 2000 and Mrs GR told me that I would be on Diminished Work Performance in 2001.

 

After 12 July 2004 the 2469 File F District Office document 19 copy of this letter was released to me.

The number - at the top right hand corner of this document - is “off the page”.

Part of the 2469 version of the letter has been highlighted-

 

“a 20 day informal supervision period”

 

Presumably usual principal EL underlined these words .

Which seems to demonstrate that Mr EL was fully aware of the existence of this 29 November 2000 letter to me from Mrs GR, advising me that-

  • I would be on DWP in 2001,

 

  • and also of Mrs GR’s statement concerning Mr EL-

"I have already spoken to him about the matter and he is in agreement that the (Diminished Workplace Performance) process is warranted."

This agreement between Mrs GR and Mr EL was, of course, made in breach of the Education Queensland Code of conduct, the Public Service Regulations, Natural Justice and the Education Queensland DWP policy.

 

"38. Acting deputy principal Miss AL advised that to the best of her recollection, the paperwork to commence this program was never completed, ..."

Verifact investigator's report : 340/5/1295 document number 1433

 

This statement is not in accordance with the facts.

Acting deputy principal Miss AL was sitting beside acting principal Mrs GR when Mrs GR handed me the formal letter dated 29 November 2000 in which Mrs GR advised me that I would be on DWP in 2000.

 

"Following our discussion on Monday afternoon regarding the implementation of a Diminished Work Performance Program ... the intitial phase would be better instigated at the commencement of next year. ...

Given that usual principal Mr EL will be returning to the school next year as principal, he will be overseeing the process, beginning with a 20 day informal supervision period.

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

 

When I was handed the letter I said that, as far as I was concerned, I had asked for support and this was just "payback".

Acting deputy principal Miss AL said-

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

Acting deputy principal Miss AL did not seem to grasp that-

 

  • I had the right to respond to any allegations.

 

  • She herself had recorded acting principal Mrs GR's statement that there were "a lot of allegations" and that "she had lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened" but she had not shown me the pieces of paper or told me what the allegations were.

 

  • I could not "admit" what I did not know.

 

I had the overwhelming sense that I was dealing with deeply stupid thinking and reasoning.

All knowledge of this meeting and of this document seems to have been concealed from the Verifact Investigator.

And I have the very strong impression that Education Queensland senior officers have agreed between themselves  "not to know" about this document.

 

2421 File C The District Office document 30 - number at top right hand corner of page.

 

This is a true copy of Mrs GR's letter to me dated 29 November 2000.

But it is a falsified "record" of what was "going on" at Lynch-Mob State School.

 

"... Our meeting on Monday afternoon regarding the implementation of a Diminished Work Performance Program ..."

 

Mrs GR has "spun" the official record of the two mediated meetings that I had requested into a meeting for the purpose of  putting me on a Diminished Work Performance program!

 

"Usual principal Mr EL ... will be overseeing the process, beginning with a 20 day informal supervision period.

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

 

Acting principal Mrs GR makes no mention in this letter of the fact that the usual principal Mr EL - who had been on leave all term - had not discussed the situation with me before reaching his decision.

 

Usual principal Mr EL's decision concerning me seems to have been based entirely on Mrs GR's gossip.

 

And this letter demonstrates that both Mrs GR and Mr EL clearly know so little about the DWP process that they do not realise that their behaviour was in breach of Natural Justice and the DWP process.

 

The letter is also evidence that both Mrs GR nor Mr EL made their decision that the DWP process was warranted before they had discussed the

"notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.) from Desley"

with me (if the notes even existed at that time).

 

And before they had shown me the

"lot of allegations .. and the ... lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened"

and allowed me to respond to these

"lots of pieces of paper".

This was another breach of Natural Justice, the Departmental Code of Conduct and the DWP process.

 

Usual principal Mr EL had often praised my work during 1999 and had often told me that I had "raised the profile of Indonesian at the school".

But I had become very worried by Mrs GR's increasing aggression.

I had taken sick leave during Term 4 1999 because of Mrs GR's aggression towards me.

When I returned to work I gave Mr EL a list of problems with the Grade 6 Indonesian workbooks.

The first set of books had been printed on paper with holes in it and the pages of several books had been stapled together in the wrong order.

I had asked the aides to use good quality paper for the workbooks and make the books up carefully. 

Mrs GR had behaved very aggressively towards me, told me that the teachers' aides were "very upset" and that this was "a big issue".

When I tried to explain, Mr EL had listened, but Mrs GR had held her hand in front of my face and shouted me down.

Mrs GR simply did not listen.

 

At the end of the list of problems with the workbooks I had written -

"I did not complain about this work.

I do not complain about this work.

I wanted to discreetly, calmly, clearly encourage the aides to do better next time.

Who was responsible for beating this up into a 'big issue'?"

 

When I returned to school I noticed that the aides did not seem to be upset with me at all.

The whole incident seemed to me to be a "beat up" by Mrs GR.

I was trying to prompt Mr EL to reflect on Mrs GR's irrational aggression towards me.

 

At this time I also wrote LOTE (Indonesian) Review 1999 in which I asked -

"Who is responsible for beating (the printing of my Indonesian books) up into a 'big issue'?"

2421 File C The District Office, document 54

 

And I was also worried by the many hours of the Grade 7 teachers' complaints about their 1999 Indonesian teacher that I had listened to at lunchtimes during 1999.

In the LOTE (Indonesian) Review 1999 I had also written:

"Has a slightly "Get the LOTE teacher" attitude developed at Lynch-Mob State School over the years?

Can we move on from this?"

 

I had told the principal of my "base school", White-Wash State School, that I did not want to work at Lynch-Mob State School full time in 2000.

I did not want to behave unprofessionally , so I did not discuss Mrs GR's increasing aggression towards me, etc.

I simply said that there were problems at Lynch-Mob State School school and that I would prefer to apply for a transfer to Brisbane.

The principal of my base school arranged for me to go to the District Office and talk to the staffing officer about the possiblity of getting a transfer to Brisbane to work as an English as a Second Language teacher (which was my real area of specialisation). 

2469 File A The District Office document 268 -number at the top right hand side of the page - is the record of my request for a transfer in 2000 to -

"E.S.L. (English as a Second Language) this is the area in which I am best qualified.

I would like to move back into ESL."

 

And you will see that the staffing officer advised me that there was not much hope of an ESL job and she wrote below -

"LOTE- Indonesian"

 

Lynch-Mob State School usual principal Mr EL spoke to me twice at this time, trying to persuade me to go to the school full-time and take the Grade 7 classes.

He assured me that he would deal with the problems at the school.

He assured me that I would have my own classroom.

He assured me that I would be given teacher-aide time.

 

For this reason I consider that usual principal Mr EL, in agreeing that acting principal Mrs GR should put me on DWP before he had discussed the situation with me, not only abused Natural justice, the Departmental Code of conduct and the DWP process-

Usual principal Mr EL failed in his duty of care to me.

Mr EL knew that acting principal Mrs GR was inexperienced but he did nothing to protect me from her irrational and unprofessional conduct.

 

In 1980 I had been inspected for a day in NSW and I had been placed on the First Primary Promotion List.

I had studied through the nights for five years part time to get my first degree with the college medal in 1983.

I studied for three more in the evenings to get my Master's Degree from Sydney University in 1987.

When I was appointed to (the) region I was told that my application was outstanding.

When I was asked to become an Indonesian teacher I spent many months of my holidays studying in in Java and collecting "realia" in Bali.

My Indonesian work was often in the local newspaper.

Parents were very appreciative of my work at (the) school in 1999.

One parent, M-- R-----, had  been so impressed with my work that she had asked me if she could write an article about my work for the local paper. 

The article was published on June 21 2000, just a few months before acting principal GR attacked me.

2421 File C The District Office document 53, number at the top right-hand-side of the document.

 

Acting principal Mrs GR did not put a copy of this article on my "official records" because Mrs GR was not collecting any evidence that was supportive of me.

 

My professional record meant a lot to me.

Mrs GR's letter was very damaging to me professionally.

 

Education Queensland has a responsibility to protect employees from this type of abusive behaviour by inexperienced and impulsive "acting" administrators.

 

Mrs GR already knew that her behaviour was making me ill.

I had just returned from a week of sick leave caused by her seemingly irrational and deeply unprofessional announcements to the staff concerning me.

 

This document demonstrates clearly that acting principal Mrs GR and usual principal Mr EL were conducting themselves in an unprofessional and abusive manner.

I can only presume that acting principal Mrs GR and usual principal Mr EL agreed to put this letter on my file two weeks before the Christmas holidays in the hope and expectation that the stress of their abuse would cause me to suicide or have a mental or physical breakdown during the holidays.

 

 

4 December 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 45

I first knew that this sticky-note existed when it was described to me in a letter dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator:

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

But this sticky-note was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance Investigation process.

The sticky-note was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by Mr ME, the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor".

I first saw this sticky-note after July 12 2004, when the 2469 File F  District Office document 32 version of the note was released to me.

 

I am reasonably sure that the date on this sticky-note has been falsified / mistaken.

"27/11/00

Spoke to all year 7’s after Parade re the need to improve their behaviour in general, & in particular during specialist lessons."

 

27 November 2000 was the morning of the "mediated meeting" with the QTU organiser.

So Mrs GR's date suggests that she spoke to the Grade 7 children about their behaviour before this "mediated" meeting, and before her imaginary conversations with student E NT, etc. on 28 November.

Which seems unlikely.

I am reasonably confident that the correct date on this sticky-note should be Monday 11 December 2000, the morning of the day on which Mrs GR spoke to the seven teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years and who all fully supported me.

Several classes performed Indonesian plays during this parade, and I remember Mrs GR asking me if I would do fewer Indonesian plays because she wanted to talk to the Grade 7 children.

I pointed out to her that it would be very difficult to change the arrangements at the last moment because the children were all organised and looking forward to performing, and some of their parents had come to watch them perform.

The Indonesian plays were wonderful and the rest of the school watched in fascinated silence.

Not only was it a great opportunity to demonstrate what the children had learned, it also gave the other children an opportunity to learn from the performances.

 

When the children returned from parade, I asked a Grade 7 boy what acting principal Mrs GR had spoken to the Grade 7 children about.

He looked sheepish and told me that Mrs GR had told the Grade 7 children to "be kind to people".

 

To the best of my knowledge, this was the only action that Mrs GR took to deal with the Grade 7 behaviour problems.

 

After school on Monday 4 December 2000:

2469 File F The District Office document 17 - this document is printed sideways. The document number is on the top left hand side of the note.

 

I understand that the teachers were told that they could not meet Mrs GR to discuss her decision to put me on DWP unless they put their request in writing and listed the names of the teachers who wanted to be at the meeting.

I presume that this "rule" was made to frighten the teachers.

One of the teachers wrote this note to Miss AL.

It is written by hand and undated.

I first saw it when it was released to me after 12 July 2004 with The District Office documents. 

 

"Dear Miss AL,

Could we (names) please talk to you / Mrs GR after the staff meeting tomorrow (for about 10 minutes) regarding our concerns about Robina's Diminished Work performance?

If this is not a suitable time, could you suggest another?"

 

... after the staff meeting tomorrow ...  

Staff meetings were on Tuesday after school, which suggests that the note was written on Monday.

I know that the teachers met Mrs GR on Monday 4 December, so it suggests that Mrs GR insisted on meeting them that afternoon rather than after the staff meeting.

 

I understand that Mrs GR tried to prevent one male teacher from entering her office to attend the meeting because his name was not on the list.

 

These seven teachers had seen me teach for periods of up to two years.

Mrs GR had not seen me teach or looked at my program all year.

Miss AL had never seen me teach or looked at my program.

Mr EL had not been into my classroom during Terms 1 and 2 2000.

He had “popped into” my classroom for five minutes during Term 3.

He had watched some children acting in Indonesian and laughed.

He had been on leave for all of Term 4.

He had not discussed the situation with me before he had agreed, (see 2469 File F, document 19) on 29 November 2000 that “the process is warranted”.

 

2469 F Cairns and Cape District Office document 18.

 

Mrs GR’s notes on that meeting.

Notice that Mrs GR has made no record of anything that the seven teachers said to her.

The common-sense of any investigator must suggest that these teachers had wanted to meet Mrs GR, so they must have said something to her.

So common sense would suggest to any investigator that this is a falsified "record",

and that Mrs GR either-

 

  • did not listen to anything that the teachers said to her.

 

  • falsified this “record” of what was said at the meeting because she only wanted to “record” real or imaginary comments that were critical of me.

I understand that the teachers all spoke to Mrs GR very firmly, telling her that there was no problem with my management of children.

I understand that Mrs GR told them repeatedly that I was a “Brilliant teacher, brilliant!”

- but that there were “secret reasons” why I had to be put on DWP.

I understand that she told the teachers that they would get into “very serious trouble” if they discussed the situation with me.

 

So for the rest of the term several of the teachers were frightened to be seen talking to me.

They would talk to me outside, their eyes darting about to see if they were being watched.

 

I did not know about this meeting.

 

While the teachers were talking to Mrs GR, I had a message to ring the Staff Welfare Officer.

This was quite unusual.

I told her that I was going to write to the District Director about the situation.

The Staff Welfare Officer advised me to talk to the QTU Organiser.

I told her that the QTU Organiser had advised me that the best thing for my mental health was just to accept the DWP without protest.

The Staff Welfare Officer said I was a union member and I had the right to ask for help.

 

So I rang the QTU organiser.

He advised me to make a formal Grievance to the District Director.

He said that it was safer to make a formal Grievance rather than to just write a letter.

 

5 December 2000

2421 F Lynch-Mob State School document 13.

2469 F The District Office document 16.

 

I first realised that this document existed when it was described by Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland's FOI liaison officer, in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004.

Stephannie stated that she had "decided" not to release this document, and almost all of the other 2421 documents, to me because-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

 

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance Investigation process.

 

I first read this document after 12 July 2004, when the 2469 File F The District Office document 16 version of this document was released to me.

 

After reading the sections of the 2006 Verifact investigation report that were released to me in June 2008, I now realise that this is quite a significant document.

Neither acting principal Mrs GR nor acting deputy principal Miss AL had made any official record of their formal meeting with me on 29 November 2000, during which they told me that I would be on DWP in 2001, and had given me the official letter to that effect.

 

So their falsified "records" create the impression that this very brief meeting on 5 December 2000 was the meeting at which they told me about the DWP process to be carried out in 2001.

 

This document is acting deputy principal Miss AL's falsified / hidden "record" of the meeting.

This very brief meeting took place on the day after the seven Grade 5 and 6 teachers had met with acting principal Mrs GR and told her, at some length, and very firmly and clearly (I understand) that there was no problem with my management of students.

Mrs GR called me into her office.

I was in a hurry because I had to drive to my other school during that lunchtime.

Mrs GR asked me why I wanted copies of the “yellow slips” that I had written during the term.

I said that I intended to pursue my rights.

 

Mrs GR explained that the “yellow slips” had all been destroyed, and the information had been put on a computer.

She had only saved 'yellow slips'-

“where I had concerns about what you had written”.

She gave me a copy of the letter that she said that she had sent to abusive Mother DA, and copies of two ‘yellow slips” that she had saved.

I put them in my pigeonhole.

The next morning the “yellow slips” had vanished from my pigeonhole.

 

Mrs GR said that I was not hearing what she was saying.

 

She said that they were only concerned about a very small part of what I was doing.

 

But only 14 Queensland teachers were put on DWP in 2001.

So what acting principal Mrs GR was proposing to do to me was very, very unusual.

If the mystery problem was such a very small part of what I was doing, why was I being put into such an unusual process?

 

GR told me that she had "every confidence that it would all be resolved in the first four weeks of next term".

 

This sounded very re-assuring.

It was a bit of a relief to hear these words from Mrs GR.

But could I believe Mrs GR's re-assurances?

Her "story" was continually changing.

I suspected that Mrs GR might be playing some sort of manipulative trick on me.

 

And I now realise that Mrs GR gave me this assurance knowing that she had collected a huge mass of falsified documents on me, ready to produce the next year, when Miss AL and all of the Grade 7 children would have left the school, and would not be available to question about the real or imaginary statements that they had "made" to Mrs GR concerning me.

Mrs GR was also applying for promotion positions (I understand).

So Mrs GR seems to have been planning to leave the mass of falsified documents on my "official records" for me to discover when she, Miss AL and all of the children had "moved on".

 

In her falsified "record" of the meeting, Miss AL changed acting principal Mrs GR's words to-

" ... the initial process was an informal and supportive one and that hopefully it won’t exceed the initial 20-day step ..."

 

As soon as I saw that word "hopefully", I knew that I had been right to be suspicious of GR's re-assurances.

 

There is a huge difference between- 

  • "I have every confidence that it will all be resolved ..."

and 

  • "hopefully it won't exceed ...".

 

“Acting principal GR said to (me) that it was important for (me) to realise that it is not a process about (me) as a person or about her teaching, it is about one area which needs to be addressed ”.

What one area?

Why all the mystery?

 

“For now, hard as it is, it is important to continue as normally as possible.”

I had the impression that Mrs GR and Miss AL did not want me to make a Grievance.

 

"(My name) said she couldn’t forget it and she certainly was going to find out what her rights were.

GR restated that the initial process was an informal and supportive one and that hopefully it won’t exceed the initial 20-day step."

"Annie then said that if acting principal GR was changing her mind about the process then she required it to be in writing."

 

GR's real words to me were that-

she had "every confidence that it would all be resolved in the first four weeks of next term"

which sounded really different to the wording of her 29 November 2000 letter to me-

"Usual principal EL ... will be overseeing the process, beginning with a 20-day informal supervision period."

 

So I said-

"But that is not what the letter says, is it, Mrs GR?

If you are changing your position, I would like it in writing."

 

When Mrs GR gave me nothing in writing, my suspicions that she was playing manipulative games with me were confirmed.

 

After 12 July 2004, when I read Miss AL's "notes" I knew I was right to have been suspicious, and that GR's re-assuring words to me had been a trick.

 

And, after I read the sections of the Verifact report that were released to me in June 2008, I realised that GR and AL must have agreed in December 2000 to edit the 29 November 2000 meeting - and possibly also the letter to tell me that I would be on DWP in 2001 - out of the "official records".

 

So AL "recorded"-

"As I understood, the preceding discussion did not infer or otherwise that the process had in any way been altered.

I was unsure as to Annie’s meaning here and GR indicated that she also did not understand."

 

GR and AL "did not understand" what I was talking about because -

a) They did not record the real words that they used to me.

b) They were already in the process of editing their 29 November 2000 meeting with me - and possibly also the letter - out of their "official records".

 

This is a falsified record.

 

A significant problem for me at this time was the fact that I had not been given a copy of the DWP process or told very much about it at all, other than the QTU Organiser’s advice to me that people who “fight it” have breakdowns and that there was no hope of justice.

GR had given me no information.

She herself seems to known next to nothing about the DWP process at this time.

Acting deputy principal AL had given me no information.

The QTU Organiser had given me no information.

 

Really this was profound negligence.

 

Friday 8 December 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 36-37

2469 File F The District Office documents 12-13.

 

This is a note from GR to me concerning the copies of the "yellow slips" that had "vanished" from my locker.

After 12 July 2004 I received the 2469 copy of this note.

The 2421 version of this document was first released to me after 27 October 2005.

They both seem to be true copies of the note. 

 

Note GR's tone towards me:

 

“Your note implying that items have been removed from your pigeon hole is most offensive.

If you make or imply any further allegations against me I will be taking action, so please consider your comments carefully.”

 

This is exactly the threatening, menacing way in which acting principal GR usually spoke to me.

If acting principal GR had spoken to the children in these same threatening, menacing tones, we might have had fewer behaviour problems at the school.

But acting principal GR threatened and menaced the teachers, not the children.

 

By the 8th December 2000 acting principal GR had given me three very offensive letters that she and I both knew would be on my “official record”.

GR had also - she claims - filled my “official records” with a mass of other falsified documents that she had secretly been collecting.

But GR objects to my “note”.

 

Acting principal GR seemed to enjoy strutting about, "parrotting" her "profound beliefs".

But GR did not seem to really understand the "profound beliefs" that she was "parrotting".

And she never seemed to apply her professed "profound beliefs" to her own behaviour.

 

Monday 11 December 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 23

 

This is a note that I wrote to GR, asking for copies of the "yellow slips" that I had filled out on poorly-behaved children.

This is an interesting document because it is the only 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document that has been "falsified" with a comment by GR.

GR had written at the top left hand side:

 

"14/11"

This is a falsified date.

I had very clearly dated the note "Monday 11 Dec". 

I was on sick leave on Tuesday 14 November 2000 because of the shock of GR's behaviour at the Friday 10 November staff meeting.

 

"Unable to address this with Annie in meeting as she continually tried to dominate conversation & was not prepared to listen."

 

GR often seems to change the date on "records" to introduce changes to her "story".

But this falsified "record" seems to relate to the meeting on 14 December 2000.

This is a shockingly untruthful comment from a woman who repeatedly refused to listen to me.

 

Just examine acting principal AL's own notes of the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000 for evidence of GR's repeated refusal to allow me to respond to her "allegations".

Any intelligent person reading AL's records of the mediated meeting could have no doubt at all what the real problem was.

 

I first saw the 2421 version of this seriously falsified "record" after 27 October 2005.

 

But the 2469 File F The District Office document 7 version of this note was released to me by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" after 12 July 2004.

GR's falsified "record" is also hand-written on the 2469 version of the note.

 

On the evening of 11 December 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 24-25

2469 File F The District Office documents 10-11

 

I wrote a letter to acting principal GR.

This is a true copy of my letter.

I was trying to understand why GR felt such malice towards me.

"I am going to take the risk of upsetting you again by asking you if it is possible that your feelings towards me are based on a misunderstanding?

Do you think it is possible that you see yourself as the champion of the battler fighting the arrogant Pom who needs to be taken down a peg or two?"

 

I talked about our membership of the Labor party.

I explained that I had not agreed to join her branch because I did not enjoy meetings and because I could not drive at night because I could not see very well with my contact lenses.

"It certainly was not because I thought that I was too good to join your branch."

"... I am hoping that in the next few weeks you will take the time to ask yourself, "How and why did I start to feel this way about Annie?

Could I have misunderstood her?

Why do I keep reacting this way? ..."

 

And, because I did not want the local Member or her husband to worry that I would "go public" in the weeks before the February 2001 State Election, I finished by saying-

"You have my word that I will co-operate with every attempt to resolve the situation with a minimum of publicity."

 

To me GR's abuse seemed to be so outrageous that I expected it would be headline news if it "got out".

At that stage I did not realise that teachers all over Queensland, and, in fact, workers all over the world, were being driven out of work with this sort of strategy.

And that it was too common to be of interest to any newspaper.

 

Wednesday 13 December 2000

In the early hours of 13 December 2000 I emailed Education Queensland Human Resources, asking them how to contact the CJC (now called CMC) Liaison Officer.

During the day I phoned Leah Mertens, QTU Organiser, and asked her if she thought that I could make a Public Interest Disclosure about the abuse of the DWP process.

I did not mention the political aspect of the situation to her, just the bullying and the abuse of the DWP process.

She advised me that it was not a Public Interest Disclosure.

 

2421 File F document 60

I first realised that the "records" on this post-it note existed when it was was released to me by Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator on 23 March 2004.

At that time the post-it note was stuck on a letter from Mrs GR dated 29 November 2000, which created the impression that the post-it note was related to the letter signed by Acting Principal Mrs GR and dated 29 November 2000.

The note reads-

 

"PUT IN WRITING & GIVE TO (MY NAME) & (NAME OF LOCAL QTU ORGANISER)."

 

"04131 … (a mobile phone number )"

 

When I received this document after 23 March 2004 I phoned this mobile phone number repeatedly to try to find out who this person was.

There was never any response.

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 I phoned this number in the evening.

The person who answered did not give her name.

She spoke with an accent.

She told me that she was an Advisory Visiting Teacher employed by Education Queensland in (my town) to work with autistic children.

She told me that she had owned the mobile in late 2000 / early 2001.

I spelled out my name, but she did not recognise it and she told me that she knew nothing about my case.

She said that she never had and never would have anything to do with putting a teacher on DWP.

This person was probably Mrs CS, an AVT for autistic children who was working in the office next to mine at Lynch-Mob State School, although it seems odd that she did not recognise my name.

 

This suggests to me that this sticky-note was actually created at a later date.

I had tried to contact the Education Queensland CJC liaison officer by email early on the morning of 13 December 2000.

I had phoned Leah Mertens, a QTU officer, later that day.

I had asked Leah Mertens about the possibility of making a CJC complaint about being put on the DWP for asking acting principal Mrs GR to support me in dealing with the roaming groups of unsupervised Grade 7 children.

It is possible that AVT teacher Mrs CS overheard this phone call.

Leah told me that I could not make a complaint to the CJC, but AVT teacher Mrs CS would not have heard Leah say that.

I had the impression later - I am not sure how much later - that AVT teacher Mrs CS was talking to somebody about me on the phone.

She turned away from me and closed the door of her office.

I heard AVT teacher Mrs CS say,

 

“ … not a personality conflict exactly …”

 

I had the impression that somebody was asking her what I had been talking about during my phone call.

That day we had a special lunch, at which it was suddenly announced that Miss AL had done her job as acting deputy principal "so well" that she was going to be acting deputy principal at another school in 2001.

This job seemed to have been organised for Miss AL very, very suddenly.

Only a day or so before, Miss AL’s desk had been moved to a new room so that she would not have to sit next to me in 2001 while I was being put through the DWP process that she had arranged for me while she was acting deputy principal for a few weeks in Term 4 2000.

This new job at a different schoolwould mean that Miss AL would not have to watch as I was being driven to breakdown by the abuse of the DWP in 2001.

And I would not be able to question her when I found the falsified "records" that she had been secretly creating and putting on my "official record".

And she would not have to face the other teachers when they found out what she had been secretly doing while she was acting deputy principal.

 

We were all asked to clap Miss AL for doing "so well".

 

During this lunch I often noticed that AVT teacher Mrs CS was staring directly at me in a very, very astonished and amazed way.

I wondered who she had been discussing me with.

I had the impression that it was somebody quite important.

 

"OBLIG’NS TO SUPERVISOR"

 

Mrs GR seems to be asking somebody advice on putting me on DWP.

Which suggests that Mrs GR had not actually read the DWP policy on 13 December 2000, more than two weeks after she had made an agreement with Mr EL and Miss AL that I would be on DWP in 2001.

This seems negligent.

 

"CODE of CONDUCT"

Mrs GR and the person she was consulting / grooming seem to be trying to "beat up" some sort of Code of Conduct issue as a "reason" for putting me on DWP.

Which suggests that, at this date, they still did not know the "reason" why they were putting me on DWP.

 

"NO IMP OVER 3 WKS (arrow) DWP"

 

"TOLD CONCERNS - O further

NO OPTION BUT DWP"

 

  • These words are very similar to usual principal EL's words in his “Report : Grievance Meeting Stage 1- 5/2/01”-

 

 "The opportunity to accept support from the Acting Principal was not accepted and therefore the only option left was to implement Diminished Work Performance."

2469 File F The District Office, documents 142 and 143.

 

By writing this "record" on a post-it note, acting principal Mrs GR was able to move it about and create the impression that it related to any document and any time.

And she could not be accused of lying because the post-it note was neither signed nor dated.

 

On 12 April 2004, I wrote to the Education Queensland Internal Review officer:

 

"60 - I was not shown this post-it note at the time.

It may have been falsified."

 

Mr ME, the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor", released these documents to me again after 27 April 2004.

Now Mr ME had separated the documents, to un-create the impression that the letter and the post-it note were related.

 

After 27 October 2005, the document was released to me again.

In October 2005, the post-it-note was stuck on a different document - the totally falsified "note to me" 2421 File F document 61.

 

On the evening of 13 December, 2000

At a social event organised by The Beach State School (where I taught Indonesian for two half-days a week), a woman I had never met before told me that she was an Education Queensland employee and that she kept making promotion applications, but that she was not getting short-listed.

She told me that she had noticed that Mrs GR was getting short-listed for interviews.

She asked me if I had any idea why Mrs GR, who had appeared in the area so recently - in 1997 - with no job, taking casual teaching jobs by the day, was being promoted so rapidly.

I said that I could make no comment.

I wondered if she might be a "stooge" who was trying to prompt me to comment on the political situation.

 

Later on the evening of 13 December 2000

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 33 - number at top right hand side of page.

2469 File F The District Office document 4

 

I wrote a letter to the District Director.

These documents are true copies of that letter.

 

"Acting principal GR has placed me on Diminished Work Performance.

She wrote to me on 29 November to advise me that the initial stage will be instigated at the commencement of next year, when usual principal EL returns.

She states, "I have spoken to him about the matter and he is in agreement that the process is warranted."

Acting principal EL has not discussed the situation with me."

 

So it would have been obvious to District Office staff from 13 December 2000 that the agreement made by acting principal GR and usual principal EL to put me on DWP was in breach of Natural Justice.

 

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

 

Education Queensland neglected to investigate this situation for five and a half years.

 

On 25 May 2006, usual principal Mr EL was questioned by a Verifact investigator for ten minutes about his behaviour.

Mr EL's responses were concealed from me till after June 12, 2008.

 

But I had given the Verifact Investigator a copy of "The C----- Report January 18 2006".

And so it would have been obvious to the Verifact investigator that Mr EL's responses did not correspond with the facts.

Verifact Investigation report : 340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 975

 

This seems to indicate a systemic facilitation of / support for the workplace abuse of Queensland teachers.

 

Thursday 14 December, 2000

I had written a letter to the District Director, asking for an investigator to be appointed.

The note was in my car.

I was going to deliver it to the District Office that afternoon.

 

Usual principal EL came springing into the staff room at Lynch-Mob State School.

He sprang right over to me.

He discussed the situation with me for the first time.

 

In the afternoon acting principal AL told me that GR wanted to meet me again.

GR was trying to "beat up" another drama but I was silent.

It seemed to be pointless to try to discuss the situation with her, because her behaviour was so irrational.

GR seemed to me to be continually changing her "story".

When I made no comment, GR became abusive, telling me that talking to me was like talking to a wall.

I told her that I did not feel safe talking to her. 

I said that I had often told her that I did not feel safe talking to her.

I had told the Staff Welfare Officer that I did not feel safe talking to GR, and that was why she had advised me to ask for a mediated meeting.

Now all I really wanted to do was to get my letter to the District Director.

 

I said that I liked EL.

I respected usual principal EL and trusted him absolutely.

It has taken me a long, long time to really believe that usual principal EL was knowingly and actively involved in the abuse.

 

I said that I liked the school.

I told GR that her behaviour was going to affect a lot of people - usual principal EL, acting principal AL, the Grade 7 teachers, etc.

I told GR that I knew that she was applying for other jobs and that she was planning to go to go away and leave us all to sort out the mess that she had made.

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 22

2469 File F The District Office document 6.

 

This is acting deputy principal AL's falsified / hidden "record" of this meeting with me on 14 December.

I first knew that this "record" existed when it was described in a letter to me from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland FOI Officer, dated 23 March 2004.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this document - and most of the other 2421 documents - to me because-

“ These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process.”

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

 

The document was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Discrimination solicitor.

I first saw this document after 12 July 2004, when the 2469 File F District Office document 6 version was released to me.

The 2421 version of the document was not released to me till after 27 October 2005.

 

Acting principal AL recorded:

“GR asked Annie if a letter she had written to GR was a positive letter or not.”

 

I do not remember GR asking me this question,

but-

I was being driven into ill health, and my career was being destroyed because I tried to deal with the roaming groups of unsupervised children - and GR was demanding that I take a positive attitude to being abused!

 

I had the overwhelming feeling that I was dealing with seriously stupid thinking and reasoning.

 

“GR spoke about the first part of the process being informal and that even though she doesn’t believe it, it is meant to be positive and supportive.”

If GR really did say this, no, I would not have believed it.

Nothing about this experience had been either positive or supportive.

I had all been irrational, illogical and an abuse of several Education Queensland polices.

 

"Annie feels threatened by the process and felt threatened by talking to GR."

Acting principal AL had to give her notes to GR, and so she was afraid to write down what I had really said -

 

‘I do not feel safe talking to you, GR, I have often told you that.”

 

This is an interesting example of the way in which I was disadvantaged by acting principal GR's abuse of the official processes.

Acting principal AL was writing notes that she knew she had to give to GR.

She knew that I would probably never see the notes.

She knew that GR was very aggressive and would "pay back" anybody who did not do exactly what she wanted.

So AL seems to have felt pressured to "spin" her records to please GR.

 

Acting principal GR had pointed to one sentence in my letter:

"You have my word that I will co-operate with every attempt to resolve the situation with a minimum of publicity."

 

And GR had instructed me to read the sentence aloud.

I found GR's behaviour towards me very offensive.

I had the impression that our conversation was being tape-recorded or broadcast by phone.

 

 “GR also said she had read that part out to her superiors at District Office and they agreed that it could be taken as a threat.”

 

This was like dealing with mob-madness.

This one sentence was being “picked out” of context and “spun” to mean the opposite of what it actually said.

My words-

"You have my word ..."

- would tell any English person that I would do exactly what I was saying that I would do.

But acting principal GR was trying to "beat them up" into a threat.

 

This seems to be another example of GR "grooming" District Office staff to support her in her abuse.

And, by telling me about her "grooming" activites, GR was making it obvious to me that there would be little hope of justice if I made a Grievance to the District Office, because the staff there were supporting her in her abuse.

 

It is interesting to compare acting deputy principal AL's "record" of this meeting - which is relatively honest - with acting principal GR's own record.

 

Acting principal GR's record is horribly falsified-

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents 26 and 27.

2469 File F The District Office documents 8-9.

 

I first knew that GR's falsifed "record" existed when it was described to me in a letter dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

“ These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process.”

 

But this document had not been shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance process.

The "record" was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Discrimination solicitor.

I first saw this "record" after 12 July 2004, when the 2469 Cairns and Cape District Office version of the document was released to me.

 

“Annie interjected continuously.”

 

I was silent.

There seemed little point in talking to acting principal GR because she seemed to lie and to continually change her “story”.

I wanted to get my letter to the District Director to the District Office after school.

 

Acting principal GR abused me for my silence.

She said that talking to me was like talking to a wall.

 

"… saying that she was sure I "had it in" for her…"

 

Totally untrue.

I do not talk like that.

GR is hearing her own voice.

 

"She stated that I had "contaminated usual principal EL" and that was why she had to put in a complaint to the Director"

 

I do not talk like this.

 

This was not why I had written to the District Director.

Acting principal GR is trying to put her own words in my mouth.

 

" … I asked Annie what was meant by the last two paragraphs of the letter & she again repeated that acting principal EL hd been "contaminated" by my influence. …"

 

Totally falsified.

This did not happen.

GR is constructing this conversation in her imagination.

In reality, GR pointed at the sentence-

 

"You have my word that I will co-operate with every attempt to resolve the situation with a minimum of publicity."

 

And she instructed me to read the sentence aloud.

I found acting principal GR’s instruction to me offensive and unprofessional, but I read the sentence as she had instructed me to do.

GR said that one of her superiors in the department had read that sentence and thought it was a veiled threat.

Actually any English person reading the words, “You have my word …” would know that I would do exactly what I said that I would do.

 

I said that any reasonable person, reading the sentence in context, would know that it was not a threat.

I did not understand how GR could pick out one sentence from so many and argue that that particular sentence secretly meant the opposite of what it said.

I was weary of trying to deal with GR’s irrational thinking.

I just wanted to get my letter to the District Office.

 

Friday 15 December, 2008

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 35

  • 2469 File F The District Office does not contain a copy of this fax cover sheet.

I first knew that this fax cover sheet existed when it was desrcibed to me by Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator and described in letter to me dated 23 March 2004, but not released to me at that time.

The fax cover sheet was not released to me after 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.

I first saw this document when it was released to me after 27 October 2005.

This fax from District Office Employee GN to acting principal GR on 15 December 2000 seems to have been sent with the letter to me from the District Director.

He wrote to tell me that my Stage 1 Grievance had been returned to acting principal GR - the person whose behaviour I was complaining about.

 

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 34 - number at top right hand corner of page.

2469 File F The District Office document 3.

I first knew that this document existed when it was described to me in a letter to me dated 23 March 2004 from Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland A/FOI Co-ordinator.

Stephannie claimed that she had not released this and almost all of the other 2421 documents to me because-

"These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with rather than outlining the reasons why your supervisors decided to instigate the diminished work performance process."

But this document was not shown to me or discussed with me during the January 2001 Stage 1 Grievance investigation process.

The document was not released to me on 27 April 2004 by the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" ME.

I first read the 2469 version of this document after 12 July 2004.

The 2421 version of this document was not released to me till 27 October 2005.

 

"* Annie agreed that it should be dealt with next term, possibly with usual principal EL taking charge of the process.”

I understood that usual principal Mr EL was going to investigate my Grievance.

I agreed to this because I did not believe that Mr EL would have agreed that I should be on DWP.

I thought that acting principal Mrs GR was lying about him.

I trusted and respected usual principal Mr EL absolutely.

I wanted to give him an opportunity to diss-associate himself from what I took to be acting principal Mrs GR’s lies about him.

 

25 January 2001 - 5 February 2001

2421 File E Lynch-Mob State School documents 1-3.

 

Lynch-Mob State School usual principal Mr EL had hand-writen "notes" over diary pages for January 2-4, 2001.

I noticed during the meeting on February 5 2000 that Mr EL had written his "report" in pencil.

Mr EL has written across the top of his notes -

"Notes about Grievance. This is what was used for the final report.  D/O has all other papers."

 

So this purports to be the only FOI document that was sourced from Lynch-Mob State School in 2004.

I first saw this document after 23 March 2004.

 

"... Positive - out of school I can look at this from both sides."

 

This comment is either deliberately deceptive or it demonstrates usual principal Mr EL's poor thinking and reasoning skills.

Two months earlier usual principal Mr EL had agreed with acting principal Mrs GR that "the (DWP) process is warranted".

 

He had made this agreement with Mrs GR before 29 November 2000.

 

He made this agreement while he was on leave, and before he had discussed the situation with me.

 

"... out of school I can look at this from both sides. ..."

 

On the contrary, Mr EL had only listened to Mrs GR's "side".

His own behaviour was in breach of Natural Justice, the Departmental Code of Conduct and the DWP process.

His own behaviour was a big part of the problem.

 

It is really difficult for me to believe that Mr EL, a man I respected and trusted absolutely, was genuinely so unintelligent that he did not realise that his own behaviour was part of the problem.

 

"... Concerning the grievance that treatment was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, I come back to the one major part of conjecture.

 

That was the acceptance to review strategies.

 

To me if a teacher is willing to work on a problem then there is no problem.

 

If a teacher denies a problem, then there is no other step. ..."

 

When he made this statement Mr EL knew that I had not been shown the hidden documents.

  • He knew that I could not "admit" to a "problem" that I knew nothing about.

  • And Mr EL knew that I was not denying the behaviour management problems at the school. Mr EL knew that the other specialist teachers and I had been showing initiative and trying to deal with the problems in a professional manner since Term 3 2000.

  • Usual principal EL and acting principal Mrs GR were "paying me back" for trying to deal with the problem of the unsupervised groups of grade 7 children who were roaming about the school, disrupting other classes.

  • Mr EL is arguing that I had to be put on the DWP because I responded to the "allegations" Mrs GR made during the meeting on 27 November 2000. But I had the right to Natural Justice - the right to respond to Mrs GR's "allegations" and to have my responses considered.

 

"... From the information I have there seems to be a (illegible) that there was a problem that needed to be worked on.

Numerous attempts were made to bring this concern out. ..."

 

Mr EL knew perfectly well that it was the specialists who had tried to introduce new strategies to deal with the "problem that needed to be worked on" - the Grade 7 behaviour problems.

Usual principal Mr EL had discussed the strategies with us during Term 3 2000.

He had come to the school during one lunchtime during Term 4 2000 (while he was on leave) and discussed the strategies with us again.

He had suggested that we have a meeting with the Grade 6 and 7 teachers to discuss the strategies.

Acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL were simply "passengers" in this process.

I - and the other specialists - had made numerous attempts to bring this concern out.

 

I had tried to deal with the problem of the unsupervised groups of Grade 7 children roaming about the school disrupting pther classes.

Mr EL and Mrs GR were "paying me back" by putting me on DWP for trying to deal with this problem.

 

It was Mr EL and Mrs GR who were "denying the problem" of the roaming groups of Grade 7 children (and the mass of falsified documents, if the falsified documents existed at this time).

And, if  Mr EL really believed that -

 

"... If a teacher denies a problem, then there is no other step. ..."

 

- he should have put himself and Mrs GR in a DWP program for "denying" -

  • the problem of the roaming groups of unsupervised Grade 7 students

  • and the problem of their own abuse of the DWP policy to "pay me back" for trying to deal with the problem of the roaming groups of unsupervised Grade 7 children. 

 

On Monday 17 May 2004 at 12:28pm I emailed Keith Hynes.

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

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

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

 

Also during the period 25 January 2001 - 5 February 2001

2469 File F The District Office documents 93-119 (numbers at the top right hand side of the page).

 

This document is a copy of "Preventing and Resolving Grievances Pilot Version - 21 July 2000".

The document was printed on 11 December 2000.

I had asked the Lynch-Mob State School office staff to give me a copy of this document.

They printed a copy for me.

They must have printed this copy for acting principal Mrs GR and usual principal Mr EL at the same time.

Mr EL has highlighted the document to demonstrate that he read it.

 

Usual principal Mr EL has highlighted sections of document 97 -

 

"Documentation and complaints.

3.6 The principal should verify that there is substance to any complaint against a teacher prior to initiating a diminished work performance process.

The principal must inform the teacher of any complaint and provide a copy of the complainant’s written statement.

The teacher must have the opportunity to respond in writing within 14 days of receipt of the copy.

The complaint must be fully investigated and appropriate action taken on the matter."

 

So, if it was true that Mrs GR had told the staff on Friday 10 November 2000 that there was "a person" on the staff (me) who was humiliating students because of allegations made in the -

 

" … notes to Leigh from Desley …"

2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 40, number at the top right hand side of the page.

 

Or that

" … there were a lot of allegations and she had lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened."

Statement made by Mrs GR at the meeting with the local QTU Organiser on 27 November 2000, and recorded by Miss AL, acting deputy principal, in 2469 File F The District Office document 30.

 

Then Mrs GR, Miss AL and Mr EL should have given me the opportunity to read these allegations and reply to the allegations in writing BEFORE they all agreed on 29 November 2000 to put me on DWP in 2001.

 

And the highlighting of this document demonstrates that Mr EL - and any other person who had read this policy - knew this.

When he read this document Mr EL knew that he, Mrs GR and Miss AL had all abused the DWP process.

 

16 February 2001

2421 File C The District office documents 4-5 and 198-199

2469 File F The District office documents 142 and 143.

This is Mr EL's Stage 1 Grievance Investigation report.

It was delivered to my home on 16 February, 2001, the day before the Queensland state election.

 

"REPORT: GRIEVANCE MEETING STAGE 1 - 5/2/01"

At the time I resumed that this was a typed version of the Report that usual principal Mr EL had read aloud at the start of the meeting on 5 February 2000.

Mr EL had represented the document that he read aloud at that meeting as the finished version of his report.

Mr EL told me that he had not spoken to the teachers who supported me because they had given him nothing in writing, and it was now too late for them to give him anything in writing.

At the time, the report seemed to me to be written in a strange manner but I presumed that Mr EL was not particularly literate, and that this was the reason for the strange wording of the report.

 

"REPORT: GRIEVANCE MEETING..."

This "Report" is falsified in that-

1)

It purports to be a report on a meeting held on 5 February 2001.

But in actual fact Mr EL read this report - or a hand-written version of this report - at the start of the meeting.

 

2)

It is a falsified record of what really happened at the meeting on 5 February 2001.

For example, acting principal Mrs GR threatened me five times during this meeting.

Mr EL made no record of acting principal Mrs GR’s threats and of my own protests at the threats.

 

3)

Usual principal Mr EL has misrepresented the reason for my Grievance in his "Report":

 

"(My name) has appealed over the harsh, unjust and unreasonable behaviour of the Acting Principal (name of Mrs GR) during Term 4.

This was in relation to strategies used with various students during Indonesian classes."

 

My Stage 1 Grievance concerned acting principal Mrs GR's abuse of the Diminished Work Performance Process (DWP) to avoid the mediated meetings that I had requested.

3)

It misrepresents the investigation.

I was led to believe that usual principal Mr EL had conducted an investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance.

I was led to believe that the report that he read at the start of the 5 February 2001 meeting was his investigation report.

 

But in April 2005 I discovered that the "Departmental story" had changed.

In April 2005 the Education Queensland "Official records" stated that there had been no Grievance Stage 1 investigation!

 

Page 20 (number at top centre of page)

"60. The documentation indicates that:

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

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

2606 documents attached to letter to me dated 6 April 2005 from Lemm Ex, Education Queensland Officer.

There are no FOI page numbers on this particular group of documents.

 

I knew nothing about this January 2001 "decision" till 6 April 2005.

 

Apparently, I discovered for the first time in 2005, although I had written to the District Director on 13 December 2000:

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

And although usual principal EL had been appointed, and although I understood that he was in the process of conducting an investigation, in fact:

 

"a) the Complainant advised the District Director of a grievance on 13 December 2000, and requested that an officer be appointed to investigate the situation and determined (sic) the truth ...

d) the Complainant documented the grievance in detail and handed it to the principal on 25 January 2001:

e) the author cannot identify a specific request for an investigation of the matters."

 

I did not keep on asking for my grievance to be investigated because I understood that it was being investigated.

 

4)

Usual Mr EL makes no mention of the fact that the "official records" of the abuse had been extensively falsified.  

The huge mass of falsified documents that had been secretly been placed on my "official record" were still being concealed from me.

 

5)

Usual principal Mr EL misrepresents the evidence.

"On the matter of the Grievance all ... support people questioned."

 

Usual principal Mr EL conceals the fact that he had refused to speak to the seven teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years and who all fully supported me.

Seven teachers had written to Miss AL and asked for a formal meeting to discuss acting principal Mrs GR's decision to put me on DWP.

These seven teachers had amazed each other by how firmly and clearly they had told Mrs GR that she was making a mistake and that there was no problem with my management of children.

Acting deputy principal Miss AL had never seen me teach.

Acting principal Mrs GR was supposed to be my supervisor but she had not seen me teach or looked at my program all year.

 

6)

Usual principal EL misrepresents the evidence of the QTU organiser.

The Queensland teachers Union (QTU) organiser advised me that Mr EL had "spun" his own words to change their meaning in his "Report".

And that later Mr EL refused the QTU organiser's request that he correct this "spin" on his words.

2421 C The District Office documents 1-2, numbers at top right hand corner of document.

2469 File F The District Office documents 144-145, numbers at top right hand corner of document.

 

7)

Mr EL does not admit that it was inappropriate to put me into a punishment process for trying to deal with the unsupervised groups of Grade 7 children who were roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes.

"I would consider that the Diminished Work performance would not continue and that a period of informal support be implemented before moving into the formal phases."

 

Mr EL simply seems to change the name of the punishment process:

 

"... a period of informal support be implemented before moving into the formal phases."

Now Mr EL wants to put me on Stage 1 of the new Managing Unsatisfactory Performance process.

Mr EL is making it clear to me that, if I ever return to Lynch-Mob State School, he and Mrs GR would continue to abuse Education Queensland policies until I was driven to mental or physical breakdown and out of work.

And that, if I asked to be re-deployed to another school because of my hearing loss, I would be in a punishment process at that school also.

And I knew that the principal and staff of another school would not realise that the MUP process was being used abusively.

 

This report demonstrates that Mr EL, a principal I respected and trusted absolutely, abused his power to refuse me Natural Justice and to abuse the DWP and Grievance processes to destroy my professional reputation.

 

Mr EL's "Report" is a disgraceful document.

I offered MR EL the opportunity to deal with his mistake (and with Mrs GR's impulsive and irrational behaviour) quietly.

Mr EL, knowing that I was already ill because of the stress of his abuse, abused his position again to destroy my professional reputation.

I have spent the past seven and a half years of my life trying to clear my name because of usual principal Mr EL's abuse of the Grievance Process.

 

The 2006 Verifact Investigation

This decision to put me on DWP - the decision that usual principal EL, acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL had made and recorded on 29 November 2000 - was the decision that I had asked Ross Clark, the Cairns and Cape District Director to investigate to investigate on 14 December 2000.

2469 File B The District Office document 104.

 

Education Queensland senior officers delayed investigating this decision till Thursday 25 May, 2006.

When questioned in May 2006 by the Verifact Investigator, usual principal Mr EL claimed:

 

"It was a long time ago."

Yes. It was.

I had been asking since December 2000 for this investigation.

 

"From memory, a number of options had been discussed."

Your memory is faulty, Mr EL.

In her secret "records", Mrs GR claimed that she had been discussing putting me on the DWP with District office staff since 9 October 2000, the sixth day that she was acting principal, while I was on sick leave because of her abuse.

2421 File F document 9 - number at top right hand side of page.

 

You agreed with Ms GR that "the (DWP) process is warranted" on 29 November 2000, before you had discussed the situation with me.

So you cannot claim that "a number of options had been discussed", Mr EL.

 

"One of those may have been DWP as a last resort."

Your memory is letting you down again, Mr EL.

You, acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL all agreed on 29 November 2000 that "the (DWP) process is warranted".

2421 File F document 59 - number at top right hand corner of document.

 

You were on leave when you made that agreement, Mr EL.

You hadn't even discussed the situation with me.

 

"There was no decision to put her on DWP."

"This was only one of the strategies that may have been used."

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

Verifact Synopsis of Digitally Recorded Interview with Mr EL on Thursday 25 May 2006, document first released to me under FOI on 12 June 2008.

 

Not true, Mr EL.

Not true at all.

 

 "The opportunity to accept support from the Acting Principal was not accepted and therefore the only option left was to implement Diminished Work Performance."

This statement demonstrates that on 5 February 2001, Mr EL clearly knew that the DWP had been implemented.

 

"I would consider that the Diminished Work performance would not continue ...

 

This statement also demonstrates that on 5 February 2001, Mr EL clearly understood that the DWP had begun.

 

None of these Lynch-Mob State School administrators demonstrated any insight in their abusive behaviour during the 2006 Verifact Investigation.

And none of them expressed any remorse.

 

Which sugggests that the new anti-workplace bullying policies developed by Education Queensland since 2000 have been ineffective.

 

And that these abusive administrators will continue to abuse Queensland classroom teachers.

 Because they know that-

 

  • investigations into their abuse will be delayed for many years

 

  • they can then all claim to have forgotten what they did or why they did it.

 

I complained to Mr EL about Mrs GR’s lack of support when I tried to deal with the roaming groups of unsupervised Grade 7 children. Mr EL has disgracefully ‘spun” my complaint into a refusal to accept support from the acting principal.

 

 

____________

31 August 2001

On this date I made a Stage 2 Grievance to Jim Varghese, the Director-General of Education Queensland about the systemic abuse of the Education Queensland Diminished Workplace Performance Process and the Grievance Process to bully Queensland teachers.

The "official records" of this Stage 2 Grievance seem to have been extensively falsified-

 

2421 File B Human Resource Service Branch, documents 6-15 :This copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General has been falsified, in that only my two-page letter and the first eight pages of my Grievance were included. The last nineteen pages of my Grievance have vanished.

I first began to realise that the "official records" of my Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General had been falsified when Stephannie Kalas,

Education Queensland FOi Officer, wrote to me on 23 March 2004, describing:

"File B 6-15 Letter from Ms ------ to DG re. stage 2 grievance dated 31/10/01."

And she refused me access to the document.

On 12 April 2004 I wrote to Stephannie:

 

"Is this my grievance of 31 AUGUST 2001?

I have no record of a letter to the DG dated 31 October 2001."

 

My 29-page letter to the Director-General had been shrunk to nine pages and the date seemed to have been changed.

 

I now realise that the "official records" of my Stage 2 Grievance had been extensively falsified.

I have detailed the various falsified versions of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance in Appendix A below.

 

Between 31 August 2001 and 19 October 2001.

2421 File C document 82: scribbled notes.

These notes are on a loose scrap of paper between the History of the Situation and the last nineteen pages of my grievance.

The notes are difficult to read, but they seem to say:

 

"1. get back to her - what does she really want and what are her expected outcomes?

Process?

People?

2. Systemic approach - good and bad things about DWP process.

3.Investigating cl ... - role of school ops??

awareness

expectations of ADG (School ops)

4. District Performanc measurement officers.

5. District level

6. Statement re ... of DWP - ... complaint.

7. Senior officers and union people - what are problems with DWP.

8. Ch protects right of ees.

This note suggests to me that acting principal may have claimed to have "heard" a child or a parent tell her some sort of confidential complaint concerning me.

And that the falsified documentation of this imaginary / "beat up" complaint may have been maliciously sent to another Queensland Government department and described as a "confidential disclosure" to conceal it from me.

9. Hold Principal and DOS accountable for Grievances - people must get natural justice."

So, when my Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General arrived at Head Office in September 2001, it was immediately obvious to at least one senior officer that I had not been given Natural Justice.

He or she began to write a plan of action to deal with my grievance.

But for some reason this officer then did nothing.

He or she passively allowed the systemic abuse to continue to the present day.

 

19 October 2001

2421 File C The District Office Document 197
This is a Fax Message from Peter Milton to District Office Employee GN dated 19 October 2001.

This message reads:

"Hi  (GN),

Letters attached are what Michelle obtained from Legal and Exec Services.

There was a blue folder of documents which has gone missing & may need to be re submitted if possible.

I can explain this mix up if you give me a call.

Regards

Peter."

 

Peter Milton faxed a total of 14 documents, only three of which seem to have been written by me.

So, on 31 August 2001 I had mailed a 2 page letter and 27 page complaint, together with several support documents.

 

And by 19 October 2001 - only six weeks later - all of this had been falsified down to 3 pages - my two page letter to the Director-General and the first page of my Stage 2 Grievance.

 

This suggests that 2469 is the file that Mr EL sent to The District Office after my retirement on 9 July 2002.

 

22 October 2001

2469 F The District Office document 120

This is a copy of a fax cover dated 22 October 2001 that usual principal Mr EL seems to have sent to District Office Employee Ms CHR.

There is nothing to indicate that the fax was actually sent.

 

"(name of Ms CHR),

Here is the paperwork from the previous Grievance.

Hope it is O.K.

Regards

(name of Mr EL)."

 

Usual principal Mr EL attached two documents, presumably his "Report: Grievance meeting Stage 1 - 5/2/01"

2469 File F The District Office documents 142-143

 

Which, if this fax is genuine, suggests that- 

  • Mr EL's Grievance Stage 1 "report" was first put on my District Office file after my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance.

 

  • Mr EL's "report" was the only Lynch-Mob State School document that was on my file at the District Office in October 2001.

 

  • Mr EL did not send the District Office a copy of Mrs GR's letter of 29 November 2000, advising me that I would be on DWP in 2001.

 

  • So it would not have been clear to District Office Employee CHR - or other members of the District office staff - what I was complaining about - the fact that on 29 November 2000 he and Mrs GR had made an agreement that "the (DWP) process is warranted" and that I would be on DWP in 2001.

 

Saturday, 25 May 2002

2469 File F The District Office documents 121-129

 

These documents 121-129 are copies of my emails to and from usual principal Mr EL in May 2002, just before I retired.

Mr EL seems to have printed the emails and put the copies into 2469 File F before he sent the file to the District office a few days after my retirement on 9 July 2002.

There are several copies of some of the emails.

Some copies of these emails have been falsified in that the right hand side of the email has been "cut off" and words are missing.

 

On Saturday 25 May 2002 5:07 PM

I wrote to the Staff Welfare Officer in The Cairns District Office-

 

"I find the three letters that Mrs GR gave me and the "report" written by Mr EL defamatory and professionally negligent. …

I would like to have these letters and the report officially withdrawn.

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

How can I make this request? …"

 

Mr EL put a true copy of this email in 2469 File F - document 124.

 

Mon 27 May 2002

1:39 PM

The Staff Welfare Officer emailed me.

She had queried my questions with District Officer Mrs GN and District Officer Ms CHR.

 

"… I hope the following will provide you with some assurances as to the confidentiality of your files.

At this office we have two files for you: your 'general personnel file' …, and a confidential file with documentation pertaining to the investigation that took place last year."

"This file is available for you to see under FOI … and yes, holds any response you might have made in this process.

This file will continue to be kept under lock in (name of District Office Employee CHR)'s room"

 

So this other file - presumably 2421 - was already at the District Office and it contained the documents that were used in an investigation that had taken place in 2001.

And to this day I am not clear what "investigation" the "confidential" file concerns.

To this day, 23 November 2008, despite making many FOI applications, I do not seem to have been provided with a copy of this "confidential" file.

 

"… Following your retirement, all files … are usually sealed and bound, and are inactive.

I understand that any ‘school based’ information will be held and suitably archived by the principal at the school. …"

 

Which suggests that the plan, at that time, was to leave the 2469 Stage 1 Grievance documents at the school and to keep the 2421 documents on my "official record" at the District Office.

 

But the "new story" told to the Verifact investigator in 2006 was that Mrs GR had taken a secret file - this must have been a third file - of falsified documents that she had been collecting on me to her home / to her next school.

 

"… You may like to contact Mr EL to clarify this.

District Office doesn’t necessarily receive all school data. …"

 

Which again suggests that the plan, at that time, was to leave the 2469 Stage 1 Grievance documents at the school and to keep the 2421 documents on my "official record" at the Cairns District Office.

 

Mr EL had a copy of this email - 2469 document 125 - but the "5" has been edited off, so it appears to be 12.

So Mr EL knew that I was concerned about the confidentiality of my "official records".

 

16:01 PM

I emailed Mr EL.

"I am concerned about the three letters written by Mrs GR...

At this stage I was only aware of the three letters that Mrs GR had given me.

I knew nothing about the mass of falsified "records" that she had put secretly on my file.

... and the 'report' that you wrote ...

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

Mr EL has a true copy of this email at 2469 F 123.

 

Tuesday 28 May 2002. 12:14 PM

I emailed the Staff Welfare Officer.

"I have thought the situation over and I would like these documents officially withdrawn.

I consider that I suffered a sustained period of bullying, was defamed and subject to professionally negligent treatment by more than one person.

I now realise that my health suffered quite significantly.

It is not good enough just to say that misleading and defamatory material will be 'filed' or not added.

Administrators must accept responsibility for the documents that they sign.

I have contacted Mr EL and have made what I consider to be a generous offer to consider the issue resolved in his case, Miss AL's case and the case of district and any Head Office personnel who were manipulated into the situation if he agrees to officially withdraw his 'report'...."

 

Mr EL has a true copy of this email on 2469 F 124 and 125 - but, again, the 5 is off the page and so the page number appears to be 12.

 

Thursday 30 May 2002 11:16

Mr EL emailed me-

 

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

 

Mr EL had always represented what he was doing to me as an investigation, and in this email he again clearly identifies what he had done as an investigation.

 

This is quite significant, because in October 2004 the Aboriginal "internal reviewer" found that-

"Page 20

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

Draft report dated 11 October 2004, attached to letter to me from Lemm Ex dated 6 April 2005, part of 2606.

 

I have no idea how the Aboriginal "internal reviewer" came to this conclusion.

 

"g) it is not clear whether the Complainant had accepted this approach by the principal before it was implemented."

Draft report dated 11 October 2004, attached to letter to me from Lemm Ex dated 6 April 2005, part of 2606.

 

I knew nothing about this choice "not to commission or undertake a detail investigation".

I had asked for an investigation, and Mr EL gave me the impression that he had conducted an investigation.

I understood that Mr EL had read the investigation report to Mrs GR and I at the start of the meeting on 5 February 2001.

 

But I now realise that Mr EL's wording could be interpreted to suggest that he conducted his investigation on 5 February 2001.

 

Mr EL refused to withdraw his "report"-

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

 

There is a true copy of this email at 2469 121-122. (But the last "2" is off the page.)

 

11:55

I emailed District Officer Mrs GN.

"Mr EL tells me that he cannot withdraw his report.

I thought that this would be a good informal way to resolve the situation.

So the only way to have the reports corrected is to make a Stage 2 Grievance against either Mr EL or Mrs GR?"

 

14:36 PM

I emailed Mr EL.

"What a shame, Mr EL.

This is the second time that I have tried to help you to get yourself out of this mess.

Please confirm that my 120 page response is attached to your 'report'."

 

Mr EL put a true copy of this email in 2469 File F - document 129.

 

3:51 PM

Mr EL emailed me.

"I never received the 120 page response that you sent to District office.

Could you ask them to send me a copy and I will put it with the report."

2469 File F document 121

 

  • This statement seems to contradict the fax sent to District Office Employee Ms CHR on 22 October 2001.

2469 F The District Office document 120

This 30 May 2002 statement suggests that the 2469 File F documents, including Mr EL's Grievance Report, were still being held at the school in May 2002.

 

And at this time, although I did not realise it, all but the first three pages of my 120 page response had first been "lost", then parts of the response had been sent to the District Office, jumbled with other documents.

So the District Office had never actually received a true copy of my response.

And would not have been able to send a true copy to Mr EL.

 

5:17 PM

I emailed Mr EL.

"Thank you for your honest response."

 

I said that I would not make another grievance against him.

 

I really liked and trusted Mr EL.

It has taken me a long time to really believe that he was actively involved in the abuse.

 

"But the bullying must stop."

2469 File F document 121.

This page was moved over to the right when it was photocopied.

Words on the right hand side of the page were deleted.

 

Monday 3 June 2002

12:30 AM

I emailed District Officer Mrs GN and attached a Stage 2 Grievance to the District Office.

12:32 AM

I emailed District Officer Ms CHR and attached my Stage 2 Grievance to the District Office.

 

  • This document was very similar to my 31 August Stage 2 grievance to the Director-General.
  • So this would be the first time that either of these officers had actually read my Stage 2 Grievance.

 

Wednesday 12 June 2002

4:50 PM

District officer Mrs GN emailed me.

"(My first name)

Your grievance has been received in this office. Regards

(First name of Mrs GN.)"

 

So seems to have taken nine days for my emailed Grievance to "arrive" at the District Office.

Which seems rather odd.

 

Saturday 15 June 2002

4:15 PM

I emailed usual principal MR EL.

  • Mr EL did not put a copy of this email in the 2469 file.

 

"Hello Mr EL,

I am just sending you a copy of my Stage I Grievance for your file.

Please make sure that it is kept with your report.

I will also make a response to your report and send it, just in case the district do not have time to deal with my grievance before the date of my retirement."

I intended to write a simplified version of the Stage 2 Grievance that I had sent to the District office, but actually I never got around to doing that.

"I would like to think that, if anybody ever examined these documents, they would have access to the facts.

(My name)"

 

Monday 17 June 2002

8:07 AM

Usual principal EL emailed me:

"Thanks for that (my name).

I'll put them with the report.

Regards Mr EL."

 

  • This email is also missing from the file, but Mr EL did put both the short (documents 90-92, page numbers backwards at top right hand corner of the document) and the longer version (documents 131-141, page numbers backwards at top right hand corner of page) of my Stage 1 Grievance in the 2469 file.

 

  • So Mr EL obviously had the 2469 file at this time and he was obviously putting documents into the file.

 

Also 17 June 2002

2469 File F The District Office document 130

  • I first saw this document after July 12 2004, when it was released to me with the 2469 documents.

 

This is a copy of a typed letter to usual principal Mr EL from acting principal Mrs GR.

The letter is dated and the address is Mrs GR's home address.

 

"Dear (Mr EL),

As you know, I am aware of a range of emails sent to you by (my name) in recent weeks."

 

So Mr EL was showing Mrs GR my emails.

But he had not shown her mass of falsified "records" to me.

 

"The circumstances around (my name)'s grievance are not as she portrays them, ..."

Actually, in reality, they were.

But Mrs GR had secretly filled my file with a mass of falsified "records" of her (seemingly imaginary) conversations with District Office staff, principals, teachers, children and parents concerning me.

This mass of falsified documents seems to have contained a lot of "red herrings", introduced into the story to create maximum confusion.

 

"... but, as you know, I have endeavoured to ignore the situation rather than to take action and thus inflame matters further.

I consider many of these emails to be defamatory, ..."

In reality, Mrs GR had probably defamed me at the staff meeting on 10 November 2000, when she told the staff that there was "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

At least one person present at that meeting knew that Mrs GR was talking about me.

 

"... but am particularly concrned about the most recent one forwarded to you over the weekend."

This was my Stage 1 Grievance.

 

(My name) has asked that this latest email be placed on her file.

If the email is placed on her file I request that this letter be placed with it.

I am unsure as to whether (my name) will "let go" of the situation in the future ... "

So, Mrs GR does not see the problem as her own and Mr EL's abuse of the DWP process, Natural Justice, the Public Service Regulations and the Education Queensland Code of Conduct, and of Mr EL's abuse of the Grievance process, etc.

Mrs GR sees the problem as one of me not "letting go" of the abuse.

 

"... and would like to have it recorded that I consider that the allegations in the attachment to the email are incorrect (and possibly libelous).

The majority of the "evidence" is incorrect, misquoted or quoted out of context."

In reality, I was describing the situation in a factual manner.

In reality, Mrs GR had put a mass of falsified "records" of her (seemingly imaginary) conversations with district office staff, other principals, teachers, parents, children etc. secretly on my official record.

 

Mr EL has hand-written "received 18/6/2" at the bottom of this document.

This again seems to suggest that this is the file of documents that Mr EL sent to the Cairns District Office after my retirement on July 9 2001.

 

This is quite an interesting document.

It demonstrates that-

 

  •  by 17 June 2002, Mrs GR had developed no insight into her bullying or her abuse of several Education Queensland policies.

and that-

  • Mr EL was concealing Mrs GR’s mass of falsified documents from me, but he was allowing Mrs GR to see my emails to him.

 

and it suggests that either-

  • Mrs GR knows that her "records" are falsified and that what she is saying is untrue, but she just "brazens it out",

or that-

  • Mrs GR suffers from some sort of mental heath problem.

 

Thursday 27 June 2002

10:31 AM

I emailed usual principal Mr EL.

  • Mr EL did not put a copy of this email in 2469 File F.

 

"Hello Mr EL.

I have not forgotten that I said I would send a response to your report.

I am just waiting to see if the bullying has been effectively dealt with.

If I feel there is a risk that the bullying will continue I will provide you with the material you will need to protect and support other teachers who are targeted.

(My name)"

 

I had such respect for Mr EL.

I sumply could not believe that he would have been involved in the bullying.

I presumed that Mrs GR must have lied to him and manipulated him in some way.

 

Saturday 29 June 2002

5:00 PM

I emailed Mr EL:

  • Mr EL did not put a copy of this email in the 2469 File F.

 

"Hello Mr EL,

I am wondering if we have been 'played off' each other.

(Name of the local Queensland Teachers' Union [QTU] organiser) told me that you had "put a spin" on his words to you.

He told me that he had asked you to correct your report and that you had refused."

I trusted and respected Mr EL so much, I was struggling to find an explanation for his behaviour.

 

"I made a grievance to the Director General on 31 August last year about systemic abuse of the Grievance and DWP policies to bully teachers.

This is what (name of QTU officer) told me was going on.

I used your report as an example.

Education Queensland have since developed new workplace bullying, harassment and discrimination policies.

They are also changing the DWP policy.

I have no problems with the way that Education Queensland has dealt with my Grievance - and many other Grievances, I suppose.

I had presumed that (name of QTU officer) was intimidated by Mrs GR ...

I am sending you my recent grievance, a "History of the Situation" and a copy of a letter that I sent to the local QTU organiser. ...

I should warn you that you will find them pretty shocking if you have, as I now suspect, been duped.

(my name)"

 

I had attached:

1) A copy of my Stage 2 Grievance to the District Office.

  • Mr EL did not put a copy of this document in 2469 File F .

2) My 28 February 2001 letter to the local QTU organiser - Mr EL put a copy of this in the 2469 File F (documents 144-5)

3) The "History of the Situation".

  • Mr EL did not put a copy of this document in 2469 File F.

But several true copies of this "History of the Situation" document can be found in 2469 File E The District Office, documents 1-16, 17-32, 33-48 and 49-64.

 

 

2421 File C 28-29

These documents 2421 File C 28 and 29 have not been released to me to this date, 11 February 2008.

These documents must have existed when my file was photocopied, because they were given numbers.

But by the time that Stephannie Kalas wrote her "decision" on 23 March 2004, presumably only a few days after my documents were photocopied, these two documents had "vanished".

 

I presume that 2421 C 28 and 29 must be the "lost" District Office Report described in FOI 2875 File J Document 221-

Document 2875 J 221 is a record of  what appears to have been a telephone conversation between EQ Head Office Employee  M.N and EQ District Office Employee C.H.R. on 27 January 2006:

 

"- (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."

 

I presume that the findings of this "lost" District Office Report were based on the "evidence" contained in the mass of falsified "records" concerning me that

had been secretly placed in this file.

 

 

FOI document 2421 F 1

23 March 2004
This document was described by Stephannie Kalas as -
"handwritten note from (me) to G.R.",
So presumably it existed on 23 March 2004.
Stephannie refused me access to this document.

27 April 2004

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

27 October 2005

The 2421 documents had all been reversed in order and given new numbers.

This document had vanished from the offical records.

To this date, 30 April 2008, this document has not been provided to me.

 

FOI document 2421 F 5

23 March 2004

This document was not described by Stephannie Kalas.

27 April 2004

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

27 October 2005

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

To this date, 30 April 2008, this document has not been provided to me.

27 October 2005 

When I received FOI 2733 (which contained copies of the 2421 documents), I found that the 2421 documents had all been reversed in order and given new numbers.

And this document had vanished from the official records.

 

____________________

FOI 2421 F document 60

This 'document" seems to be a small square sticky-note.

The document is written by hand in different styles.

A mobile phone number has been printed diagonally across the sticky-note.

0413155---

Above that, in the top right hand corner is printed:

PUT IN WRITING & GIVE TO (my name) & (name of local QTU organiser).

The inclusion of the name of the local organiser suggests that this may have been a conversation with a QTU organiser, because they usually advise you to give a copy of documents to the local organiser - who has not got the time to read them.

below the mobile phone number is printed on the left hand side -

OBLIG'NS to SUPERVISER

Underneath that, written in curly, linked up handwriting, underlined and framed in a rectangle is -

Code of Conduct

Underneath that is printed:

No IMP OVER 3WKS (arrow to) DWP

TOLD CONCERNS - O Further No Option But DWP.

The words No Option But DWP are similar to the words used by E.L. (in 2421 File E, the diary page dated Wednesday 3 January 2001) when he justified putting me on DWP.

So this person seems to be giving either E.L. or G.R. advice on how to put me on DWP.

 

Monday 29 March 2004

4:47pm

I emailed Fiona McNamara in confidence at the QTU.

I described this sticky-note and asked -

 

"... Do you know who was advising G.R. how to put me on DWP?

Was any record made of the conversation?

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

G.R. seems to be arguing that I had to be punished because I responded to her accusations. because I did not immediately agree that I was guilty.

But doesn't the DWP process give me the right to respond to the accusations at least once?

I would appreciate your advice."

 

On 23 March 2004 sticky-note 2421 60 was filed on a page alone.

But on 27 October 2005 the official record showed that sticky-note 60 had been stuck on document 61 in (the 2733 F version of ) the 2421 F file.

Which creates, I believe, the false impression that sticky-note 60 is related to document 61 - the entirely falsified version of G.R.'s letter to me dated 23 November 2000, and that the discussion 'recorded' on the sticky-note took place on either 21 or 22 November 2000.

 

  • Undated and unsigned 'records' made on sticky-notes can be moved about and stuck on other documents to create the false impression that they are related to that document.

 

  • 'Code of Conduct' can be written on an undated and unsigned sticky note and placed secretly on your file, introducing the idea that some aspect of your behaviour is in breach of the Code of Conduct. Nobody has signed the document, so nobody can be held responsible for making this suggestion. Even when you find the document under FOI, you cannot respond to the suggestion because you have no idea what it means. But the suggestion can never be removed from your files.

 

FOI 2421 document F 58

19 May 2004: was the date when I first reported that this document was falsified.

3:14

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

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

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

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

 

2421 document F 41

This "document" consists of a hand-written note at the bottom of 2421 F 41, below the conversation with Raymond described above. This suggests that it is related to the conversation with Raymond in some way.

I first saw this note after 27 April 2004. 

N.B. Spoke to Mr XXXXXXXX on 1/12/00 re XXXXXXXX need to curb his behaviour.

This document provides an example of how difficult it is to respond to documents years after the event and with many of the names blanked out.

  • This purported "incident" concerning me was not discussed with me during any meeting that I ever attended with any employee of Education Queensland. I knew nothing about this purported "incident" until after 27 April 2004, when I began to receive copies of the mass of falsified documents that had been secretly placed on my files.

I noticed that two strokes in the surname of this father fell below the "blanking out" of the surname.

I checked the class list to see which child in Raymond's class had a surname that contained a double downward stroke.

I will call the child with that surname  Dillon.

In the week before the staff meeting on November 10 2000, the staff meeting at which School Administrator G.R. made certain comments to the staff concerning me, the children in Dillon's class had been waiting outside their classroom for me. Dillon forced his hat onto the heads of four or five of the girls. They protested loudly. I told him to stop. He forced his hat onto my head. Dillon did this in "high-jinks" rather than in malice - he was still a bit excited after lunch. It was not a big issue.

Later in the week I spoke to his teacher, Grade 7 teacher N.T.

I showed teacher N.T. the records that I had been keeping of the number of children from her class who were missing from my specialist classes because, her class advised me, she had instructed them to go and use the computers in other classrooms.

I had mentioned my concern about this situation to teacher N.T. once previously.

I re-stated to teacher N.T. my concern that I had no real way to be sure where these children were when they were missing from my classes.

I told teacher N.T. that her class was not the only class that I was worried about, children in the other Grade 7 classes were being allowed to wander about the school on their own initiative.

I had spoken to School Administrator G.R. about this situation the previous week. I had asked for her support in saying that groups of Grade 7 children should not be missing from my classes, roaming unsupervised around the school. 

School Administrator G.R. had advised me to discuss the situation at a staff meeting.

She wrote it on the white-board for discussion at the next staff meeting. 

Later in the week she moved it to the top of the list of items for discussion at the staff meeting.

I also asked Grade 7 teacher N.T. to speak to her class about nits.

I told her about Dillon forcing his hat onto the girls' heads.

At the end of 2005 (after I had asked for legal advice for five years) the QTU had allowed me a maximum of $1000 (one thousand dollars) worth of legal advice.

The QTU solicitor asked me if I had ever been told about a complaint made concerning me by a father.

I was left with the impression that the QTU solicitor "knew something that I did not know".

I also noticed that this incident had been underlined and !!!!! noted in some of the FOI documents.

Departmental officers seemed to be interested in this "Hat Incident".

I wondered if Dillon's father could have complained about "The Hat Incident".

So on the evening of Thursday 9 February 2006 I rang Dillon's father.

Dillon's father S---- was quite certain that he had made no complaint concerning me.

He was quite certain that no school Principal had ever phoned him about any incident concerning me.

He said that he would remember something like that if it had happened. He knew nothing about the hat incident. He sounded absolutely sure.

Dillon's mother T----- was working at a distance from the phone. S---- shouted to her to ask her if she knew anything about it and T----- said that she could remember something about a hat vaguely. She repeated that again later.

S---- took my phone number and my email address and said that he would get Dillon to ring me (he was out when I rang) if any of them remembered anything about the situation.

I heard no more from the family.

 

  • "Records" of imaginary conversations with parents concerning you may be secretly placed on your official Education Queensland record. 

 

2421 document F 40- 39 (and also 2733 F 24) 

These 'documents' are unsigned and have been written by hand on loose pieces of paper or rectangular sticky-notes.

The documents appear to have been made by School Administrator G.R.

 

8:30 Fri 10/11 Staff Meeting

Following complaints that (my name) had been ... humiliating students ( ..., notes to [Grade 7 teacher N.T.] from D-----) I made a statement to the effect ... that as far as I was concerned, humiliating students was a disciplinary offence by teachers.

 

School Administrator G.R. did not discuss the allegations contained in these  ( ..., notes to [Grade 7 teacher N.T.] from D-----) before she made this announcement concerning me to the staff.

I did not realise that G.R. had been talking about me to the staff till another teacher warned me that G.R. had been talking about me, and that G.R. was "out to get me".

The ( ..., notes to [Grade 7 teacher N.T.] from D-----) were never discussed with me during any meeting that I attended.

 

All of the names had been deleted from the copy of this document that was provided to me in FOI 2421, so it did not make much sense to me. I first understood the meaning of this document when I received FOI 2733 after 27 October 2005.

This was one year after the 2004 "internal review" by EQ officer S.E. had been finalised.

D----- is an unusual name. I only know two people with that name. One is a very prominent member of our local community. She has advised me that she is not the person concerned.

During Term 4 2000 a teacher D-----, was being "re-habilitated" at our school. I understood that D----- was recovering from some form of health breakdown. I only spoke to D----- about twice during Term 4 2000. When I spoke to D----- it was immediately obvious that she was having difficulty functioning.

I am not clear what work D----- was actually doing at the school.

At this time Grade 7 teacher N.T. was writing a lot of "outcomes based" curriculum documents. It is possible that D----- was asked to take N.T's class for her while she had "non-contact time" to write curriculum documents.  

Of course this would be totally inappropriate. A teacher on "re-habilitation" should not have been asked to take such an unco-operative Grade 7 class.

But at no time did I ever see D----- in or near Grade 7 teacher N.T's class while I was taking the class.

On Tuesday 7 February 2006 I rang D-----.

I read the FOI documents to her and asked her if she was the D----- who had written the ( ..., notes to [Grade 7 teacher N.T.] from D-----) .

D----- said that she had no recollection of writing any note to Grade 7 teacher N.T. concerning me.

D----- repeated this several times during our conversation.

D----- told me that she had taken a Grade 2 class at the school during 2000 and so she could not have taken Grade 7 teacher N.T's class.

I do not believe that this is correct. I remember D----- arriving at the school during Term 3 or 4 2000.

D----- then said that she remembered one incident when a boy was cheeky in a specialist lesson. It could have been the Indonesian lesson. Or Religious Instruction. Or something else.

The boy had been cheeky to the teacher. The teacher was a woman.

D----- said that the mother came to collect the boy to take him to a dental appointment. The mother was startled by the way that the boy was speaking to the teacher. The mother was startled by the situation. The situation seemed to be a long-standing personality clash between the child and the teacher.

D----- remembers telling the mother that the (class) teacher would have to sort the situation out.

D----- thought that she had written a note to teacher N.T. about it.

D----- wondered if it could have happened when teacher N.T was Acting Deputy School Principal in 2003, when she was doing relief teaching at the school.

I know nothing about this situation.

I do not believe that I ever had had any sort of "personality clash" with a boy in Grade 7 teacher N.T's class.

 

  • Were notes concerning a problem with another teacher put secretly on my file?

 

  • Were notes concerning a problem with another teacher in 2003 put maliciously on my file when I made my Freedom of Information application at the end of 2003?
  • Records of allegations that you know nothing about can be secretly placed on your official record.

 

  • These "allegations" may be entirely imaginary.

 

  • The administrator, parent, teacher, child etc. making the allegations may have a mental health problem.

 

  • The allegations may have been malicously "spun" out of some trivial incident to bully you into ill health or to "pay you back".

 

  • The allegations may concern the actions of another teacher.

 

  • Decisions concerning you can be based on these secret allegations.

 

  • Reports concerning you can be based on these secret allegations. 

 

  • You may not find out about these allegations for many years. 

 

  • The "allegations" may be hinted at, rather than stated clearly in the documents that are released to you under Freedom of Information.

 

  • So even when you are given the documents under Freedom of Information, you will still be denied natural justice - the right to understand the allegations against you.

 

  • And names will be deleted from the FOI documents. You will not know if your accuser is an administrator, parent, teacher or child. 

 

  • Many of the "documents" released to you may be little more than scribbles on scraps of paper and sticky-notes.

 

  • All names will have been deleted from these "documents", so there may be so little information in the "document" that you are not able to understand what it is that is being alleged against you or why this "document" was secretly placed on your official record.

 

  • And, because any Education Queensland investigation into your complaint will be delayed for more than five years, your accuser / abuser will be able to claim that they cannot remember what it was that they were alleging concerning you (snigger, snigger).

 

  • This Education Queensland practice has created an unsafe working environment in which it would be very easy for an administrator to malicously falsify an "allegation" against a Queensland teacher in order to deliberately drive that teacher into ill health retirement.

 

2421 F 32-28

23 March 2004

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

Documents 2421 F 28-32 were described 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 2421 F 28-32.

I made an internal review application for a copy of FOI 2421 F 28-32.

 

In my FOI internal review application I said that FOI 2421 F 28-32 must be falsified because  School Administrator E.L. did not attend that meeting.

 

27 April 2004

Education Queensland HREOC-trained discrimination solicitor M.E. sent me a copy of 2421 F 28-32.

But it was a different document.

This substitute 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 version of 2421 F 28-32 are in a different order and they are different names.

 

To this date - 20 September 2007 - I have not been provided with a copy of the first, entirely falsified version of 2421 F 28-32.

 

I first reported that the substitute documents 2421 F 32-28 were falsified on: Monday 17 May 2004

10:58am

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

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

I attached my response to 2421 F document 32-28.

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

This 'record' was written by acting principal A.L.

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

This substitute 'record' had been significantly falsified.

 

26 March 2004

I first began to realise myself that my official files had been falsified  -

At 11:12 am I emailed David Turner, an Education Queensland FOI officer -

"David,

I notice that document (FOI 2421 F ) 61 (number at the top right-hand side of the page)  appears to be a falsification.

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

What should I do about falsified documents?

Who should I report this to?

(My name)."

 

18 November 2006

Pretty well everybody in the Queensland Government has been quite clear since November 2006 that my Education Queensland record has been extensively falsified -

 

18 November 2006 9:54 AM I sent an email to Desley Boyle, Minister for Child Safety ChildSafety@ministerial.qld.gov.au

I said that I had reported child abuse by a male teacher in late 1999.

And that no written record had been made of this disclosure.

But one year later I was given a letter to advise me that a decision had been made to put me into a punishment program.

I was told that "lots of" secret allegations had been made against me.

I attached a list of the falsified "records" that had been secretly placed on my Department of Education file - November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

This list is described in detail above.

I drew Desley Boyle's attention to the fact that the senior Education Queensland officer whose abuse I had complained about to the CMC had been put in charge of organising the investigation into what was essentially his own conduct.

I appealed to Desley Boyle to contact the Director-General of Education, Rachel Hunter, and support my request to be allowed to read and respond to the Verifact Commercial Investigation before Education Queensland declared the investigation "finalised".

Child Safety-SMTP read this email on Monday 20 November 2006 at 8:43 AM.

22 November 2006 1:56 PM the office of the Minister for Child Safety responded:

(My name), Thank you for your email of 18 November 2006. We confirm receipt of your message.

 

18 November 2006 9:54 AM I sent a similar appeal to Anna Bligh, Deputy Premier of Queensland DeputyPremier@ministerial.qld.gov.au and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

18 November 2006 9:55 AM I sent a similar appeal to Robin Sullivan  robin.sullivan@childsafety.qld.gov.au and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

Robin Sullivan read this email on Monday 20 November 2006 at 8:02 AM.

18 November 2006 9:56 AM I sent a similar appeal to Peter Henneken,  peter.henneken@dir.qld.gov.au and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

Peter Henneken read this email on Monday 20 November 2006 at 8:49 AM.

At 2:17 PM that day he emailed me:

(My name), This is a matter for the CMC or Ombudsman. Peter Henneken, Director-General.

18 November 2006 9:58 AM I sent a similar appeal to Jim McGowan,  Jim.McGowan@justice.qld.gov.au and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

Jim McGowan read this email on Monday 20 November 2006 at 8:15 AM.

18 November 2006 9:59 AM I sent a similar appeal to Bob Atkinson, APM,   commissioner@police.qld.gov.au and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

18 November 2006 10:00 AM I sent a similar appeal to Ross Rolfe,   ross.rolfe@premiers.qld.gov.au and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

Ross Rolfe read this email on Monday 20 November 2006 at 8:39 AM.

18 November 2006 10:01 AM I sent a similar appeal to Robert Needham,   mailbox@cmc.qld.gov.au and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

18 November 2006 10:03 AM I sent a similar appeal to Cathi Taylor,   administration@oic.qld.gov.au and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

18 November 2006 10:04 AM I sent a similar appeal to David Bevan,   ombudsman@ombudsman.qld.gov.au  and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

This email was read by the Ombudsman's office on Monday 20 November 2006 8:06 AM.

18 November 2006 10:06 AM I sent a similar appeal to James Purtill,   james.purtill@opsme.qld.gov.au   and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

James Purtill read this email on Saturday 18 November 2006 at 14:36 PM.

18 November 2006 10:08 AM I sent a similar appeal to Judy Spence,   Police@ministerial.qld.gov.au   and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

18 November 2006 10:10 AM I sent a similar appeal to Peter Beattie,   Premiers@ministerial.qld.gov.au  and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

Premiers-SMTP read this email on Monday 20 November 2006 at 7:27 AM.

18 November 2006 10:13 AM I sent a similar appeal to Peter Edwards,   Peter.Edwards@qed.qld.gov.au   and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

18 November 2006 10:15 AM I sent a similar appeal to Jim Varghese,   jim.varghese@dpi.qld.gov.au  and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

18 November 2006 10:16 AM I sent a similar appeal to Regan Neumann,   Regan.NEUMANN@qed.qld.gov.au  and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

18 November 2006 10:17 AM I sent a similar appeal to Sharon Hansen,   shansen@qtu.asn.au and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

18 November 2006 10:20 AM I sent a similar appeal to Fiona McNamara,  Welfare / Services officer, Queensland Teachers' Union (QTU),  qtu@qtu.asn.au and I attached the November 17 2006 List of falsified or concealed documents.

 

So -

Pretty well everybody in the Queensland Government has been quite clear since 18 November 2006 that my Education Queensland record has been extensively falsified.

But -

They all seem to have passively agreed to do nothing about the situation -

4 December 2006, sixteen days later,  Rachel Hunter wrote to Ross Rolfe -

Dear Ross,

I am aware that Ms ------ ------, a former employee of the Department of Education, training and the Arts, has been making contact with Directors-General from several government departments.

In any reply to Ms ------, 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 representation, please contact Mr Regan Neumann, Director of Workforce Standards and Performance Unit on telephone 907) 3237 0232

Thank you for your support in dealing with this situation.

Yours sincerely,

Rachel Hunter

Director-General

(FOI OPS 70524 FOLIO 2 attached to letter to me dated 6 July 2007 from the office of the Public Service Commissioner)

 

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

I never spoke to Mr Neumann and he does not seem to have been involved in any part of my "case".

I do not understand how Regan Neumann could possibly answer questions about my "representations".

I do not believe that he knew anything at all about my "case".

And Rachel Hunter does not make clear in her letter to Ross Rolfe that, on 16 October 2003, she, Peter Beattie, Neil Smith, Jeff Loof and George O'Farrell had all signed and approved a Chief of Staff briefing note recommending that no response be prepared to any further correspondence received from me.

And that their decision not to respond to any further correspondence from me had been made three weeks after my first Freedom of Information application - When it would have been obvious to everybody in the Queensland Public Service that I was going to find the mass of falsified documents that had been secretly placed on my Education Queensland files -

 

24 September 2003 10:11 AM  I had contacted InformationPrivacy@qed.qld.gov.au :

 ... How do I go about finding out why I was put on DWP? I am reluctant to contact the District office because there are conflict of interest issues ...

26 September 2003 11:02 AM  I had emailed mailbox@justice.qld.gov.au :

... I am trying to find out why I was put on DWP by the Acting Principal of (my school) at the end of 2000. ... I have tried the EQ grievance process but EQ refuse to respond to my letters. ... I think I really need to know the official reason why I was put on DWP and why the DG refuses to read my letters. I am reluctant to contact the District office because there are (serious) conflict of interest issues involved. How can I find out why EQ are behaving this way? How they are justifying their conduct? ...

So, when I discovered the falsified documents in 2004 and reported that my departmental records had been extensively falsified, and again when I wrote to these senior Queensland public servants on 18 November 2006, nobody replied to my letters and emails - as had been agreed by Rachel Hunter, Peter Beattie, Neil Smith, Jeff Loof and George O'Farrell on 16 October 2003.

 

To this date, 9 February, 2008, fourteen months after her letter to Ross Rolfe, Rachel Hunter has not contacted me.

And she has not allowed me to read and to respond to the Verifact Commercial Investigation into my complaint.

 

Appendix A

How the "official Records" of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to Jom Varghese were extensively falsified:

On 31 August 2001, I made a Stage 2 Grievance to Jim Varghese, the Director-General of Education Queensland about the systemic abuse of the Education Queensland Diminished Workplace Performance Process and the Grievance Process to bully Queensland teachers.

 

The "official records" of this Stage 2 Grievance seem to have been extensively falsified-

2421 File B Human Resource Service Branch, documents 6-15 :This copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General has been falsified, in that only my two-page letter and the first eight pages of my Grievance were included. The last nineteen pages of my Grievance have vanished.

I first began to realise that the "official records" of my Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General had been falsified when Stephannie Kalas, Education Queensland FOi Officer, wrote to me on 23 March 2004, describing:

"File B 6-15 Letter from Ms ------ to DG re. stage 2 grievance dated 31/10/01."

And she refused me access to the document.

On 12 April 2004 I wrote to Stephannie:

"Is this my grievance of 31 AUGUST 2001?

I have no record of a letter to the DG dated 31 October 2001."

 

My 29-page letter to the Director-General had been shrunk to nine pages.

Had the  official record of the date of my Stage 2 Grievance also been falsified?

 

It would have been immediately obvious to Education Queensland District Office and Head Office staff from 31 August 2001 that my official records had been extensively falsified.

In my letter to Jim Varghese dated 31 August 2001, I explained that -

"I wrote to (acting school principal G.R.) because she did not listen when I spoke. I noticed that she responded better if you wrote things down. Her "learning style" seemed to be to read rather than to listen.

I have only ever received three written statements about this issue from her -

20 Nov (2000) a letter ... 1 page

23 Nov (2000) a letter ... 1/3 page

29 Nov (2000) a letter  ... 1 page

and (usual school principal E.R.)'s report ... 1 1/2 pages.

These four pages of written statements - often quite deliberately vague - are the only "facts" that have been shared with me about this situation that could not be changed.

Please compare this with the number of support documents that I have produced and circulated in my efforts to communicate effectively.

You have to conclude that one person is trying very, very hard to communicate clearly, and other people are trying to be as vague and insubstantial as possible.

When you put almost nothing in writing, of course, your position can change from moment to moment. Nothing can be proved. You cannot be held responsible for the things that you say. You just say that you were misunderstood or that there was a misunderstanding.

I knew that I was taking a risk putting things in writing, but I felt unsafe and I wanted to know that there were some facts that could not change.

I wanted to know that there was some reality in the situation."

2421 B Human Resource Services Branch document 8.

 

What I did not know when I wrote to the Director-General, but what must have been obvious to everybody who had read my 31 August 2001 Grievance, was that a huge mass of falsified 'records' had been secretly placed on my departmental files.

And, although I did not realise it, decisions had already been made concerning me, based on these falsified records.

 

 

27 April 2004

The Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor M.E. wrote his internal review -

"File B ... documents deal with a 'Stage 2 Grievance' brought by you against G.R. and E.L., Principal of (the) State School.

The grievance allegation was 'workplace bullying'."

 

But this is not really correct.

My 31 August 2001 Grievance to the Director-General actually concerned the systemic abuse of the Education Queensland DWP and Grievance process to bully Queensland teachers.

 

"The bulk of the file consists of your letter of complaint - documents 6-15 ..."

And M.E. also refused to allow me access to this falsified version of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 grievance.

 

I did not realise at the time that the falsified 2421 File B Human Resource Services Branch version of my Stage 2 grievance to the Director-General only consisted of my two-page cover-letter and the first eight pages of my Grievance.

The last 19 pages of my grievance were missing.

 

Decisions that were made concerning me may have been based on this falsified version of my stage 2 Grievance.

 

For example:

Decision 1: The "investigation that took place last year" described by the District office Staff Welfare officer in her email to me on 27 May 2002 at 1:32pm-

 

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

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

 

Decision 2: District Officer CHR's August 8 2003 "Briefing Note for the Minister for Education".

 

Decision 3: The "investigation" apparently conducted by-

"stage 2 grievance investigator (usual Lynch-Mob State School principal EL) who found that no bullying had in fact occurred".

This investigation was described by Ombudsmen R.S. in his memo of our meeting on 12 October 2004.

I had flown to Brisbane to meet Ombudsmen L.O and R.S.

Ombudsman R.S.'s memo of the meeting seems to be 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 (usual Lynch-Mob State School principal EL) who found that no bullying had in fact occurred. ..."

 

- seemed to me to be gibberish when I first read it in 2006, attached to a letter to me dated 5th June 2006 from the Ombudsman's Freedom of Information Decison Maker.

These Ombudsmen and I had not discussed this purported "stage 2 grievance investigation" during our meeting.

To this date, 24 March 2008, I know nothing about this purported Stage 2 Grievance Investigation.

  • And it would not have been appropriate for usual Lynch-Mob State School principal EL 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.

 

Decision 4: The "lost" District office report described by described by District Officer C.H.R. on 27 January 2006 -

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

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

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

Need to look - at report.

(FOI 2875 File J Document 221)

 

- all of these 'decisions' concerning my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance seem to have been made by public servants who had not read a true copy of my Grievance.

 

My 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General was returned to the District Office.

District Officer C.H.R.  asked an "old mate" of hers from another District to investigate my Grievance.

He came to my home on 25 October 2001.

He had a copy of my Grievance.

Now I wonder if it was a falsified version.

He told me that my 28 support documents, the list of support documents and the "History of the Situation" that I had provided had all been lost in Education Queensland Head Office.

This seemed to be very, very odd.

The Investigator chosen by District Officer C.H.R. did not tell me - he may not have realised - that most of my grievance had also been 'lost'.

By this time we were in the middle of a federal election campaign.

I had no idea that everything that was happening to me was happening to hundreds of bullied teachers all over the world.

I thought that what was happening to me was astounding.

I thought that it would make headlines all over Australia if my story "got out".

 

School administrator G.R. had repeatedly threatened to take action against me if I continued to complain about her behaviour.

The QTU organiser had told me that there was no hope of justice.

I was very apprehensive that my documents were going to be "leaked" and that I was going to be accused of gross misconduct for "leaking" the lost documents.

To protect myself from this allegation, I asked for all of my documents to be sent to the CMC liaison officer till after the election.

 

I asked for the CMC liaison officer's advice. Was this a public interest disclosure?

 

District Office Employee C.H.R. emailed me on 7 November 2001 at 1:38 P.M.

 

"I've just had a call from Katrina Jefferson from Executive and Legal Branch asking if this district has copies of the documents you sent to the D-G.

I believe there are 32 of them. Katrina is anxious to examine these documents so she can prepare a reply to issues you have raised as promptly as possible. Katrina works with Kathryn Mahoney as a CJC Liaison officer.

The originals can't be located and we don't have them."

This suggests that the "investigator' appointed by the District office was not given a true copy of my grievance.

"Is it possible for you to send copies of the 32 documents to Katrina?"

 

At 2:15 P.M. that day I replied. I said that I would re-send a full set of documents the next day.

 

But at 4:40 P.M. Katrina Jefferson emailed me.

The "official story" had now changed.

 

"... the situation as I understand it is that in accordance with the usual procedure the documents were scanned and electronically preserved in the Correspondence Unit within the Executive Services Branch.

Accordingly I have been able to obtain electric print outs of these documents (113 pages) and there is now no need for you to mail a copy to me."

 

It now seems that the District office staff may never have read any more than the first page of my grievance.

But they were making decisions concerning my Grievance!

 

And almost all other Queensland Government Departments also had falsified versions of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General -

 

2421 File A

The Ethical Standards Unit did not have a copy of my Grievance.

2421 File C

The District Office - documents 193-191 was another falsified version of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General  - this version consisted of my two-page cover letter to the Director-General and the first page of my Grievance.

The last 26 pages of my Grievance were missing.

2421 C documents C 138-112 seem to be a true copy of my 2 June 2002 Stage 2 Grievance to the District Director.

This was similar to my 31 August 2001 grievance to the Director-General, but it was a Grievance about my experience of workplace bullying rather than the systemic abuse of the DWP and Grievance processes.

2421 C documents 81- 63 seem to be the last 19 pages of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

This may be the second half of the document held by the Human Resource Services Branch.

As this version of the Grievance begins mid-document, the meaning of the document would not be clear to any investigator.

And the two parts of my grievance had not been re-placed together.

 

2421 File D

The Cabinet and Legislative Services Branch did not have a copy of my Grievance.

2421 File E 

The State School did not have a copy of my grievance.

2421 File F 

The State School documents that purported to be held under lock in the District Office did not have a copy of my Grievance.

 

I now realise that the fact that the various 2421 versions of my Grievance had been significantly falsified was concealed from me by -

  • Presenting many of the documents backwards. Document 2421 B 15 is the first page of my two-page cover letter to the Director-General and document 6 is the eighth page of my grievance.
  • Falsifiying the date of this 2421 B document from 31 August 2001 to 31 October 2001.
  • Refusing me access to so many documents and releasing the documents to me part by part so that it was difficult for me to gain a clear understanding of the files.
  • And the fact that so many of the other 2421 documents were a jumble of unsigned, undated scribbles on loose scraps of paper, describing events that seem to have been largely imaginary and with most of the names deleted, added to my confusion.
  • And because it is just so beyond the powers of comprehension of an ordinary person to imagine that a complaint to the Director-General of Education Queensland would be 'dealt with' by being 'lost' or repeatedly falsified.

 

And, in fact, I was not provided with copies of these falsified 2421 versions of my Grievance till after 27 October 2005 -

 

  • almost a year after the Education Queensland 'internal review' into my grievance was completed.

 

  • and six months after Russell Pearce, Acting Director of the CMC had written to me on 10 April 2005 and advised me that -

 

"... The CMC has no concern at the way in which your earlier complaint was dealt with,

... and remains of the view that Education Queensland is the appropriate agency to deal with your more recent (one year earlier, 29 April 2004) complaint (that a mass of falsified documents had secretly been placed on my official files). ...

... I advise that the CMC will not correspond with you further in relation to your earlier complaint, or the concerns you have in respect of the way in which your complaints have been or are being dealt with by Education Queensland. ..."

 

I actually received the 2469 documents on 12 July 2004, fifteen months before I received the full set of the 2421 documents -

 

2469 File A

The District Office do not have a copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

2469 File B

The District Office documents pages 94-92 are my two page cover letter to the Director-General and the first page of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance.

The remaining 26 pages of my Grievance are missing.

Pages 39-13 are my 2 June 2002 Stage 2 Grievance to the District Director.

File B The District Office does not have a true copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

2469 File C

The District Office documents pages 90-72 are the last 19 pages of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General. The cover letter and the first eight pages of my grievance are missing.

File C The District Office does not have a true copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

2469 File D

The District Office does not have a copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

2469 File E

The District Office documents pages 90-65 are my June 2 2002 Stage 2 Grievance to the District Director.

File E The District Office does not have a true copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

2469 File F

The District Office does not have a copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

2469 File G

Human Resource Services Branch pages 140-112 are a true copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

The Human Resource Services Branch seems to be the only Queensland Government Department that had a true copy of my Grievance.

This copy seems to have been read by Katrina Jefferson.

Katrina Jefferson seems to have read this and all of my other documents with care.

2469 File H

Human Resource Services Branch does not have a copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

2469 File I

Ethical Standards Unit does not have a copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

2469 File J

Executive Services Unit contains copies of my June 2 2002 Stage 2 Grievance to the District Director at pages 294-269 and 248-223

And, at pages 337- 311, the copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General that I emailed to Russell Egan, Education Queensland Senior Industrial Officer on 3 July 2002, six days before I retired.

Russell Egan was in the process of writing a new Managing Unsatisfactory Performance policy and I was commenting on the new policy.

2469 File K

Strategic Human Resources does not have a copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

2469 File L

Trim Database pages 48-23 are my June 2 2002 Stage 2 Grievance to the District Director.

The Trim Database does not have a true copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.

Which seems very odd.

2469 File M

Human Resource Services Branch does not have a copy of my 31 August 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General.