|
Bad Apple Bullies
|
What happens when you make a complaint to the Queensland Ombudsman?
I like the Queensland Ombudsmen.
They are intelligent.
They seem to have integrity.
They are tricky in an old-fashioned, public-service, "Yes-Minister" sort of way.
The Ombudsmen are willing to meet you.
(The CMC officers will only speak to you over the phone, even if you make the effort to fly to Brisbne and go to their offices.)
The Ombudsman's records of phone calls and meetings seem to be honest.
What the Ombudsmen say at meetings or during phone calls can be relied upon.
But they don't actually seem to do anything.
7867 complaints were received by the Queensland Ombudsman in 2005.
117 of these 7867 complaints "required formal investigation".
Why so few?
Complainants are frequently passed back to the offending departments.
So people don't pursue their complaint. They cut their losses.
The bureaucrats win again.
(Who fights for the little people? , Des Houghton, The Courier-Mail 10/06/2006)
On 21 December 2006, Louise Rosemann, Assistant Ombudsman, Assessment and Resolution Team, Queensland Ombudsman discussed my complaint at a meeting with two representatives of the Education Queensland Workforce Standards and Performance Unit.
One of the representatives was Regan Neumann, Unit Director.
Ms Rosemann was advised that, ... following an investigation undertaken by Verifact Commercial Investigations, Mr Neumann arranged for a meeting between yourself and Mr Peter Edwards, Assistant Director of the Unit, to review all relevant materials on your EQ files. (Letter to me from Louise Rosemann, Assistant Ombudsman, dated 16 February 2007)
THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.
Peter Edwards only allowed me to see one small file of documents that appeared to be copies of documents that I had found myself under Freedom Of Information.
I had provided a file of such documents to the Verifact Investigator on December 16 2005.
But I had provided the investigator with many other documents.
In my letter to Louise Rosemann dated 16 June 2007 I listed the many other documents that I had provided to the Verifact Investigator.
Ms Rosemann was also told that ... Mr Edwards requested that you identify documents that you wanted removed from the files,
THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.
THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.
and these documents would then be placed in a sealed envelope and sent to EQ's Legal Section for advice.
THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.
I understood Mr Edwards to say that he would "mark" or write something on this file of documents.
I did not agree that this would resolve my complaint.
I am advised that you appeared unhappy with the process and left the building.
THIS STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.
MR EDWARDS CALLED TWO SECURITY GUARDS AND HAD ME ESCORTED OUT OF THE BUILDING.
... following your freedom of Information request, EQ is undertaking the physical inspection and identification of relevant materials on your files. I understand that Mr Edwards will write to you again when this task has been completed, and I have requested that this office receives a copy of this correspondence to you in due course.
DURING THE NINE MONTHS FROM THE DATE THAT THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE TO MS ROSEMANN - 21 DECEMBER 2006 - TO THIS DATE - 17 SEPTEMBER 2007 - MR EDWARDS HAS NOT WRITTEN TO ME TO ADVISE ME THAT MY FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST OR ANY OTHER "TASK" HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
... EQ is currently responding to your FOI request and intends writing to you about the manner in which your file materials are to be handled.
DURING THE NINE MONTHS FROM THE DATE THAT THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE TO MS ROSEMANN - 21 DECEMBER 2006 - TO THIS DATE - 17 SEPTEMBER 2007 - MR EDWARDS HAS NOT WRITTEN TO ME TO ADVISE ME ABOUT THIS OR ANY OTHER MATTER.
... I suggest that you allow this process to occur.
... I believe you should allow time for this process to continue.
I SUGGEST TO YOU, MS ROSEMANN, THAT NO SUCH PROCESS IS EVER GOING TO OCCUR.
I SUGGEST TO YOU, MS ROSEMANN, THAT EDUCATION QUEENSLAND IS ENGAGED IN A "PROCESS" OF DOING NOTHING WHATSOEVER.
On 10 September 2007, Greg Woodbury, Assistant Ombudsman, wrote to me -
Your complaint relates to a number of outstanding concerns you have about the actions of EQ, which follow a bullying complaint you made to it in June 2002 (a stage 2 grievance). ...
THIS IS NOT EXACTLY CORRECT.
I made a grievance Stage 1 to the District Director on 13 December 2000, requesting that an officer be appointed to investigate the situation and to determine the truth.
( 2469 B document 105, 2733 H document 3)
I made a Grievance Stage 2 to Jim Varghese, Director-General on 31 August 2001.
I made a Grievance Stage 2 to the District office on 3 June 2002.
I met Anna Bligh, Minister of Education and Jim Varghese, Director-General of Education on 23 June 2002.
I told Anna Bligh and Jim Varghese that, when Queensland teachers were bullied at work, the immediate advice of the Queensland Teachers Union was that there was no hope of justice because the Education Queensland grievance process did not work.
The only advice of the Queensland teachers' Union to bullied teachers was to "accept the things you cannot change".
Anna Bligh already seemed to know about my complaint. I presume that she had been shown the Stage 2 Grievance Report by school administrator E.L. that was being concealed from me and all copies of which were "lost" when I made my first FOI application.
... Having given detailed consideration to your complaint, the following complaint issues were identified:
I identified my complaint issues in my letter to Greg Woodbury dated 31 July 2007 and attached to my letters to Forbes Smith dated 10 August 2007 and 10 September 2007.
(1) With regard to your FOI applications you expressed concern that:
a) EQ has not provided you with a copy or explanation regarding the document titled "notes to ... from D - - - - -"
THIS IS NOT EXACTLY TRUE.
MY COMPLAINT TO THE OMBUDSMAN IS NOT SIMPLY A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPLICATION.
And I want all copies of the two decisions to punish me -
To be annotated by Rod Welford, the Minister of Education, to state that these decisions to punish me were legally invalid because they were made in breach of -
and all copies of all documents detailed in The C- - - - - List 31/10/2006 to be annotated to say that they were placed on my Departmental Record in breach of -
b) EQ has refused to provide you with copies of certain documents;
c) certain documents are missing from the FOI records. These documents are listed in The C- - - - - List 31/10/2006.
d) a large number of documents were concealed from you and placed secretly on your Education Queensland file. These documents had been falsified in various ways. The majority of the falsified documents have been listed and described in The C- - - - - List 31/10/2006.
e) certain documents appear to be substitute documents.
(2) You have requested -
(3) You are concerned that the FOI process has been and is being abused to refuse you documents that you first requested in September 2003.
(4) You are concerned that children, the disabled, the sick, the gullible, the inexperienced and the local Queensland Teachers' Union organiser have been abused as puppets by school administrator G.R. to "speak" imaginary allegations against you.
You complained to Eve Gardiner, Crime and Misconduct Commission officer, about discrimination on the grounds of political belief (and also on the grounds of age, race, sex and disability) during a phone conversation on Wednesday 26 November 2003.
At Eve's suggestion you emailed a copy of your discrimination complaint to her at 5:32 PM that afternoon.
You are concerned that Education Queensland employ many solicitors and barristers, including at least one Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained discrimination solicitor. But senior officers of Education Queensland selected an Aboriginal employee with no qualifications in the law, psychology or teaching to conduct a "review" of the falsified documents.
You are concerned that the "reviewer" did not consider your responses to these falsified documents.
(5) You are dissatisfied by the conduct of CMC and Education Queensland officers.
(6) You are concerned about the total failure / abuse of the CMC / Education Queensland investigation process.
(7) You are concerned that Mr Edwards seems to be responsible for dealing with your complaint, but that when you met him in late 2006, he clearly knew almost nothing about your complaint.
Mr Edwards told you repeatedly that he had been given a "brief" that instructed him to do nothing other than to show you (what appeared to be) one of several files of documents that you had provided to Verifact Commercial Investigation.
(8) You are seeking compensation from Education Queensland for professional negligence and on various other grounds.
On 19 July 2007, our investigator, Ms Melanie Mundy, made further inquiries with Mr Peter Edwards of EQ's Workforce Standards and performance Unit (WSPU). Mr Edwards confirmed the above actions ( the physical inspection and identification of relevant materials on your files) remained the intent of the WSPU.
He noted that EQ's processing of your recent FOI applications had delayed progress on this task.
THIS STATEMENT BY MR PETER EDWARDS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.
On 15 December 2006 I made FOI Application 3016.
On 15 January 2007 Matt Woodforth, Senior Policy Officer, Legal and Administrative Law Branch, Education Queensland, wrote to me.
He sent a receipt for the $36.00 FOI application fee.
One day later, on 16 January 2007 Matt Woodforth wrote to me again.
Mr Woodforth refused to deal with my FOI application.
On 15 February 2007 I wrote to Rachel Hunter, Director General of the Department of Education and asked her to deal with (what seems to be) the sustained abuse of the Freedom of Information process.
To this date, 14 September 2007, Rachel Hunter (seems to have) failed to deal with this abuse.
To this date, 14 September 2007, I have not been provided with the FOI documents that explained the "secret reason" why the decision was made to punish me in 2001.
I applied for these documents in September 2003. I have re-stated my application many times since September 2003. These documents are personal. They should have been provided to me free of charge by late November 2003.
There is no point in my making any further applications to the Office of the Information Commissioner.
The Office of the Information Commissioner also refuse to search for these documents that I first requested in September 2003 and that now seem to have "vanished" during the Freedom of Information process.
... On 1 August 2007, I met with Mr Edwards and discussed this matter. He subsequently advised that EQ had finalised all your FOI matters..
No "recent FOI application" has "delayed Education Queensland's progress".
Education Queensland's "process" seems to consist of doing nothing whatsoever.
... and that he would now proceed to finalise the task of inspecting and identifying relevnt materials on your files and write to you on completion of this task ...
Mr Woodbury, let's be very frank. Education Queensland haven't done anything since Louise Rosemann met them on 21 December 2006.
The Education Queensland "process" consists of doing nothing whatsoever.
... I understand from our inquiries with EQ, that Mr Edwards has provided you with information concerning lodgement of a claim for compensation.
IT HASN'T HAPPENED.
YOU ARE HAVING THE WOOL PULLED OVER YOUR EYES, MR WOODBURY.
If you wish to pursue this matter you should submit a claim to EQ and provide it with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the claim.
How many more years of my life do you estimate that this new Education Queensland process of doing nothing whatsoever is likely to take, Mr Woodbury?
I do not consider that any further action relating to your complaint is necessary or warranted at this time and will close our file.
This "closing of my file" by Greg Woodbury means that the Ombudsman will refuse to read my response to his letter.
That is why I have had to put my response on the internet.
Mr Woodbury, how can the office of the Queensland Ombudsman possibly close my file?
Education Queensland haven't actually done anything since Louise Rosemann met them on 21 December 2006!
Is this some sort of public service joke?
Let's deal with the bad apples!
