Bad Apple Bullies

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

Verifact Commercial Investigations

What happens if Education Queensland appoint a Verifact Investigator to investigate your complaint about workplace bullying or harassment?

 

  • Verifact investigation records are excellent. You can understand their investigation process clearly.

 

  • District Directors seem to take Verifact investigations very seriously. Even the most brazen and abusive Education Queensland administrators seem to take Verifact investigations very seriously. This perceived integrity may be the main value of a Verifact investigation.

 

  • But it can take Education Queensland more than five years to begin an investigation. This long delay in starting Education Queensland investigations favours Education Queensland workplace abusers. It allows the abusers to "lose" important documents and to claim that they can't remember what they did or why they did it because "it was all so long ago".

 

  • And the Verifact "investigation" process may consist of simply copying out what the Verifact investigator is told by the Education Queensland bullies, however ridiculous their story.

 

At the end of each Verifact interim report is written-

"The witness based information contained within this report is soley sourced from interviews. No conclusions are drawn in this report as to the veracity of such information."

 

  • So, even if a statement is obviously untrue, it is simply copied down by the "independent investigator". Nothing is questioned by the investigator.

 

  • And the Education Queensland "investigation process" allows workplace bullies to continually change their "story". The new, changed allegations concerning you in their new, changed "story" will simply be copied onto your official record. Then the new, changed allegations will be "accepted" by the Director-General and the CMC. You will have to wait two years or more to find these new allegations under Freedom Of Information.

 

  • And then your responses to the new, changed allegations will be disregarded, because the investigation has been "finalised". You are never going to be allowed Natural Justice. That's the process.

 

  • Education Queensland officers may not set the Terms of Reference for the "independent investigation" till mid-way through the investigation. You might conclude that they do this so that they can choose Terms of Reference that side-step any problem evidence that they have discovered.

 

  • And the Senior Education Queensland Officers can change the Terms of Reference of the "independent investigation" at any time. You might conclude that they are able to change the Terms of Reference when any problem evidence is found.

 

  • You may not be allowed to know the Terms of Reference of the investigation until several months after the investigation report has been "accepted" by the Director-General and the Crime and Misconduct Commission.

 

  • But the Verifact investigator may only be allowed to see documents that you give to him. And because you do not know the Terms of Reference of the investigation, you will have no way of knowing if you have given the Verifact investigator the documents that he needs.

 

 

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

 

November 3, 2000

I asked Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR for her support in dealing with the unsupervised groups of Grade 7 children who were missing from their classrooms, roaming about the school and disrupting other classes.

She suggested that I discuss the problem at a staff meeting.

She put it on the agenda for discussion at the next staff meeting.

She moved it to the top of the agenda.

But she spoke before me.

She said that there was "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children and that if "it" continued, that person would be put on Diminished Workplace Performance.

 

After the staff meeting another teacher told me that "the person" that the principal had been telling the staff about was me.

Mrs G.R. confirmed that this was correct.

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

I sought advice on how to deal with Mrs GR's behaviour.

The QTU, the Staff Welfare officer and two specialist advisory staff advised me to ask Mrs GR to attend a mediated meeting.

I asked for a mediated meeting.

 

Monday 27 November.

We met.

During this meeting Mrs GR -

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

FOI 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State College document 32. Notes made by Lynch-Mob State College acting deputy principal Miss AL and placed on my official records without my knowledge. 

In 2006 Mrs GR seems to have advised the Verifact investigator that 2461 File F was, in fact, a private file of falsified "records" concerning me that she kept in her own possession till 2004.

 

A copy of Miss AL's notes on this meeting can also be found in 2469 File F document 30 using the numbers at the top right hand corner of the page.

2469 File F seems to be the file of falsified "records" concerning me that Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL sent to the Cairns District Office after my retirement. This created the false impression that the falsified "records" had been discussed with me during Mr EL's investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance about Mrs GR's abuse of the DWP process.

 

November 29, 2000

Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR and Lynch-Mob State College acting deputy principal Miss AL met with me.

Mrs GR gave me a letter to advise me that -

 

"Following our discussion on Monday afternoon regarding the implementation of a Diminished Work Performance Program ... It would seem reasonable that the initial phase would be better instigated at the commencement of next year.

... Given that Lynch-Mob State College 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 with him about the matter and he is in agreement that the process is warranted)."

Mrs GR's letter to me dated 29 November 2000, 2461 File F Lynch Mob State School document 59, using the numbers at the top right hand corner of the document.

A copy of Mrs GR's letter - with the addition of a hand-written message from Mrs GR to Mr EL - can also be found in 2469 File F document 37 using the numbers at the top right hand corner of the page. 2469 File F seems to be the file of falsified "records" concerning me that Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL sent to the Cairns District Office after my retirement.

 

Neither Mrs GR, Miss AL nor Mr EL  had explained the "lot of allegations" that Mrs GR claimed had been made against me, nor had Mrs GR, Miss AL or Mr EL shown me the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened" before making their agreement that "the (DWP) process is warranted". 

Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL, a man I trusted and respected absolutely, had been on leave all Term 4 2000.

 

So the conduct of Mrs GR, Miss AL and Mr EL seems to have been in breach of -

  • Natural Justice,
  • the Education Queensland Code of Conduct,
  • the DWP process
  • and the Public Service Regulations. 

And I understand that this agreement between them that "the (DWP) process is warranted" was not legally valid.

 

This letter from Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR - 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School, document 59 - seems to provide documentary evidence that the professional conduct of Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR, acting deputy principal Miss AL and usual principal Mr EL was in breach of several Education Queensland policies.

 

December 14 2000

I wrote a letter to the District Director, asking him to appoint an investigator to investigate Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR's abuse of the Diminished Workplace Performance Process.

 

February 2000

I understood that Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL investigated my Stage 1 Grievance.

And that it was a corrupt investigation.

 

February 5, 2004

On this date Mrs GR seems to have hand-written a note to Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland  acting FOI Co-ordinator -

The note is date and signed.

But the note did not appear among my FOI documents till after June 12, 2008 - in FOI 340/5/1295 OIC 210447, document 3010.

The document is not numbered.

I had never seen this document before, so there is no real way of knowing if it is a recent falsification.

The note reads:

 

"Dear Stephanie,

Please check out what may be relevant in the attached file.

Copies of these were also filed at Lynch-Mob State College."

 

This new story does not accord with the statement that acting principal Mrs GR made to Education Queensland  HREOC-trained discrimination solicitor M.E. in a letter to him dated 19 November 2004 that-

"All records pertaining to issues regarding (me) were left on file at Lynch-Mob State School."

 

But, if this new FOI 340/5/1295 OIC 210447, 3010 document is taken to be genuine, it suggests that the falsified documents in  2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School are documents concerning me that Mrs GR was keeping either -

  • in a private file either at Mrs GR's home
  • or at the new school that Mrs GR was promoted to when I complained about her bullying.

 

And that the falsified documents in 2469 F The District Office are falsified documents that Mrs GR put on my file at Lynch-Mob State College.

 

And that the messages that Mrs GR seems to have hand-written to Mr EL on these falsified documents, e.g document 2469 F 60, which was attached to a falsified collection of comments by children-

 

"Acting deputy principal Miss AL can explain this better but I gather it was given to her by (my name) to make some sort of point regarding ( name of student BO in Class 6/7 ) ... ."

 

- were written by Mrs GR for the attention of Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL when he was conducting his Stage 1 Grievance investigation.

Usual principal Mr EL did not discuss these secret "records", or Mrs GR's falsified hand-written comments on the falsified "records", before dismissing my Stage 1 Grievance.

 

But Mr EL seems to have handwritten comments on one of these "records" himself .

The words - 

 

"communicative interpretation"

Hand-written on the left hand side of 2469 File F document 74, one of the secret "records" written by acting deputy principal Miss AL.

 

- are in Mr EL's handwriting (compare with document 146).

This suggests that usual principal Mr EL read the falsified "records" that acting principal Mrs GR had put on my file.

But usual principal Mr EL did not discuss these secret "records" with me before either-

  • agreeing with Mrs GR that the DWP process was justified.
  • or dismissing my Stage 1 Grievance about their abuse of the DWP process.

 

After 23 March 2004

I received a few FOI 2361 and 2421 documents.

I reported immediately that some of them seemed to be falsified.

 

Monday 12 April 2004

11:08: I emailed Keith Hynes.

I copied the email to

  • Ken Smith
  • and the CMC.

This seems to be the first time that I advised the CMC that my documents had been falsified.

 

" Hello Mr Hynes,

I understand that you are liaising with the CMC and that an impartial invetigator will investigate my complaint.

When the investigator is appointed I would appreciate it if you would advise him or her that I wish to discuss certain points ...

  • One of the FOI documents that was finally sent to me has been falsified. It purports to be a note to me but it was never given to me or discussed with me. I was given a different letter.
  • Another document has been changed.
  • Several of the documents that were refused to me (by the FOI officers) were never shown to me and never discussed with me. I strongly suspect that they may also have been falsified. ...
  • I wish to discuss certain conflict of interest issues. ... "

 

After 27 April 2004

I received more FOI 2361 and 2421 documents.

I discovered that more documents had been falsified.

 

Monday 17 May, 2004

10:58: I emailed Keith Hynes.

I copied the email to -

  • the CMC postmaster
  • CMC complaints
  • and an Ombudsman.

I attached a response to 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School documents documents 28-32, which purported to be acting deputy principal A.L.'s notes on the "mediated" meeting with the Queensland Teachers' Union organiser on 27 November 2000.

I had never been shown these notes.

They had been secretly placed on my official record.

 

2 June, 2004

The Crime and Misconduct Commission referred my complaint to Education Queensland.

 

"CP (complainant, me) , who has made previous complaint of workplace bullying / harassment / discrimination, ... raises a further allegation of falsifying of documentation.

This allegation is now submitted for assessment."

FOI 2875, File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 224

 

Monday 21 June, 2004

12:35: I emailed Ken Smith.

I copied the email to -

I attached a letter to Ken Smith and my responses to five of the falsified documents.

 

Education Queensland claim to have simply "lost" this emailed copy of my letter to Ken Smith, and the five responses to falsified documents.

 

Tuesday 22 June 2004

3:37 PM: I emailed Ken Smith.

I told him that I had handed printed copies of my letter to him and my responses to five of the falsified documents to a (named) member of staff at the front desk of the District Office.

 

Education Queensland also claim to have lost this printed copy of my letter to Ken Smith, and the five responses to falsified documents.

 

October 25 2004

1:29 PM:  John Ryan emailed the Education Queensland Aboriginal "Internal Reviewer":

 

"I agree it is a conflict of interest seeing I am one of the officers she is complaining about -

I will see the dg ( Director-General Ken Smith ) about my withdrawal from the ( my name ) case.

FOI 340/5/1295 Document 5276

 

And I agree with John Ryan's opinion.

John Ryan seemed to me to have a conflict of interest.

It did not seem to me to be appropriate for him to be involved in / control the investigation into my complaint.

 

19 November, 2004

Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR wrote to the EQ HREOC-trained discrimination solicitor M.E.

 

" All records pertaining to issues regarding ( me ) were left on file at Lynch-Mob State College."

 

This suggests that either-

  • the February 5 2004 document that appeared on my official record after June 12, 2008 is a recent falsification.
  • or that this November 19 2004 statement was untrue

 

"Whether or not all notes have been retained would be a matter you would need to discuss with the principal of Lynch-Mob State School."

FOI 2703, File I Adminstrative Law Services Branch, document 61. Mrs GR's letter is dated November 19 2004.

 

7:25 PM: Lynch Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR emailed EQ HREOC-trained solicitor M.E. to introduce an "addendum" to her letter.

 

"You will have received a faxed response" (to my FOI requests for the documentation of the decision to put me on DWP).

 

But the stamp on the bottom of Mrs GR's "faxed response" letter indicates that it was actually faxed on November 22.

 i.e. Three days after after this "addendum" to the letter purports to have been emailed.

So first Mrs GR emailed her "addendum" to her letter, then three days later she faxed the letter itself.

You may find this strange.

I certainly do.

 

"On reflecting on my response this evening I have realised that discussions with a second "Senior departmental officer" could also be noted.

I believe there could be notes on file regarding advice given by District Office Principal Advisor- Regional Services Ms CHR ...

At the time (Ms CHR) informed me she was noting the conversation, ... "

 

This claim, if it is correct, suggests that District Office Principal Advisor- Regional Services Ms CHR may have had a conflict of interest in dealing with my complaint about the abuse of the DWP and the Grievance process, writing Briefings for the Minister, etc.

Ms CHR's own advice seems to have been part of the problem.

Ms CHR seems to have been "groomed" by Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR.

 

"I would also appreciate some advice as to what can be done about the continual raising of this case ... "

 

This seems to be an interesting example of how "Mrs GR's advice seeking / grooming strategy" functions.

With this strategy, senior officers Ms CHR and M.E., are being drawn into the bully-mob.

 

Mrs GR demonstrates no awareness of my right to know why she, Mr EL and Miss AL had agreed to put me on DWP.

FOI 2703, File C, Administrative Law Services Branch, document 61.

 

November 22, 2004

11:01: Education Queensland HREOC-trained discrimination solicitor M.E. emails Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R.

 

" Thank you for providing this information. As you would imagine, C.H.R. has also been caught up in (my) FOI requests and consequently she has been asked similar inquiries to yours."

  • But M.E.'s letter of 29 November 2004 to Anne Lindon, external review officer, office of the Information Commissioner (details below) suggests that he had not actually contacted District Office Principal Advisor- Regional Services Ms CHR.
  • And M.E.'s letter of 29 November 2004 makes no mention of Mrs GR's "addendum"
  • or of  District Office Principal Advisor- Regional Services Ms CHR's "advice" to Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR. 

 

Education Queensland HREOC-trained solicitor M.E. then goes on to "advise" Mrs GR.

He makes several unpleasant reflections upon my character.

 

" ... (my name) will ... pursue ... until she comes to terms with her past. ... "

FOI 2703, File C Administrative Law Services Branch, document 61.

 

  • M.E.'s words - which he put on my official record, and which he must have known that I would find under FOI - suggest that he believed that there was something horrible in my past that he and G.R. knew about and that I had to "come to terms with".

But I know of nothing in my past that I must "come to terms with".

That is why I am making the FOI applications - to find this "secret horrible thing" that Lynch-Mob State school acting principal Mrs GR and M.E. seem to have created out of nothing in my past and then placed on my official records.

  • HREOC-trained M.E.'s words suggest a lack of impartiality in his role as Education Queensland FOI internal reviewer.

 

November 29, 2004

The Education Queensland HREOC-trained discrimination solicitor M.E. wrote to Anne Lindon, external review officer, office of the Information Commissioner.

The wording of M.E.'s letter to Anne Lindon suggests that he did not contact C.H.R.

And M.E. makes no mention of-

  • G.R.'s "addendum"
  • or of  C.H.H.'s "advice" to Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. 

 

December 13, 2004

The CMC records of the Monthly Liaison Meeting show that -

  • John Ryan,
  • Kim Newman,
  • Peter Edwards,
  • Kathy Munro 
  • and Jim Meyers of Education Queensland

met with

  • Helen Couper
  • and Diana Mulcahy of the CMC

to discuss my case.

CMC Activity Register Report MI-03-0035, page 11.

 

And Education Queensland handwritten diary notes of the meeting  - I believe that they are written by Kim Newman - also record -

 

(my name) - discussed findings and handed over a report - last corro from (my name) handed over.

- Dept no longer wishes to deal with (my name) as we have gone far enough + letter that we sent to (my name).

FOI 2703 E Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, Document 116

 

December 21, 2004 (Approx - actually the name of the sender, the date and the time of this email have been deleted.)

John Ryan organised a one-hour meeting in his office with Kim Newman and the Aboriginal "internal reviewer" K.E. to discuss me.

 

" Start: Wed 22/12/2004 9:30 AM 

End: Wed 2/12/2004 10:30 AM "

FOI 2703 File F Workforce Standards and Performance Unit document 10.

 

December 22, 2004

" In discussions with John Ryan, (the  Education Queensland Aboriginal "internal investigator" K.E.) agreed to identify documentation in order that this could then be referred for investigation / review.

File referred to Kim Newman. (RM) "

FOI 2875, File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 224

 

January 7 2005

" - File is with FOI currently - awaiting for information to be placed on file (RM) "

FOI 2875, File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 225

 

Monday 7 March, 2005

John Ryan organised a half-hour meeting to discuss me with the Aboriginal "internal reviewer" K.E..

The meeting was held in John Ryan's office on Tuesday March 8.

FOI 2703, File F , Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 12 and 13.

 

In early 2005

I discovered for the first time, when I read the "internal review" written by the Education Queensland Aboriginal "internal reviewer", that Lynch-Mob State School usual principal Mr EL had secretly decided not to investigate my December 14 2000 Stage 1 Grievance.

I requested that a person with legal qualifications be appointed to conduct an independent investigation.

I re-stated this request for an investigation many, many times to to the CMC, the Ombudsman, and many, many Queensland Ministers, Directors-General and Public Servants.

 

My complaint was that -

  • there was systemic abuse of the Education Queensland Diminished Workplace Performance Process and the Grievance Process to bully Queensland teachers into ill health and out of work.

 

  • the QTU advised bullied teachers that there was no hope of justice because the Education Queensland Grievance process did not work.

 

  • my official Education Queensland Departmental records had been secretly and extensively falsified.

 

  • decisions concerning me had been based on these secret "records".

 

  • that these decisions had been made in breach of Natural Justice, the Code of Conduct, the Public Service Regulations, etc.

 

  • the decision to put me on Diminished Workplace Performance was not legally valid and I wanted it to be officially "struck off" my official record.

 

July 7 2005

" File with Lauren for File Review meeting (LM) "

FOI 2875, File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 225.

 

Wednesday July 20, 2005

9:55 PM: I emailed John Ryan.

He had sent me a draft apology.

" John,

When I said I would accept a withdrawal of Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR's letters, I explained to you that I wanted the damage that the letters had done to me reversed.

Your draft letter does not do that.

... John, I want (Mrs GR's) letter withdrawn or I want an independent investigation into this situation - the bullying and the systemic failure to deal with the bullying.

By withdrawn I do not mean that I want the letters moved to another file.

I want a letter to say that the letters are withdrawn absolutely and without reservation.

... It is very, very little to ask. "

 

I attached a one-page draft apology that I was willing to accept-

" ... Mrs GR ... withdraws these documents absolutely and without reservation. ... "

 

Education Queensland have a copy of this draft apology at FOI 2875 File A Legal and Administraive Law Branch document 274.

FOI 2875 A Legal and Administrative Branch, document 267-8

 

Wednesday July 27, 2005

6:57: John Ryan emailed me.

" ... under the public records act we can not destroy the documents by (Mrs GR) -

it would be illegal -

what we can do as I have mentioned before is placed them on a secure confidential file in my unit -

maybe i am not understanding what you mean by withdrawal ... "

FOI 2875 A Legal and Administrative Branch, document 267

 

10:54 PM: I emailed John Ryan.

" ... I was using the "withdraw" in the sense that you withdraw an offer.

(I gave other examples)

When you withdraw something you take it back.

I am offering Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR a chance to withdraw her abuse of the DWP.

To withdraw those letters.

To withdraw her unprofessional conduct.

It is a good offer. ... "

FOI 2875 A Legal and Administrative Branch, document 266-7

 

In retrospect, I wonder if I made it clear enough to John Ryan that it was the decisions in the letters that I wanted withdrawn.

 

Thursday July 28, 2005

8:23: John Ryan emailed me.

" Thanks (my name)

If (Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R.) was to write separately to you withdrawing those letters would that be something you would accept to bring closure.

regards john "

FOI 2875 A Legal and Administrative Branch, document 266

 

I did not think that it was fair of John Ryan to ask me to accept a "separate" letter from Mrs GR.

Mrs GR's letters to me and her mass of falsified "records" concerning me had been placed on my official records.

I wanted the withdrawal of the letters to be official.

I wanted it to be on my official record.

I wanted the letter of withdrawal to be attached to all copies of Mrs GR's letters to me.

 

10:48 AM: I emailed John Ryan.

" That would have been appropriate in January 2001.

But Mrs GR's letter's have led to so much more abuse ...

the mass of falsified documents that were secretly placed on my file,

the lies that have been told about me

and the many letters and "briefings for the minister" that repeat the lies over and over again.

so that my files are now full of documents that completely mis-represent the situation. ... '

 

" - file review meeting - ref (me) to assessment meeting for John Ryan to consider if any further action is required. (LM) "

FOI 2875, File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 225

 

So John Ryan had been given the power to decide if any further action on my complaint was required.

You might find this inappropriate.

John Ryan certainly did.

On October 25 2004 he had stated in his 1:29 pm email to  the Education Queensland Aboriginal "Internal Reviewer":

 

"I agree it is a conflict of interest seeing I am one of the officers she is complaining about -

I will see the dg ( Director-General Ken Smith ) about my withdrawal from the ( my name ) case.

FOI 340/5/1295 Document 5276

 

Friday July 29, 2005

9:21 AM: John Ryan emailed the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity (HREOC)-trained discrimination solicitor M.E. and Education Queensland FOI officer D.J.

He attached my email of 10:48 AM the previous day.

D.J. / M.E.

we seem to be going around in circles with (my name) over this issue wiht trying to bring closure - the message below is the latest from (my name) john

 

Sunday July 31, 2005

6:03 PM: I emailed Ken Smith.

Mr Smith,

I really don't know to whom I should send this FOI review application.

I hesitiate to send it to a junior officer because it concerns (a senior officer).

He appears to have been making untruthful statements about me.

... I would be happy to accept either of the draft apologies that I have emailed recently. ...

(FOI 2875 A Legal and Administrative Law branch, document 494)

 

Monday August 1, 2005

9:59 AM: Ken Smith emailed Kathryn Mahoney. He copied the email to Trudie McKenzie.

Kathryn

Could you please review and provide a drft response to Trudi.

Thanks

ken

 

Katherine Mahoney had been the Education Queensland CJC Liaison Officer in November 2001.

She had written me a letter (undated but approx 27/11/2001) to advise me that my August 31 2001 Stage 2 Grievance was not a public interest disclosure.

I have no problem with her 2001 decision.

I did not disclose the conflict of interest in the District office to Katherine Mahoney in 2001, and at that stage I had not discovered the mass of falsified documents hidden on my official records.

 

11:16 AM: Kathryn Mahoney emailed Ken Smith. She copied the email to John Ryan.

Ken

I would be happy to prepare a draft response but met with John Ryan a few weeks ago and it was agreed that ALL communications re (my name) were to go through him.

My officers and I have been strictly adhering to this arrangement and sending everything to John who has been persevering with a closure arrangement with (my name) despite numerous setbacks.

I recommend we stick to our plan unless you definitely want me to write a response

Regards

Kathryn

(FOI 2875 A Legal and Administrative Law Branch, document 497)

 

Thursday August 4, 2005

3:58 PM: Kathryn Mahoney emailed Ken Smith.

She copied the email to John Ryan and (Education Queensland HREOC-trained discrimination solicitor M.E. and EQ FOI officer D.J.)

Trudi

The response should be:

Dear (my name)

I have noted your email messages to me dated 31 Jly and 4 August 2005 and advise that I do not accept your allegations concerning Departmental officers.

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

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

Yours sincerely

Ken Smith

 

Tuesday September 6, 2005

5:32 PM: Kathryn Mahoney emailed Stan Sielaff.

Stan

Would like your thoughts on whether you agree to send out a general request that copies all documents relating to (me) be collected and held in my branch. Both (Education Queensland FOI officer D.J. and Education Queensland HREOC-trained discrimination solicitor M.E.) are keen to address the issue with you if you are not convinced of the need. I consider that we must all be protected from furhter embarrassment when a document pops up that a part of the agency strenuously denies holding. This is still happening. It appears that there are numerous documents located throughout the agency relating to the abovenamed and a single reference point has become essential. Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Regards

Kathryn Mahoney

Director

Administraive law Services Branch. 

 

5:38 PM:  Stan Sielaff emailed Kathryn Mahoney.

Kathryn

I have spoken to Scott (seems to be Scott Kessell - see FOI 2875 File A, document 818) about the concept of Admin Law holding these documents and we agree that we should not establish this facility. I am happy to discuss this further.

Regards

Stan Sielaff

(FOI 2875, File A legal and Administrative Law Branch, document 728)

 

Thursday October 6, 2005

11:26 AM: Matt Woodforth, the Education Queensland Freedom of Information officer dealing with my FOI applications, emailed the Aboriginal "internal reviewer".

For several months Matt had been asking the Aboriginal "internal reviewer" K.E. to give him a list ("schedule") of the documents that K.E. had used in writing his "internal review" into my complaint.

Just wondering if you have completed your schedule regarding documents considered in relation to the (my name) investigation? ...

(FOI 2875 A 501)

 

5:47 PM : Aboriginal "internal reviewer" K.E. emails Matt Woodforth.

Matt. I will phone you tomorrow from (the town where I live and where the workplace harassment took place).

(FOI 2875 A 501)

 

Friday October 7, 2005

3:13 PM: The Education Queensland Aboriginal "internal reviewer" K.E. emailed Matt Woodforth.

Matt.

I have completed management and CMC schedule. I will communicate with you and finalsie on Monday!

(K.E.)

( FOI 2875 A Legal and Administrative Law Branch, document 502)

 

This email exchange suggests that Aboriginal "internal reviewer" K.E. had not been able to provide Matt Woodforth with a list of the documents that he had used in conducting his 2004 "internal review'' ... 

- because, in October 2005, the original "management and CMC schedule" documents were still on my file in the District Office.

And that, ten days before Education Queensland commissioned Verifact to investigate my complaint, they paid for Aboriginal "internal reviewer" K.E. to fly to my town to get my original documents.

Aboriginal "internal reviewer" K.E. seems to have taken my original documents from the District Office and flown with them to Brisbane.

And so, a few weeks later, the Verifact Investigator found no documents concerning me in the local District Office.

 

And he was not allowed to fly to Brisbane to examine the original documents.

 

October 11 2005

Per advice from DWSP - matter to be referred for external investigation of alleged "fraudulent documents" on (my) file.

Spoke with (name of Education Queensland Aboriginal "internal reviewer") re matter.

Matt Woodforth of FOI says he has bulk (my name) documents and will scan them and then make them available for us to refer to external investigator.

Checked with Verifact and they say they have an investigator in (my town). ... 

(FOI 2875, File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 225)

 

October 17 2005

Ken Smith signed a letter to me:

The Department has commissioned a private company called Verifact Commercial Investigations to investigate your claims of falsified records being placed on your file.

A representative from this company will be in contact in the near future.

... I am aware that you were discussing with Mr John Ryan, Director, Workforce Standards and Performance, the contents of an appropriate letter from the Department that may resolve your issues.

Part of this letter may be a statement of regret from the Department. ...

 

Thursday October 20, 2005

2:11: I emailed Rod Welford, the QTU, the Ombudsman, Ken Smith, the Information Commissioner and the Crime and Misconduct Commission.

Mr Smith,

I have been reading about FOI and I understand that-

Because I was not told about the mass of documents hidden on my file before -

 

  • the decision was made to put me on DWP

 

  • and the decision was made not to support my grievance Stage 1,

these decisions were legally invalid.

Is this correct?

How do I have this written on all copies of these documents?

The (Aboriginal "internal') reviewer of my complaint about the bullying, mobbing, etc. did not read my response to the secret / falsified allegations before he made his decision and published his review ...

The Aboriginal internal reviewer seems to claim to have read my responses to the falsified documents but to have decided not to consider my responses.

You might think that this was:

  • a very strange decision
  • and a clear denial of Natural Justice.

Is the "review" also legally invalid on these grounds? ...

 

Friday October 21, 2005

Matt Woodforth, Education Queensland Freedom of Information Officer, released the FOI 2733 documents to me.

Interestingly, the files of documents are labelled FOI 2733, but Matt's letter to me is headed 2744.

 

So I am unsure if there are two different sets of FOI documents.

Which set was shown to the Verifact Investigator?

 

FOI 2733 File F Administrative Law Services Branch is of particular interest.

It purports to be the same as FOI 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School.

But the documents in the file have been reversed in order and given new numbers on the bottom of the page.

FOI 2733 F 2 is the same as FOI 2421 F 63 (the number at the top right hand side of the page).

FOI 2733 F 53 is the same as FOI 2421 F 13.

This is the last page of FOI 2733 F.

 

The last twelve documents in the 2421 F file had now vanished.

 

Tuesday October 26, 2005

11:26: I emailed The Premier, Ken Smith, Education and Arts and the CMC.

I copied the email to the Ombudsman.

I had been working on The C- - - - -  Report. I had put all of the falsified documents, etc. on my official record, into time order.

I said why I thought that they were falsified records.

I attached the 26 October 2005 draft of The C - - - - - Report and a draft apology that I would be willing to accept.

I said that I wanted an apology

or

I wanted an independent investigation into the bullying, the mobbing, the lies and the falsification of my file.

 

November 7 , 2005

12:57 PM: I spoke to Carol in the office of the Director-General of Education.

I explained that my complaint involved prominent local members of the Labor party and that a Verifact Investigator based in my own small town would have difficulty in dealing with a complaint about the conduct of such prominent local citizens.

 

November 8, 2005

3:45 PM: Peter Edwards rang me.

I understood him to tell me that he was an Education Queensland employee in the same unit as John Ryan, but that he did not report to John Ryan.

Mr Edwards told me that he had been asked to organise a Verifact Investigation.

I told Mr Edwards that an ex-policeman based in my own town would not be able to deal with the situation.

I told him that somebody in the District office seemed to have lied about me.

I told him that John Ryan had seemed to me to know who this person was when I met him in October 2004.

I explained the political situation at the school, the District Office and the local branches of the Labor party to Peter Edwards.

I told him that I was still working on The C- - - - -  Report.

I emailed an updated copy of the work-in-progress to Mr Edwards for his information.

 

November 21, 2005

File review meeting Peter to arrange Verifact investigator.

(my name) has provided a 103 page report via email in relation to her complaint.

Matter is being forwarded to Verifact for appointment of an investigator at (my town).

Peter Edwards.

So Peter Edwards decided to appoint a Verifact investigator in my town after I had disclosed the policitcal situation to him.

(2875 File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 225)

 

November 25, 2005

9:49 PM: I emailed Peter Edwards.

... As I explained to you and to Mr Ryan, it is important that the person you select is not a local person.

A local person would not be able to deal with the situation because it involves (local members of the Labor party). ...

No local person would have the courage to tell the truth about the bullying ... .

 

November 28, 2005

Ken Smith, Director-General of Education, wrote to me.

... With regard to your question, was the review of your stage 1 grievance legally binding due to your claims of mass hidden documents being kept from you, officers of the Department do not know what documents you are specifically referring to in your claims.

A reply cannot be made without this specific information. ...

 

This seemed to me like a crazy thing for Ken Smith to say.

On June 21 2004 I had sent him a letter and responses to five of the falsified "records".

 

Later I was told that Education Queensland had "lost" this 21 June 2004 letter.

And that they had also lost my responses to the five falsified "records".

 

... The Department has appointed an external investigator to examine your claim of false records being placed on your file.

I understand that you have raised an objection to the appointment of the company on the basis they are (local) based.

The appointment of this company, which has a good reputation, will stand.

If you do not wish to participate in this process please write to Mr John Ryan, Director, Workforce Standards and Perofrmance Unit advising him of your decision.

... I invite you to contact Mr John Ryan on telephone ...

 

The use of John Ryan's name at the end of Ken Smith's letter suggested to me that John Ryan had actually written this letter.

And that John Ryan had made the decision to employ a local investigator.

 

Thursday December 1, 2005

John Ryan wrote a letter to the Director of Verifact Commercial Investigations:

Further to your recent discussions with Peter Edwards of this unit,  ..

The matter relates to the allegations that documents have been falsified and placed on (my name) departmental personnel file. ...

I confirm that we request and authorise you to carry out an investigation into the allegations raised by (me).

... Could you liaise as necessary with Mr Edwards of this unit ... in relation to the scope of the enquiry and provide me (sic) a report ...

( FOI 2875, File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, Document 231)

 

Friday December 2, 2005

10:21: I emailed Ken Smith and Peter Edwards.

I protested that Mr Edwards had told me that he did not report to John Ryan.

I had just had a letter from Ken Smith that seems to have been written by John Ryan.

He had decided that a local person would do the investigation.

It was not appropriate for Mr Ryan to have control over this investigation.

Or for the Director-General to urge me to contact Mr Ryan.

 

Monday December 5, 2005

9:40: Peter Edwards emailed me:

... let me clarify the situation with regard this investigation.

Whilst Mr Ryan is normally the person to whom I report, where there is an issue which requires this not happen I report then to an officer senior to Mr Ryan.

For a range of reasons this might occur and for the purposes of this investigation I will not be reporting to Mr Ryan. ...

 

I found Mr Edwards email very re-assuring.

But actually Mr Edwards was going to go on leave.

And that was the reason why he would not be reporting to Mr Ryan.

 

December 12, 2005

The Verifact investigator reported:  He had discussed the issues raised in The C _ _ _ _ _  Report (my response to the falsified documents) with Peter Edwards.

And that at this stage he was given no specific Terms of Reference for the investigation.

 

Peter Edwards reported: (name of Verifact Investigator) (name of my town) has been appointed to investigate the complaint.

He rang and asked about the scope of the investigation.

It was agreed that he would analyse her long complaint report and then confer with her about the precise nature of her complaint and then contact this office again re any clarification necessary.

( FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 225)

 

December 16, 2005

I met the Verifact Commercial Investigator.

I gave him a copy of the complaint that I had emailed to the ADCQ, the CMC and the Ombudsman at 5:20pm on Saturday 3 January, 2004.

I told the Verifact Investigator that in January 2004 this was my understanding of what had happened.

 

I also gave him a December 15, 2005 copy of The C _ _ _ _ _  Report.

I explained that I had discovered during 2004 that many falsified records been secretly placed on my Education Queensland Departmental file.

And that a falsified "history" of events concerning me had been secretly been created.

And that several of the falsified documents described imaginary conversations concerning me that acting principal G.R. claimed to believe that she was having with me, other teachers, parents, children and other administrators.

 

The FOI documents were of such a poor professional standard - I had been provided with little more than a confused jumble of unsigned and undated notes scribbled in pencil on sticky-notes and loose scraps of paper - that I was worried that the Verifact Investigator would not be able to make any sense of the falsified "documents".

I had spent many, many hours trying to work out the "story" that was being falsified concerning me with these loose scraps of paper.

In The C _ _ _ _ _ _ Report I  had organised all of the letters, emails and notes scribbled on scraps of paper into time order for the Verifact Investigator.

I had commented on the contradictions in Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R.'s secret "official record" of events.

I also provided the Verifact Investigator with a copy of my response to the unsigned  2004 "internal review" that purported to have been written by Education Queensland Aboriginal employee K.E. who had no qualifications in law, psychology or education.

This "internal reviewer" K.E. seemed to have ignored my complaints that many of the "records" he was considering were falsified and had been concealed from me.

And K.E. had chosen to / been instructed to disregard my responses to the falsified documents.

 

The Verifact Investigator told me that he used to work at the local police station as Lynch-Mob State School acting deputy principal A.L.'s husband's supervisor.

He admitted this in an open and honest manner.

 

Of course this was a significant conflict of interest.

I had repeatedly asked John Ryan to appoint a Brisbane investigator.

Someone who could leave town after writing his investigation report.

I knew that it was going to be impossible to find an investigator in my small community who had no conflict of interest.

Or who would be able to tell the truth about the many respected local figures who seemed to have been "sucked in" to the mobbing.

 

However, acting deputy principal A.L. had not seemed to me to be malicious.

Acting deputy principal A.L. had not seemed to be enjoying bullying me.

Her "records" were not entirely truthful.

But they seemed to be within the range of normal for a person in her position.

I did not consider acting deputy principal A.L. to be a bully.

I considered her to be inexperienced and easily manipulated.

And so I accepted the risk of the Verifact Investigator's conflict of interest concerning acting deputy principal A.L.

 

 

The Verifact investigator then "conducted an analysis" of the documents that I had given him over a period of several days.

(FOI 340/5/1295 page number concealed but seems to be 968)

 

Sunday December 18, 2005

12:39: The Verifact investigator had asked me to email certain other documents to him.

I emailed the Verifact Investigator a copy of my letter to the Director General dated 21 June 2004.

Attached to this 21 June 2004 letter to the Director-General were my own responses to five of the falsified "records" that I had found under FOI.

I emailed these five responses to the Verifact Investigator -

 

2421 F 7 - My response to acting deputy principal A.L.'s documentation of behaviour management issues dated 13/10/2000.

2421 F 9-11 - My response to acting principal G.R.'s "record of incident" dated 04/10/2000

 

What I did not realise on Sunday December 18 2005 was that the two documents above had already "vanished" from the official records.

The 2421 F documents had been reversed in order and given new numbers at the bottom of each page.

This reversing and re-numbering process concealed the fact that the last twelve documents in the 2421 file had "vanished".

 

2421 28-32  - My response to acting deputy principal A.L.'s record of the "mediated meeting" with the QTU organiser on 27/11/2000.

 

This seemed to be a "substitute" document. Stephannie Kalas had described seeing a different document on 23 March 2004.

 

2421 F 61- My response to what seemed to be a falsified version of acting principal A.L.'s letter to me dated 23 November 2000.

2421 E - no numbers on these documents. My response to notes hand-written by the usual principal E.L. over the January 2, 3 and 4 pages of a 2001 diary.

 

I told the Verifact Investigator that I had handed this letter and five response documents to an officer in the District Office on 22 June 2004.

I named the officer to whom I had handed the documents.

I told the Verifact Investigator that I had emailed Ken Smith at 3:37pm on 22 June 2004 to advise him of these details.

And that I had since discovered under FOI that my 21 June 2004 letter and all of the documents that I handed in at the District Office had "vanished".

 

I also emailed the Verifact Investigator-

  • My response to District Officer C.H.R.'s "Briefing for the Minister".

I had first sent this to the Education Queensland Aboriginal "Internal Reviewer" on August 2, 2004.

I had re-sent it on November 14, 2004.

  • My response to the falsified record / note 2469 F 72 that Lynch-Mob State School acting principal seems to have hand-written.

(It had been written at the bottom of a copy of Lynch-Mob State School acting deputy principal A.L.'s original secret / falsified document 2421 F 7).

This hand-written falsified record / note 2469 F 72 seems to have been written by Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. for the attention of usual principal A.L. and was then put in what seems to be his Grievance file 2469 F.

 

Monday 19 December, 2005

The Verifact Investigator spoke to Peter Edwards.

( The page numbers of the Verifact "investigation running sheet" are concealed but seem to be FOI 340/5/1295 968-970)

 

Wednesday 21 December, 2005

The Verifact Investigator gave Peter Edwards an Interim Report.

It was email-addressed to Peter.Edwards@qed.qld.gov.au

He had interviewed me.

He had received a number of documents that I had obtained under FOI and correspondence that I had prepared.

We have established the allegation and parties she feels are responsible and ascertained her desired outcome in this matter.

We note that you will contact us in the New Year to arrange a liaison person so we may interview potential witnesses and gain access to (my name) files held by her ex-employer.

(FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and performance Unit, document 229)

 

Friday 23 December, 2005

I emailed the Verifact Investigator the contact details of a witness who was keen to speak to him.

I explained that this person had been a teacher at Lynch-Mob State School during 2000.

She had seen me teach.

She had attended the staff meeting on 10 November 2000 during which Acting principal G.R. had talked at length to the staff about "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

She was also one of the seven teachers who put their name on a list and asked to speak to acting principal G.R. about her behaviour in putting me on DWP.

She would be able to tell the investigator what had happened at those meetings.

She would also be able to tell him about D - - - - - and about the general atmosphere / events at the school while G.R. was acting principal.

This teacher had asked me to tell the investigator that she would really like to talk to him.

I explained that I had not discussed the political conflict of interest with this witness or with any other teachers, just the workplace bullying.

Although some local people might have figured out what was "going on".

 

January 9, 2006

The Verifact Investigator spoke to Peter Edwards.

He discussed the issues and the information that I had provided to him.

The Verifact Investigator said that he would review the file held at the District office.

Peter Edwards said that he was going on re-deployment and that Kim Newman would do his job in his absence.

 

Peter Edwards reported: Call from (the Verifact Investigator) who advises that he has met with complainant who suggests the scope of her complaint is wider than that discussed.

She has asked that (the Verifact Investigator) investigate her DWP issues and provided names of witnesses she wants interviewed.

(FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 225)

 

January 16, 2006

John Ryan wrote to District Executive Director (newly appointed and not, to the best of my knowledge, involved in the situation). 

The Verifact Investigator had asked to be allowed to view any relevant files concerning me that were being held at the District office.

 

I didn't know why.

I had told the Verifact Investigator that the falsified documents had all been moved to Head Office in Mary Street.

And when we met on January 20, 2006, I understood the Verifact Investigator to tell me that he was going to travel to Brisbane to examine the files of original documents.

Then some time later I understood him to tell me that Education Queensland would not pay for him to travel to Brisbane to see the original documents.

This worried me because an Infocomm officer had told me that people with legal training always want to see original documents.

(This document 340/5/1295 1386 is a very poor copy. Many hand-written notes have been made on the document. I need to see the original document so that I can read the handwritten comments.)

 

19 January, 2006

Kim Newman asked the Verifact Investigator to ask me what I was seeking for closure of the matter.

 

The Verifact Investigator wrote an Interim Report.

It was emailed-addressed to Kim.Newman@qed.qld.gov.au

(FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and performance Unit, document 227)

This report seems to be a mixture of a 20 December 2005 report to Peter Edwards and a 19 January 2006 report to Kim Newman.

The Verifact Investigator said that had interviewed me.

He had received a number of documents that I had obtained under FOI and correspondence that I had prepared.

"We have established the allegation and parties she feels are responsible and ascertained her desired outcome in this matter (details of which have been relayed to Mr Peter Edwards).

As per Mr Edwards instructions we await advice as to a liaison person in the District Office to assist in facilitating further inquiries.

We note your advice today that we should initially liaise with District Office Employee C.H.R. and that we will discuss with you further lines of inquiry on Friday 27th January 2006."

 

January 20 2006

The Verifact Investigator met me.

I gave him a copy of the January 18 2006 update of The C - - - - -  Report.

I told him that I had emailed copies of the update to the CMC and the Premier.

He made a note of that.

The Verifact Investigator told me that the investigation was not going to be as open as he had hoped.

There would be budgetary constraints.

He might not be funded to question people.

He had asked for specific Terms of Reference.

He said that all of my documents were with the Freedom of Information officers in Brisbane.

He told me that he was going to fly to Brisbane to examine the original documents.

I remember asking him who would look after his daughter while he was in Brisbane.

 

He asked me again what I wanted.

I said that I wanted-

  •  the letter advising me that I was going to be put on DWP in 2001 to be officially struck off the official records.

or

  • For it to be noted that the decision to put me on DWP was unlawful.

 

He asked me exactly how much money I wanted.

I asked to be compensated for the loss of two days a week of casual work over a period of three years.

I got a piece of paper and I made a rough calculation that this would be about $50,000.

I said that I felt that Education Queensland owed me compensation for -

  • the fact that I had not been able to work (or to travel) because I had been waiting several years for acting principal G.R.'s "lots of" allegations to be explained to me, to have the opportunity to respond to the allegations and to prove my innocence.

 

  • the stress of the years of continuing abuse and the effect of the abuse on my health.

 

Later on January 20, 2006:

Kim Newman rang the investigator.

The Verifact Investigator asked for specific Terms of Reference.

He asked for a copy of the "internal review" of the falsified documents by an Aboriginal employee of Education Queensland.

He told Kim Newman what I wanted to finalise the issue.

Kim Newman said she would write the Terms of Reference.

 

Friday January 27, 2006

11:17 AM: Kim Newman emailed John Ryan.

Verifact had requested an extension (more time to complete the investigation).

 

12:14 PM: John Ryan emailed Kim Newman.

"No problems

Regards john"

(FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 226)

 

Kim Newman seems to have made notes on a phone conversation with Education Queensland District office employee C.H.R.:

 

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

The District Office report never given to her & was lost?

Need to look - at report."

(FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit document 221)

 

To this day, 15 August 2008, I know nothing about this District Office report.

I have never been allowed to read it.

But several Education Queensland, Queensland Ombudsman and CMC reports and decisions concerning me seem to be based on this "lost" District Office report.

 

Kim Newman reported in what seems to be the Education Queensland "case file":

"... (The Verifact Investigator) has requested that he receive a TOR (Terms of Reference) as to the extent of his investigation."

(FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 225)

 

 Monday January 30, 2006

3:30 PM approx: I rang the Verifact Investigator.

I told him that I was concerned by the fact that he had been instructed to liaise with District Office employee Ms CHR.

In late 2004 I had asked a very senior officer of Education Queensland which District Officer had been telling lies about me to the Ombudsman, the CMC and Education Queensland Head Office staff.

The very senior officer had not said clearly "District Office employee Ms CHR is the person in the District Office who has been lying about you to Head Office staff."

But I had received the impression that she was the person who had caused the problem.

 

And I knew that Kim Newman had been involved in the situation since late 2004.

It seemed to me that Kim Newman would have a conflict of interest and should not be controlling the Verifact Investigation.

 

The investigator told me that he was waiting for specific Terms of Reference.

He told me that he could only do what the Terms of Reference told him to do.

I asked him if I could be given a copy of the Terms of Reference.

The Verifact Investigator noted:

"We advised that she should seek same from client."

I was not provided with a copy of the 3 February 2006 Terms of Reference of the investigation till after 11 October 2006, i.e. several months after the investigation had been completed.

 

4:15 PM: I rang the Crime and Misconduct Commission and spoke to Lynette.

I said that I was concerned about the fact that Kim Newman was now Manager of Investigations.

She had been involved in my case with John Ryan since 2004.

For example:

The CMC records of the Monthly Liaison Meeting (held at EQ) on 13 Dec 2004 show that John Ryan, Kim Newman, Peter Edwards, Kathy Munro and Jim Meyers of Education Queensland had met with Helen Couper and Diana Mulcahy of the CMC. to discuss my case.

( CMC Activity Register Report MI-03-0035, page 11)

And Education Queensland handwritten diary notes of the meeting  - I believe that they are written by Kim Newman - also record -

 

"(MY NAME) - discussed findings and handed over a report - last corro from (my name) handed over.

- Dept no longer wishes to deal with (my name) as we have gone far enough + letter that we sent to (my name)."

(FOI 2703 E Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, Document 116)

 

On the one hand, it is a credit to Kim Newman that she made these "diary notes".

Because the standard of record-keeping by Education Queensland officers is absolutely appalling. It facilitates workplace abuse.

But the notes do suggest that these Education Queensland Workforce Standards and Performance Unit officers were not keen to investigate my complaint that the "official records" had been extensively falsified.

The "internal review" that they were handing to the CMC was based on these falsified "records".

 

5:00 PM: Kim Newman rang me.

I told her that I was concerned that she would have a conflict of interest in managing my case because she had attended the meetings with the CMC in 2004 with John Ryan.

She said that she did not feel that she had a conflict of interest.

She said that she reported to John Ryan.

I told her that Peter Edwards had assured me that, for a variety of reasons, he would not be reporting on my case to John Ryan.

Kim said she would check my file and see what the reporting arrangements for my case were.

I discussed the fact that I wanted the decision to put me on DWP withdrawn.

Kim said the DEA would give me a letter that would go part of the way to addressing my concerns.

I re-stated that I wanted a letter to say that the decision to put me on DWP was withdrawn.

I said that I had given the DEA my years of study and they owed me a safe working environment.

I should not have been put on the DWP for secret reasons and on the basis of secret, falsified sticky-notes.

I was also uneasy about the mass of falsified documents that I had discovered hidden on my file.

I was worried that there might be more falsified documents hidden on another file that was still being concealed from me.

I said that the FOI officers were refusing to let me see the documents in 2421.

Why?

I said I was worried about John Ryan's draft apology that said there MIGHT be other documents that I knew nothing about.

It suggested to me that there were more secret documents hidden on my files.

Kim said that this might just be a term used by the legal officers.

Kim said she would be writing the Terms of Reference for the investigation.

She would focus on -

  • the decision to put me on the DWP

 

  • and the falsification of the documents.

 

I was impressed by Kim Newman.

 

But I was worried by the way she seemed to "put down" my complaint by saying that I had only been on the DWP for two weeks.

I tried to explain to her how ill the stress of the abuse had made me.

 

Kim Newman also made notes of this discussion.

(FOI 2875, J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 220)

Kim Newman's notes seem to be accurate.

 

February 3, 2006

The Verifact investigator contacted Kim Newman.

He sought advice about the Terms of Reference and

"discussed file".

Kim Newman told the Verifact Investigator that the Terms of Reference would be forwarded that day.

 

The Verifact Investigator was told that the 2361 and  2421 files

- the files containing the first mass of falsified documents -

would not be released.

 

Why?

 

"Employer is prepared to supply letter stating that when claimant retired, she was a competent teacher."

 

In November and December 2000 Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR - who had never looked at my program and had not been into my classroom all year - repeatedly stated that I was a "brilliant, brilliant" teacher. 

Now, in 2006, Kim Newman - who had never, ever seen me teach - had down-graded me to a "competent" teacher.

What value can be placed on these "professional opinions"?

 

Kim Newman wrote a letter to the Verifact Investigator.

" ... The Terms of Reference in respect to this matter should be contained to (my) allegations that:

  •  documents have been falsified and placed on her departmental personnel file
  •  and what was the documentation relied upon for the decision to place (me) on a diminished work performance process."

(FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit documents 2 and 3, first released to me after 11 October 2006)

 

Tuesday February 7, 2006

The Verifact Investigator contacted Education Queensland FOI officer B1.

Education Queensland FOI officer B1 advised that "all documents that could be released to claimant, had been."

 

But many documents concerning me seem to have "gone missing" during the FOI process.

Why?

 

3:30 PM: The Verifact Investigator left a message, asking me to contact him.

 

5:15 PM: I rang the Verifact Investigator.

He told me that he was going down to Brisbane to look at my documents.

I understood him to tell me that his Terms of Reference were going to be just to look for missing documents.

(I thought at the time that I may have misunderstood him.)

He told me that the DEA were willing to give me a letter to say that I had been retired for health reasons.

I said that was not what I had asked for.

He said that it was not his role to mediate.

The Verifact Investigator told me that there might be "privileged documents" that he would be allowed to see and that I would not be allowed to see.

They may be related to something else.

 

I had always worried that Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. might have claimed to believe that a child had made an imaginary disclosure of abuse to her concerning me.

It would be very easy for a malicious principal to make such a claim.

And to claim that the disclosure was confidential.

And then to pass it to another Department for faux "investigation".

So that I would never be able to find her imaginary "disclosure" and prove my innocence.

It would be a very clever strategy.

And it would be an effective way to hide more falsified "records".

 

After speaking to the Verifact Investigator I rang D - - - - - , a teacher who was being re-habilitated at our school during Term 4  2000.

On December 16, 2005, I had discussed with the Verifact Investigator the fact that another teacher had suggested to me that D - - - - -  might be the D - - - - - mentioned in 2733 F Administrative Law Services Branch also called 2421 F Lynch-Mob State School document number 40:

 

" ... Following complaints that (my name) had been (again) humiliating students, (... notes to Grade 7 teacher N.T. from D - - - - - -), I made a statement that ... as far as I was concerned, humiliating students was a dusciplinary offence by teachers...."

 

This was one of the falsified documents had been secretly placed on my official files.

I asked D - - - - - if she if she thought that she could be the D - - - - - mentioned in the hand-written note.

D - - - - - began by saying that she had no recollection of writing any note to Grade 7 teacher N.T. concerning me.

She repeated that several times during our conversation.

D - - - - -  told me that she had taken Grade 2 at Lynch-Mob State School all of 2000, so she could not have taken grade 7 teacher N.T.'s class.

My impression was that D - - - - had arrived at the school half-way through the year.

I had only spoken to D - - - - - twice in passing.

It had been immediately obvious that she was not well.

I had never been clear about what she was doing at the school.

D - - - - - then said that she remembered one incident when a boy was cheeky in LOTE. Or it might have been in Religious Instruction. Or something else.

The boy was cheeky to a 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.

She remembers telling the mother that the usual class teacher would have to sort this out.

She thought that the teacher was Grade 7 teacher N.T.

She thought that she had written a note to Grade 7 teacher N.T.

 

Desley said she hoped that her name had not been falsified into the situation because "people do odd things".

 

10:09 PM: I emailed the Verifact Investigator.

I copied the email to the CMC and to Ken Smith.

I described my phone call to D - - - - - .

I told the Verifact Investigator that I knew nothing about this situation.

I was never aware of D - - - - - being in or near Grade 7 teacher N.T.'s class before, during or after any of my lessons.

Could the problem concern a Religious Instruction teacher?

Could it concern a teacher who took my LOTE lessons while I was on sick leave?

 

Wednesday February 8, 2006

I rang the new Education Queensland discrimination solicitor B.J.

He was conducting an "internal review" into my FOI application.

He told me that if I wanted to find evidence of anything I would have to find it myself.

(i.e. It was not his job to find evidence for me.)

 

7:27 PM

I emailed Ken Smith.

I copied the email to CMC complaints.

"Mr Smith,

I would appreciate a clear response on this.

I would like to ring the parents of children who were in (Grade 7 N.T.) during 2000.

The sticky-notes that Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. put on my file suggest that the "secret reason" why I had to be punished had something to do with this class. (Grade 7 teacher N.T.)'s comment when I returned from sick leave (after the shock of G.R.'s announcements to the staff concerning me) that the children in her class were liars and a particular child (C.N.T.) was a big liar (and she had also commented that E.N.T. was always complaining to usual principal E.L.) suggest that a child in (Grade 7 N.T.) told a lie about me and that this was the "secret reason" why I "had to be punished".

I had expected that the investigator would interview these parents and find out what happened.

If he isn't going to do this, I'd like to do it myself.

I have been waiting for Education Queensland to investigate for more than five years now, after all.

Is there any legal reason why I should not do this?"

 

Thursday February 9, 2006

3:46 PM

I emailed Ken Smith, EducationAndArts-SMTP, EducationAndArts@ministerial.qld.gov.au and CMC complaints.

I attached a copy of The C- - - - -  Report for Kim Newman.

I asked her to confirm that the independent investigation would be based on the report.

I asked her to mail me a copy of the Terms of Reference for the Investigator.

 

In the evening I rang Father C.N.T , the father of a boy I will call C.N.T.

I rang Father C.N.T. because C.N.T. had been involved in a "hat incident" during the week after I had asked Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. to support me in dealing with the roaming groups of unsupervised Grade 7 children.

C.N.T. had been forcing his hat onto the heads of a group of Grade 7 Class N.T. girls. They protested. I told him to stop. He forced his hat on my head.

I had noticed that Father C.N.T.'s name seemed to appear at the bottom of document 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 41 (number at top right hand side).

This seems to be a "record" hand-written by Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. on a scrap of paper or large sticky-note.

It is written at the bottom of what appears to be a falsified record of a conversation with a boy I will call E.N.T.

It states:

"N.B. Spoke to Mr ( blanked out by FOI officers but seems to be Father C.N.T. because there are two downward strokes and C.N.T. name was the only name in the class with two downward strokes)

on 1/12/00 re (blanked out, presumably C.N.T.)

need to curb his behaviour."

 

Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. put this record secretly on my file.

She never discussed the phone call with me.

However, the QTU solicitor had asked me if I had ever been told that a father had made a complaint about me.

I had not.

 

Father C.N.T. was quite sure that he had made no complaint concerning me.

He repeated this several times and seemed to be totally sure.

He shouted to his wife, Mother C.N.T. who was working in the distance.

She was not called D - - - - -

She said that she could remember the hat incident vaguely.

She repeated this once more.

Father C.N.T. was absolutely sure that no principal from Lynch-Mob State School had ever rung him up about any incident.

He said that he would remember if anything like that had happened.

He knew nothing about the "hat incident".

He sounded absolutely sure.

He took my phone number and email and said that C.N.T. or one of them would contact me if anybody remembered anything about any problem situation.

I heard nothing.

 

9:49 PM:

I emailed the Verifact Investigator.

I described my phone call to father C.N.T.

 

Friday February 10, 2006

The Verifact Investigator spoke with Kim Newman.

They discussed the documents and the "process" that was relied upon in deciding to put me on DWP.

 

That would have been an interesting discussion.

The Verifact Investigator said that he needed to speak to acting principal Mrs GR.

Acting principal Mrs GR was not available.

She requested that he call back on Monday.

 

Kim Newman also made notes on this conversation:

 

"9:45 (Names Verifact Investigator)

(I was) Starting to contact parents at the school to state whether they have had problems.

... Not investigating - DWP but what the decision making process and documentation was. ..."

(FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit document 213)

 

6:06 PM:

John Ryan emailed me.

" ... There is currently an investigation being conducted by an external investigator into some of your allegations -

the Department has indicated before to you that some aspects of your concerns could have been handled better -

it is in everyone's interest to let this current investigation run its course

Regards John"

 

I rang E.N.T., the boy whose complaints about specialist teachers purport to be "recorded" on FOI 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School, document 41-43 (numbered backwards at the top right-hand corner).

These unsigned notes were written by hand on scraps of paper or large sticky-notes.

They seem to be written by Lynch-Mob State school acting principal G.R.

His mother was not called D - - - - -

They were away in Melbourne when I phoned.

Document 43 states -

" Complained about (name deleted, presumably C.N.T.) throwing yellow tack & bits of rubber at him before LOTE."

E.N.T. 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 remembers that a male student threw the rubber.

It could have been in LOTE (my lesson) - or in any other lesson that took place in the mornings.

Actually document 43 says before LOTE rather than during LOTE.

E.N.T. told me that he had meetings with Lynch-Mob State School usual principal E.L. from time to time and discussed his view on things.

He did not remember having any meetings with Lynch-Mob acting principal Mrs GR.

  • He sugggested that usual principal Mr EL may have told acting principal Mrs GR about the rubber throwing.

He had no memory of the "hat incident".

E.N.T. said he had no problems with me.

His problem was with the child who threw the rubber.

 

At this stage I began to realise that, if E.N.T. was correct about usual principal E.L. telling acting principal G.R. about the rubber-throwing, it suggested that-

  • usual principal Mr EL had been actively involved in helping Mrs GR to falsify my documents.
  • the rubber-throwing took place during Term 3 2000 or earlier because usual principal Mr EL had been on leave during Term 4.

 

Saturday February 11, 2006

11:49 AM:

I emailed John Ryan.

"John,

Would you mail me a copy of the Terms of Reference that you have given your investigator, please?

And Kim Newman tells me that she has already decided on the apology that you will offer me.

Which suggests that she already knows what the result of the investigation will be.

Please mail me a copy of the apology also."

 

12:06 PM:

I emailed the Verifact Investigator.

I sent him my notes on my conversation with E.N.T.

I attached my notes on the earlier conversations with father C.N.T. and D - - - - - .

 

Monday 13 February, 2006

8:42 AM

 John Ryan emailed Kim Newman.

He attached my email to him of February 11 2006, asking him for a copy of the Terms of Reference.

 

"Dear Kim

Can we discuss please

Thanks john"


 

Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR contacted the Verifact Investigator.

 

"It all happened years ago".

 

I had first asked for an investigator to be appointed in December 2000.

It had taken Education Queensland more than five years to begin this investigation.

The five-year delay had favoured the abusers.

 

The Verifact Investigator noted that the meeting would be scheduled after acting principal G.R. had considered the matter.

 

Tuesday 14 February, 2006

The Verifact Investigator made an interim report to Kim Newman.

He had received the Terms of Reference.

He had made an appointment to speak with Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. on the afternoon of Wednesday 15th February 2006.

"... We draw your attention to our advice to you that (my name) has contacted a number of past students / parents of Lynch-Mob State School. ..."

(FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and performance Unit documents 10 and 11, released to me after 11 October 2006.)

 

Wednesday 15 February, 2006

1:45 PM:

I emailed Rod Welford, the Ombudsman, Ken Smith, Peter Edwards, CMC complaints.

I copied the email to the Education Queensland Aboriginal "internal reviewer" K.E. and John Ryan.

 

"I am sending you all a copy of these notes.

Please ensure that Kim Newman and the Verifact Investigator receive a copy of this email."

 

The Verifact Investigator had asked me to send all of my emails to his Brisbane Head Office.

I was worried that he might not be receiving my emails.

 

"I am beginning to wonder if some of the notes on my file eg. the conversation with the child (E.N.T), were simply made up.

And if these documents really did exist in 2000, why weren't they shown to me before I was put on DWP or before my Stage 1 Grievance about the abuse was dismissed? ..."

I attached the notes I had made on:

  • my telephone call to D - - - - -  on February 7 2006
  • my telephone call to (the father who seemed to be mentioned at the bottom of FOI 2421 F Lynch-Mob State School document 41) on February 9 2006
  • my telephone call to ("Raymon", described in the falsified / concealed documents FOI 2421 F Lynch-Mob State School documents 41-43, numbered backwards at the top right hand side of the page) on February 11 2006

 

Thursday 16 February, 2006

3:45

John Ryan emailed me.

"I have passed on your message as requested.

Regards john"

 

Monday 20 February, 2006

The Verifact Investigator reports that he contacted Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR again.

They made an appointment for 3:30pm on Wednesday 22 (or maybe 29th?) February.

 

Monday February 27, 2006

Acting principal Mrs GR contacted the Verifact Investigator.

Acting principal Mrs GR advised the Verifact Investigator that she was seeking union advice because-

she felt that she was being victimised by ongoing actions of claimant.

 

Mrs GR had filled my official files with "records" of imaginary conversations she claimed to believe that she was having with other people concerning me.

She had put me on DWP in breach of Natural Justice, the Code of Conduct, the Public Service Regulations, the DWP Policy, etc. etc.

But still she demonstrated no insight into her own abusive behaviour.

 

The appointment would be rescheduled.

 

Tuesday February 28, 2006.

The Verifact Investigator met District Office employee Ms CHR at the District Office.

 

"View process and obtain computer generated documents from system."

"Discuss process involved in handling this matter and matters generally."

 

That would have been an interesting discussion.

 

Wednesday March 1, 2006

8:53 AM:

I emailed Ken Smith. I copied the email to CMC complaints.

"Hello Mr Smith,

I understand that I am entitled to an update on the progress of the investigation and also to a time-line indicating the proposed date that the investigation will be completed.

I would appreciate this information."

 

10:14 AM

Trudi McKenzie on behalf of Ken Smith sent an email to EXECLEGL, Correspondence.

She attached my 8:53 AM email.

 

"Pls register as an NRR."

NRR is an Education Queensland symbol that means that nobody is allowed to reply to your emails or letters.

(FOI 2875 J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, document 218)

 

I phoned the Verifact Investigator.

He said that he was going to phone Kim Newman and ask her to give him the Terms of Reference.

He said that the Department of Education were his clients.

He was going to investigate the falsified and secret documents.

He had only got the documents that I had given him.

I asked him when he would be going to Brisbane to examine the original documents on my file.

He said that he had been told that it would not be necessary for him to go to Brisbane.

He said that the note-taking at the school level was atrocious.

He said that the Department were going to give me a document to say that I was never on DWP.

He thought that G.R.'s name would not be on the document.

I said that it was not fair that she was able to put such damaging documents on my file in two days and, although she had behaved so badly, nothing has been placed on her file after all of these years.

He said that I was on a vendetta.

I thought that it was an unjust comment.

I said that I was just re-stating the facts over and over again.

It had been obvious that Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. was bullying me from the first moment - the "mediated" meeting with the QTU organiser on 27 November 2000.

I just kept repeating the facts over and over again.

Surely, eventually, someone will listen to the facts.

The Verifact Investigator told me that he had not seen Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR's Departmental record.

He asked me if she had bullied anybody else.

I said that Mrs GR had bullied me, but after five years of complaining there was no official record of the fact that she had bullied me, so I would not expect that there would be any official record of her bullying anybody else.

The Department will not keep any record of her abuse.

 

The Verifact Investigator noted:

"Contact by claimant.

Discussion in relation to DWP and other issues outside TOR".

But, of course, I did not know what the Terms of Reference were.

 

4:44 PM

John Ryan emailed Kathryn Mahoney.

He copied the email to District Director S.K.

"Dear Kathryn,

I've just spoken to (Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR) -

the principal who (my name) targets -"

  • John Ryan has turned the bully administrator into the victim!

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

If G.R. had been telling the truth about the situation.

- If her secret records were truthful -

Why would she need to fear for her safety?

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

 

"- I'm happy to discuss

Regards john"

2875 File A Legal and Administrative Law Branch, document 681

 

Is this the way that FOI is supposed to work?

 

Thursday 2 March, 2006

9:36 AM

Kathryn Mahoney emailed Education Queensland FOI officer D.J.

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

 

" Would like your thoughts on this matter sometime

Kathryn "

2875 File A Legal and Administrative Law Branch, document 681

 

Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. contacted the Verifact investigator.

She advised him that she had discussed the matter with the Queensland Teachers' Union, as well as John Ryan and was now aware of the extent of the allegations.

 

  • But the day before John Ryan had told Kathryn Mahoney and District Director S.K. that G.R. had called him concerning -

" ... the ongoing request for information from the department about this issue -"

 

The Verifact investigator advised G.R. that the Terms of Reference were limited to the falsified / secret documents.

They agreed to meet at 12 mid-day on Tuesday 7 March 2006.

 

6:35 PM

John Ryan emailed Kim Newman.

He seems to have attached my email asking for an update on the progress of the investigation.

 

" ear Kim

I know this is a nrr

but can we discuss please

Thanks ojhn "

 

7:56: I emailed the Verifact Investigator.

I detailed documents that seemed to be being concealed from me.

 

" I am a bit anxious that that the Department will try to get me to accept another ambiguous letter.

I want the decision to put me on DWP withdrawn.

If the Department admit that I was not given Natural justice there should be no problem with this.

(The Aboriginal "internal reviewer" had found that I was not given Natural Justice.)

If there is a problem, what is the problem?

Are they suggesting that I should have been punished for another reason?

Their reluctance to withdraw the decision to put me on DWP makes me suspect that something is still being concealed from me.

I am not on a "vendetta" or "attacking" anybody.

I have not asked for anybody to be sacked.

I see this as a systemic problem.

I was being bullied and everybody I asked for help just joined in the bullying.

For more than five years.

 

My complaint about the bullying is not the problem.

The problem is the bullying and the systemic refusal to do anything about the bullying."

 

Friday 3 March, 2006

The Verifact investigator spoke to Kim Newman.

The Verifact investigator wrote Education Queensland an interim report.

 

Saturday 4 March, 2006

12:44 PM: I emailed Ken Smith.

I copied the email to Rod Welford, John Ryan, Peter Edwards and CMC complaints.

" Hello Mr Smith,

I am attaching and re-sending to you a letter that I emailed to you and copied to the CMC, Ombudsman and Justice Department at 12:35 PM on 21 June 2004.

The next day I also handed a printed copy of this letter and the five documents to the District Office of Education Queensland."

These were my responses to five of the falsified FOI 2361 and 2421 documents that I had found hidden on my "official records".

" I emailed you at 3:37 PM that day to tell you that I had hand-delivered the letter and documents to (I named a person in the District office) at the District office front desk.

I understand that all copies of this document were immediately lost / unable to be located.

I am re-sending the documents for your convenience. "

 

Sunday 5 March 2006

9:14: John Ryan emailed me.

He copied the email to Ken Smith.

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

Regards John Ryan "

Education Queensland senior officers really seem determined not to "know about" the 21 June 2004 letter.

 

Tuesday 7 March 2006

The Verifact investigator met Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR.

He discussed the Terms of Reference with her.

He interviewed her.

 

Friday 10 March, 2006

I phoned the Verifact investigator.

I told him that I had discovered that Ken Smith seemed to have "lost" all of the emails, letters and documents that I had sent to him during the first half of 2004.

And that the only document on my file was a letter to me to say that Education Queensland would not communicate with me.

I felt that my file had been entirely falsified again in 2004 to create a false impression of the situation.

It was bewildering.

It seemed to me that the senior officers of Education Queensland were part of the problem.

The Verifact Investigator said that Education Queensland may not consider emails to be official documents.

(But that would mean that anything they told you in an email was worthless!)

I said that to me the main question seemed to be - how had Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. got away with it?

How had she managed, with so little effort, to manipulate so many people?

The Verifact Investigator said that he thought that the Department would be willing to give me a statement to say that at the time of my retirement I was not on DWP and that I was an exemplary teacher.

It was the first time that he had said that.

To this date, 18 August 2008, I have received no such letter.

The verifact Investigator gave me the impression that he was just about ready to write his investigation report.

He said that I would be able to see it under FOI.

To this date, 18 August, 2008, I have only been allowed to read fragments of his report.

I asked the Verifact Investigator how he could write his investigation report when he had not been allowed to interview people.

He said (for the first time) that he had interviewed a few people.

 

 The Verifact Investigator reported:  

"She claims that all letters and emails from Ken Smith have been deleted prior to October 2004."

 

This is not quite correct.

I had received a letter dated 22 December 2005 from Susan Barker, Assistant Information Commissioner.

Attached to the letter from Susan Barker was a copy of a letter dated 25 November 2005 from Lemm Ex, Principal Legal Officer, Education Queensland to Anne Lindon, Administrative Review Officer, Information Commissioner, Queensland.

Attached to Lemm Ex's letter was a Statutory Declaration hand-written by John Ryan and witnessed by Lemm Ex.

John Ryan had stated-

 "... I do not have in my possession emails or other documents between 23 June (2004) to 3 October 2004 (inclusive). "

 

I had also received a letter from Susan Barker, Assistant Information Commissioner, dated March 1 2006.

Attached to that letter was a statutory declaration signed by Trudi-Jane McKenzie.

Trudi-Jane McKenzie stated that she was the executive officer in the office of Ken Smith, the Director-General of the Department of Education and the Arts.

She had searched for the emails that the Director-General had sent to me and that I had sent to him between March 3 2004 and 18 July 2004.

She had not been able to find any.

 

The Verifact investigator then stated -

"We explained our Terms of Reference again."

  • But the notes made by the Verifact Investigator on 30 January 2006 confirm that he had not told me the Terms of Reference.

He had told me to ask Education Queensland for a copy of the Terms of Reference.

 

Sunday 12 March, 2006

10:20 PM

I emailed John Ryan. I copied the email to EducationAndArts - SMTP, CMC complaints, Peter Edwards, Employment and Training -SMPT, Ken Smith and The Premier.

 

" ... As I have pointed out before, it is not appropriate that you have taken over control of this "independent" investigation. ... "

 

Monday 13 March, 2006

12:06:

John Ryan emailed me.

" ... I have not taken over control of the independent investigation - I am the Department's single point of contact to respond to you.

Regards

John Ryan "

 

Tuesday 14 March, 2006

8:16 AM

I emailed John Ryan. I copied the email to The Premier, Ken Smith, Employment and Training - SMTP, Peter Edwrads, CMC complaints, Education And Arts - SMTP

 

" Mr Ryan,

I asked you to investigate this situation when I met you in Brisbane on 28 February 2003.

... It is not appropriate that you have chosen yourself to be "the Department's single point of contact" to me. ... "

 

29 March, 2006

The Verifact Investigator wrote Education Queensland an Interim Report.

 

Susan Barker, Assistant Information Commissioner, signed a letter to me.

The letter actually seems to have been written by Anne Lindon.

Infocomm had been refusing to search for the 2361 and 2421 documents (which explained the "secret reason" why I had to be punished) that I had applied for under Freedom of Information in September 2003.

They would not agree to search for the 2361 and 2421 documents until I agreed that FOI 2469 had been "finalized".

So I had agreed that 2469 was finalized.

And on 29 March 2006, 

  • when the Verifact Investigation was almost complete,
  • and one month after John Ryan had asked Kathryn Mahoney (who seems to have been the Director supervising the Education Queensland FOI officers) with G.R.'s request -

" if there is any way we can stop asking her (Lynch-Mob State-School acting principal G.R.) for information - she was not specific about requests -

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

- she is fearful about her safety - "

Infocomm at last advised me that they were willing to take 2361 and 2421 "out of abeyance".

And as a result of this Infocomm "out of abeyance" process, to this date, 21 August 2008, I have not received any of the missing 2361 or 2421 documents - the documents that explain the "secret reason" why I had to be punished - the documents that I first requested under Freedom of Information in September 2003.

 

4 April, 2006

Education Queensland discrimination solicitor B.J. wrote to me.

He had spoken to Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. that day.

G.R. had no recollection of the note dated 10/11/00 in which she explained why she had told the staff that there was "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children:

" Following complaints that (I) had been (again) humiliating students 9... notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T. from Desley) I made a statement to the effect that ... as far as I was concerned, humiliating students was a disciplinary offence by teachers. "

FOI 2421 F Lynch-Mob State School document 40

 

Nor could she remember what the "notes to (N.T.) from Desley" were.

" ... G.R. states that the events which are the subject of the note occurred many years ago and she has no recollection of their context. "

Letter to me dated 4 April 2006.

  • And yet Lynch-Mob State School acting principal G.R. claims to have been keeping these notes in her secret file on me since November 2000.
  • And the allegations concerning me in the "notes to (N.T.) from Desley" must have been very serious because they seeem to have prompted acting principal G.R. and usual principal E.L. to decide to put me on DWP.

 

6 April 2006

9:30 AM: I phoned the Verifact Investigator (V.I.).

We had just had a cyclone. He had injured his back in the cyclone clean-up. He was on medication.

Peter Edwards was back at Education Queensland.

The Verifact Investigator was going to phone Peter Edwards the next day.

Peter Edwards might change the Term of Reference again.

The Verifact Investigator had interviewed Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR.

He had talked to District Office employee C.H.R..

Mrs GR had explained to him why the documents were hidden / secret / falsified .

It could all have been resolved with an explanation.

I said that Mr EL should have sorted it out when I made my Stage 1 Grievance.

The Verifact Investigator said that was out of his Terms of Reference.

He said that he hoped that I would not "blame the messenger".

I said that I would not blame him but I would respond to any new allegations.

The Verifact Investigator asked me what allegations I thought that they were going to make.

I said that it could be anything.

When you know that somebody lies, anything is possible.

I said that what Education Queensland usually did was to make up new allegations and then refuse to allow me to respond to the new allegations.

I said that G.R. continually changed her "story", but when you thought about what she had said - sometimes it took time, but you could figure out that something was a lie if you compared one statement with another.

He said that he would ask Peter Edwards if he could "put it to me".

I now realise that this is a police expression meaning to accuse you of something and ask you to respond to the allegation.

He said that he would ask Peter Edwards if he could speak to Mother D.A. and male student R.D.A.

(I had taken Mother D.A. to acting principal G.R. because of her violent and abusive behaviour towards me.)

He could only state the facts.

Actually it now seems that the Verifact Investigator's Terms of Reference seem to have been to just copy down what acting principal Mrs GR, usual principal Mr EL and acting deputy principal Miss AL told him, however obvious it was that they were not telling the truth.

He said that everybody kept asking him what I wanted.

I said that the $50,000 was important to me, but what I really wanted was to believe that they were going to deal with the situation - not really just G.R., the whole culture of abuse.

I had seen no evidence that they were dealing with it.

I said that if they didn't deal with it themselves I was going to warn young teachers, especially intelligent OP2 teachers, that they are facing a lifetime of misery.

No other teacher should have to go throught what I have gone through.

He said that he knew that I felt passionately about it.

  • Reading the Verifact Investigator's notes on this conversation ( 340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education) I do not feel that they represent an accurate record of this conversation.

 

Later on 6 April 2006-

The Verifact Investigator phoned Peter Edwards.

"Supplied full briefing of infomation to date, as well as requirements of client to resolve matter.

Following discussion as to aspects of documents,arrangements to be made for us to speak with Lynch-Mob Stae College usual principal Mr EL to ascertain how information (the mass of falsified "records" ) placed on file.

Discussed appropriateness and method used to record these documents.

Extension approved.

Blanket letter of introduction to to allow our enquiries to be sent to The District Office."

( 340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education).

 

7 April 2006

The Verifact Investigator submitted an Interim Report to the Department of Education.

This Interim Report took seven and a half minutes.

( 340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education)

Then he seems to have done no more work on the investigation till 20 April 2006.

6:17:

I emailed the Verifact Investigator.

His conversation with Lynch-Mob State College acting principal seemed to have mainly concerned Mother D.A.

I attached documents related to Mother D.A. to which he had not previously been given access.

  • A document that I had written for acting principal G.R. to explain why I had brought Mother D.A. to her office. I had tried to explain this to G.R. after Mother D.A. had left the office, but G.R. had told me that she did not have time to listen to me.

 

  • A document that I had written in preparation for the meeting with acting principal G.R. on 12 October 2000.

 

  • I drew the Verifact Investigator's attention to a document that I had sent to him earlier, which was my response to G.R.'s falsified / hidden "record" of the meeting with Mother D.A..

 

  • I drew his attention to my discussion of the meeting with Mother D.A. in The C - - - - - Report January 18 2006.

 

19 April, 2006

11:29: I emailed the Verifact Investigator.

I copied the email to CMC complaints.

I had made an FOI application for a copy of the "notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.) from Desley"  that Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR claimed alleged that I had been humiliating children.

"Because of the allegations made in these notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.) from Desley, G.R. made an announcement to the staff that "a person" on the staff was humiliating children. I was warned that the person was me. I was so shocked by G.R.'s behaviour that I was off sick for a week.

Now these "notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.) from Desley" had vanished and I had never been told anything about the allegations contained in the notes.

I think you need to question G.R. (and the other people concerned) about these allegations concerning me.

I am concerned that I do not know what your Terms of Reference are and I do not know what the new allegations are that G.R. has made about me, but you are only being given the documents that I have provided.

It means that, after more than five years, I still have to try to guess what the allegations are and guess which documents you need to be given.

It seems to me an odd way to conduct an investigation.

My hope is that your report will provide me with a written, final version of G.R.'s allegations against me so that, after five and a half years, I will finally be allowed to respond to the allegations against me.

I responded to G.R.'s verbal allegations on November 20, 2000 and I later discovered that the allegations recorded in acting deputy principal A.L.'s secret "records" had been changed.

And the story has been changing ever since.

I would like to have a final version of the allegations, a last "Departmental Story" that cannot be changed.

Until I have had that final "story", I have not had the right to respond."

 

To this date, 21 August, 2008, Education Queensland has refused to tell me their "final story".

They will not allow me the right to repond to their secret allegations.

They will not allow me the opportunity to prove myself innocent.

 

20 April, 2006

The Verifact Investigator noted:

As a result of e-mail message from Verifact Office, contacted client and discussed investigation.

We advised that to conclude our inquiries within TOR, we desired to speak with Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL and acting deputy principal Miss AL.

Client advised that they would sent advice to The District Office.

This had not been done at this stage.

We would subsequently be advised of contact person.

Client has requested Interim Report in the meantime."

( 340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education)

 

21 April 2006

John Ryan sent Mrs GR a copy of my solicitor’s letter.

He asked her to telephone him if she wished to respond to the contents of my solicitor’s letter.

340/5/1295 document number obscured but seems to be 960 - 962

 

  • So John Ryan and Mrs GR were both aware, on 21 April 2006, that all I wanted was for Education Queensland to confirm in writing that there were no grounds for me to be placed in the Diminished Workplace Performance program.

 

26 April, 2006

The Verifact Investigator reports that he wrote a Preliminary Report for Education Queensland.

This Preliminary Report took one and a half hours.

Reference made in  FOI 340/5/1295 916-917 and also 340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education.

 

29 April, 2006

Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR wrote to Mr Ken Smith, Director-General of Education Queensland to complain.

Mrs GR's exact complaint has been concealed by the FOI officers, and I have not been provided with a copy of her complaint to this date, 1 February, 2009.

But Mrs GR seems to have complained about me making FOI applications and finding the mass of falsified records that she had secretly put on my Education Queensland files.

340/5/1295 External Review Document 1307 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education.

 

4 May, 2006

The Verifact Investigator was contacted by Peter Edwards - his "client".

They discussed details of the report.

Mr Edwards instructed the Verifact Investigator to liaise with Principal Advisor - Regional Services, Ms CHR to arrange interviews.

340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education.

 

17 May 2006

The Verifact investigator spoke to District Office employee CHR for seven and a half minutes.

340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education.

Then

The Verifact Investigator gave a fifteen minute verbal report to Peter Edwards.

Peter Edwards was preparing a Briefing for the Assistant Director-General.

Mr Edwards advised the Verifact Investigator that a synopsis of interviews would be sufficient at this time rather than a full transcript.

340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education.

Then

The Verifact Investigator wrote Education Queensland an Interim Report.

This took seven and a half minutes.

His instructions had been clarified by Ms Kim Newman to investigate false / secretive documentation leading up to the decision to put me on DWP.

The numbers on this Verifact interim report are concealed but seem to be FOI 340/5/1295 documents 916-917

 

24 May 2006

Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL rang the Verifact Investigator.

He told the investigator that he had very little input to offer.

  • You were supposed to have investigated the situation, Mr EL.

They made an appointment for the next day to "formally record responses".

  • So they recorded responses that they had practised the day before on the phone.

340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education.

 

25 May 2006

The Verifact Investigator discussed the matter under investigation with Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL for forty-five minutes.

Ten minutes - 2.15-2.25 PM - of the forty-five minute discussion were recorded.

340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education.

The number on this record is obscured but it seems to be 340/5/1295 document 975

 

The decision concerning me that Mr EL, Mrs GR and Miss AL had made and recorded on 29 November 2000 was the decision that I had asked The District Director to investigate on 14 December 2000.

2469 File B The District Office document 104.

 

Education Queensland senior officers had delayed investigating this decision till Thursday 25 May, 2006.

When questioned 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.

Mrs GR "recorded" what seems to have been an imaginary conversation with a member of the District office staff on 9 October 2000, the sixth day that she was acting principal-

while I was on sick leave because of her abuse!

Mrs GR "recorded" that -

" I spoke to District Office Employee AG on 9/10/00 about the possibility of a Diminished Work Performance Situation."

2469 File F The District Office document 82 - number at top right hand side of page.

You put that "record" on my official file, Mr EL.

You knew that you had not discussed this imaginary "record" with me.

 

"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 two years later under FOI after 12 June 2008.

 

Not true, Mr EL.

Not true at all.

 

You clearly stated in your 5 February 2001 Stage 1 Grievance Investigation report:

 "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 you clearly knew that the DWP had been implemented, Mr EL.

 

"I would consider that the Diminished Work performance would not continue ...

This statement also demonstrates that on 5 February 2001 you clearly understood that the DWP had begun, Mr EL.

2421 File C The District office documents 4-5 and 198-199

2469 File F The District office documents 142 and 143.

 

Usual principal E.L also stated that he:

"... cannot recall at any time acting principal G.R. providing him with a file in regards to the complainant."

340/5/1295 document 1432

 

This statement does not seem to accord with the facts.

  • Acting principal G.R. seems to have provided E.L. with copies of a selection of the hidden / falsified documents and she also seems to have written messages to him on the documents.

 

  • Usual principal E.L. himself seems to have made handwritten notes on one hidden / falsified document.

 

1. If usual principal E.L.'s statement that he "... cannot recall at any time acting principal G.R. providing him with a file in regards to the complainant ..." is true, on what documentation were his decisions to -

  • put me on DWP,

 

  • and to dismiss my Stage 1 Grievance,

 

  • and (it now seems, according to the June 12 2008 FOI version of the Education Queensland "story") his decision in February 2001 to put me on MUP,

- based?

 

Or were usual principal E.L.'s decisions concerning me made without reference to the documentation?

Is Mr EL arguing that his decisions concerning me were based purely on malicious gossip?

 

2.  In his Stage 1 Grievance Meeting / Investigation Report dated 05/02/2001 usual principal E.L. claims that-

 "on the matter of the Grievance all paperwork was received ..." 

 

3. And a new F.O.I. document 340/5/1295 document 3010 that has appeared after June 12 2008 for the first time -

I do note that -

  • statements made in this document 340/5/1295 3010 seem to conflict with other documented statements made by Mrs GR.

 

  • and that there are no page numbers on either side of this FOI document and that the documents before and after this document are numbered in the normal manner

 

- which circumstances do raise some doubts about the integrity of this newly-produced document,

but Mrs GR states in this newly-produced document  -

 

"Please check out what may be relevant in the attached file.

Copies of these were also filed at Lynch-Mob State School."

So acting principal Mrs GR does seem to acknowledge that she deliberately put copies of falsified / hidden documents on my "official record" at Lynch-Mob State School.

 

4. FOI 2469 File F The District Office seems to be the file of documents that usual principal Mr EL sent to the District Office to support the findings of his Grievance Stage 1 investigation.

Documents 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71 are some of the documents written by the OB students.

The collection of documents has been falsified in that one honest child's response has been removed.

 

Acting principal Mrs GR seems to have written a handwritten note to usual principal Mr EL when she gave him the falsified documents / put the falsified documents on my official record:

This note seems to prove that acting principal Mrs GR put falsified documents on my official record for usual principal Mr EL to read.

 

"(First name of acting deputy principal Miss AL ) can explain this better, but I gather it was given to her by (my name) to make some sort of point regarding (name of Grade 6/7 teacher B.O)'s students. (They were asked to name the 4 most disruptive students I gather)."

The use of acting deputy principal Miss AL's first name suggests that this note was written for usual principal Mr EL rather than an officer in the District office who would not be so familiar with Miss AL.

 

  • A large number of both the real and the falsified documents in the 2469 File F have been covered with similar mesages from Mrs GR to Mr EL.

 

5. The handwritten comments  "communicative interpretation" on the copy of document 74 in what - according to the new July 12 2008 FOI story - seems to be usual principal Mr EL's own version of my "official record", 2469 F -  seem to be made in Mr EL's handwriting (compare with his handwritten document 2469 F 146).

 

This suggests that usual principal Mr EL studied and made notes on the falsified documents that acting principal Mrs GR had put on my file.

 

26 May 2006

Peter Edwards rang the Verifact Investigator.

The Verifact Investigator gave Mr Edwards a Status Report.

Mr Edwards told the Verifact Investigator that he could interview Miss AL.

(340/5/1295 External Review Document 965 attached to letter to me dated 9 January, 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Queensland Department of Education.)

 

28 May, 2006

The Verifact Investigator phoned Miss AL.

The Verifact Investigator seemed to know Miss AL quite well because he used to supervise her husband at the local police station.

They discussed her knowledge of the matter.

Miss AL requested time to recall events properly.

The Verifact Investigator arranged to call her again during the week and record a telephone interview.

The Verifact Investigator left recorded messages for Miss AL on 2nd and 9th June.

 

2 June 2006

At 10:21 AM I emailed the Information Commissioner to make a formal complaint that an officer of the Information Commission seemed to have tricked me into agreeing to put my 2361 and 2421 (OIC ref: 2004/F04730) applications “into abeyance” because she assured me that these documents would be released to me in response to my later FOI application.

The officer refused to re-open the external review application for two years.

Then the officer declared my application 2004/F04730 “closed”.

To this date, 26 February, 2009, these 2361 and 2421 files have not been released to me.

These are the first documents that I first applied for.

These documents would probably explain the first, secret “reason” why Mrs GR and Mr EL made their 29 November 2000 agreement that "the (DWP) process is warranted".

 

18 June 2006 - Sunday

The Verifact Investigator conducted a telephone interview with Lynch-Mob State College acting deputy principal Miss AL.

His 11 July 2006 Investigation Report states ( FOI 340/5/1295 document 1432) that this interview took place on 7 March 2006, but this seems to be a typo.

The synopsis of the interview ( FOI 340/5/1295 document numbers obscured but seem to be 972-973) states that the interview actually took place on Sunday 18 June 2006.

 

  • This would have been a difficult interview for both acting deputy principal Miss AL and the Verifact Investigator because, a few years earlier, the Verifact Investigator had been Miss AL's husband's supervisor at the local police station.

 

"31. (Miss AL) voiced her opinion that the Complainant (me) was a good teacher with respect to her subject knowledge, ... "

 

Miss AL, this is a ridiculous statement.

It should be framed.

You never, ever saw me teach.

You knew nothing about my "subject knowledge".

You knew nothing about teaching Indonesian.

Your "professional opinion" of my "subject knowledge" is just empty, brainless waffle.

My career and my health were destroyed by your brainless waffle.

 

I worked so hard to get really good teaching qualifications.

How can my career have been destroyed with this empty, brainless waffle?

 

" ... but based on her personal observations the Complainant did have issues with regards to the manner in which she interacted with students."

 

Miss AL, you never, ever "observed" me teach.

Your "professional opinion" is just empty, brainless waffle.

 

Miss AL had been sitting next to me in our shared office during terms 1-3.

She liked to chat in the mornings.

One morning she called out to me three times.

I got up three times to walk around the screen that separated us.

After the third time I told her that I did not have time to chat because I had to get organised for my classes.

I had to pack a tray with the things that I needed for my lessons that morning.

If I forgot something it would be very difficult for me to function effectively.

Miss AL was under less stress in the mornings because she just worked with small groups of children in our office.

Miss AL never called out to me again in the mornings.

I knew Miss AL was upset with me.

I knew that she wanted to chat.

But I needed to get ready for my lessons.

 

During the mediated meeting on 27 November 2000, Miss AL said that I made her feel "put down" and that, if I made her feel "put down", she thought that the children might feel that way as well.

 

This was the only reason Miss AL gave for wanting to put me on DWP.

I had the impression that Miss AL was not over-intelligent.

And that she was being manipulated by acting principal Mrs GR

And that Miss AL's gullibility was putting me at serious risk of harm.

 

"33. A.L. stated that her only involvement in matters under investigation was to be present at a couple of meetings between acting principal G.R. and the Complainant as an independent person."

 

  • It must have been immediately obvious to the Verifact Investigator that this statement by acting principal A. L. was not in accordance with-

a) reality

b) with the "story" being told in the falsified / hidden "records"-

 

Thursday 5 October 2000

On the third day that A.L. was acting deputy principal of Lynch-Mob State School.

Acting principal G.R. claims that she had -

... further discussions with A.L.  the third day that A.L. was acting deputy principal) over concerns she (A.L.) had regarding-

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

Either

  • acting deputy principal A.L. - who never, ever saw me teach - had learned a lot about me in the three days that she had been acting principal. And was making very, very damaging professional judgements concerning me which were then recorded and placed secrely on my professional record by G.R.

or

  • acting principal G.R. is creating an entirely falsified "record".

and

  • Surely common-sense would suggest to usual principal E.L. - 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?

 

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

 

  • The document seems to provide evidence of A.L.'s malicious gossip and poor professional conduct. And G.R.'s inappropriate behaviour in documenting this unsubstantiated malicious gossip and placing it on my official record.

 

  • This story seems to be so obviously unlikely, it suggests to me that this document was carelessly falsified at some later date, when acting principal G.R. did not realise how ridiculous it was to claim that acting deputy principal A.L. had drawn such conclusions concerning me on her third day "on the job".

 

  • This story also suggests to me that acting principal G.R. may have selected A.L. to be acting deputy principal during Term 4 because she already knew that A.L. was annoyed with me (because I had told her that I was too busy to chat to her in the mornings). If acting principal G.R. had chosen one of the 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 fully supported me.

 

This "record" was being held in G.R.'s "secret file"  2421 F Lynch-Mob State School documents 9-11, 

and also on my official Departmental record in usual principal E.L.'s file 2469 F, documents 82-84,

 

Also 5 October, the third day that A.L. was acting deputy principal.

Document 2421 F 7 now seems - according to the "new story" told in the June 12 2008 FOI documents - to be one of the falsified / hidden documents that acting principal G.R. was collecting in her private file on me.

After 27 October 2005, I discovered under FOI that this 2421 F 7 document had now "vanished" from my official record.

However the document can also be found on my official record in usual principal E.L.'s folder of documents -  2469 F 72.

  • Acting deputy principal A.L. seems to have begun making "records" concerning me on the third day that she was acting deputy principal!

 

  • A.L.'s behaviour was in breach of Natural justice, the Code of Conduct, the Public Service Regulations, etc.

 

  • Was A.L. writing secret records and putting them on the files of all of the teachers at Lynch-Mob State School?

 

This document purports to be acting deputy principal A.L.'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 dates, because the FOI officers seem to have concealed the dates on the children's documents.

I am quite sure that it was on October 5 that I met Sue in the playground because it was the day after I had taken Mother D.A. to acting principal G.R. becuase of her violent and abusive behaviour towards me.

I realise now that I was suffering from "Post Traumatic Shock" from the long period of abuse by student D.A., then by Mother D.A. and finally by acting principal G.R. the previous afternoon.

I felt that I could not take time off, but on Thursday 5 and Friday 6 October 2000 I was wandering about the school on the verge of tears.

 

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

This was A.L.'s third day in the job.

She had never seen me teach.

At this time A.L.'s opinions about my "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.

This comment suggests to me that this document was falsified at a later date, to try to create the impression that A.L. raised "concerns" with me about behaviour management before I asked for a mediated meeting.

 

I had sent either student B.O.J. or B.O.S. , or possibly both of them, to acting deputy principal A.L. with a yellow slip because of their poor behaviour.

Acting deputy principal A.L. told me that students B.O.S. and B.O.J. had told her that they found LOTE (Indonesian) very difficult, etc.

I explained to A.L. that students B.O. S and B.O. J. had a long history of unco-operative behaviour.

I told her that the B.O.J. and B.O.S  were very manipulative girls.

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

They really had been naughty.

I asked A.L. to go back to B.O. J. and B.O. S and tell them that she had checked their story with me and that she knew that they were "having her on".

Acting deputy principal A.L. refused to do this.

She 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.

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 A.L. 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 A.L., "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 A.L. that I was feeling unwell.

I told her about the abusive episode the day before.

I told her that it was not Mother D.A.'s abuse that had upset me, it was the way that acting principal G.R. had behaved after Mother D.A. had left the office.

I knew that a problem with G.R. was a bit much for A.L. to deal with on her third day "in  the job", so I told A.L. that I would have a meeting with G.R. and speak to her myself about her behaviour.

 

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

When B.O.S. and B.O.J. next misbehaved I was at a loss to know what to do.

If I sent them to G.R., she would abuse me again.

If I sent them to A.L. 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 A.L. that B.O. S. and b.o. J. were really misbehaving?

I tried to teach the other children but B.O.S. and B.O.J. 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 A.L. 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 A.L. the children's statements and told he rhow disturbing I found them.

Were we teaching the children to lie?

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

A.L. 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 A.L. simply gave the statements to G.R. to put on my official records. 

 

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

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

... (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 - one child 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 A.L. had really spoken to the children, the honest child would not have made excuses.

It would have been obvious to A.L. that the children had misbehaved.

 

The copy of this document that can be found on usual principal E.L.'s file at 2469 72 has been changed.

Acting principal G.R. seems to have hand-written an unsigned and undated message for usual principal E.L. on the bottom of this document:

Confidential request made to L - - - - to act as "supportive colleague" to (me) to try to give her some positive B.M. strategies.

L - - - - agreed to try to do this.

  • I do not believe that this happened. This seems to be a falsification to try to create the impression that G.R. had "concerns" about me before I asked for a mediated meeting.
  • Before the mediated meeting on 27 November 2000, L - - - - was never in the Grade 7 classroom when I was teaching. She was often late back to her classroom and I had to stand outside her room, searching for her, while teacher N.T. stood outside her own classroom, demonstrating her irritation that I was late to teach her class. Sometimes N.T. 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 she had arrived. After the mediated meeting I had the impression that acting principal G.R. had told the Grade 7 teachers to "lift their game", because their behaviour changed and N.T. did stay in the classroom for part of some LOTE Indonesin lessons. I had the impression that she was writing her end-of-year reports.
  • I had a good impression of teacher N.T.'s integrity. I do not believe that teacher L - - - - would agree to behave in this sort of underhanded "spying " way towards another teacher without that teacher's knowledge or consent.
  • If G.R. and L - - - - really made an agreement of this kind, it would demonstrate that G.R. 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 G.R. was directing teachers to act in breach of Natural Justice, the Code of Conduct and the Public Service regulations towards me.                         

 

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 "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 & 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 that I had handed the documents to.

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

 

12 October 2000

This document did not appear in the 2421 documents that were released to me in 2004.

I first saw this 2469 F document 74 after July 12 2004.

Usual principal E.L. had hand-written communicative interpretation at the left hand side of this document.

The handwriting matches his handwriting on 2469 F 146, usual principal E.L.'s handwritten notes on what seems to have been a conversation with an un-named person concerning my complaint.

So usual principal E.L. had read the falsified documents on this 2469 file.

 

This document 2469 F 74 purports to be acting deputy principal A.L.'s notes on the meeting to discuss acting principal G.R.s behaviour during and after the meeting with Mother D.A.

(My name) then asked if G.R. 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.

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 G.R. with regards to difficulties she is having with Grade 6/7 B.O. and some strategies she has planned to deal with he situation.

I had actually -

  • told G.R. and A.L. 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. Usual principal E.L. had a copy of that document on his file 2469 F documents 40-43.

 

16 October 2000

Document 2421 F 8 now seems - according to the "new story" told in the June 12 2008 FOI documents - to be one of the falsified / hidden documents that acting principal G.R. was collecting in her private file on me.

After 27 October 2005, I discovered under FOI that this 2421 F 8 document had now "vanished" from my official record.

Usual principal E.L. also had a copy of this document in what - according to the new July 12 2008 FOI story - seems to be his own copy of my "official record", 2469 F document 59.

This document purports to be (in part) acting deputy principal A.L.'s record of the meeting that usual principal E.L. 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.

We had been working on this plan since Term 3.

Usual principal E.L. 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.

 

17 October 2000

Document 2421 F 8 now seems - according to the "new story" told in the June 12 2008 FOI documents - to be one of the falsified / hidden documents that acting principal G.R. was collecting in her private file on me.

After 27 October 2005, I discovered under FOI that this 2421 F 8 document had now "vanished" from my official record.

Usual principal E.L. also had a copy of this document in what - according to the new July 12 2008 FOI story - seems to be his own copy of my "official record", 2469 F document 59.

This document purports to be (in part) acting deputy principal 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

Document 2421 F 8 now seems - according to the "new story" told in the June 12 2008 FOI documents - to be one of the falsified / hidden documents that acting principal G.R. was collecting in her private file on me.

After 27 October 2005, I discovered under FOI that this 2421 F 8 document had now "vanished" from my official record.

Usual principal E.L. also had a copy of this document in what - according to the new July 12 2008 FOI story - seems to be his own copy of my "official record", 2469 F document 59.

This document purports to be (in part) acting deputy principal A.L.'s record of my conversation with her about this situation.

A.L. seems to have grasped some part of the point that I was making to her:

 

"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 Miss AL because of their poor behaviour.

I was following the school behaviour management policy.

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

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

I felt that she was encouraging the children to lie.

And she 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 poor behaviour.

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

  • It is interesting that Miss 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 Miss 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 Miss AL expresses any concern for my welfare.

However Miss AL was "new to this job", and was probably still "finding her feet".

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

 

1 November 2000

On what now seems to be G.R.'s private file of documents concerning me is document 2421 F 56.

This purports to be a letter from a mother, I presume Mother B.O. J., to Grade 6/7 teacher B.O.

Usual principal E.L. also had a copy of this document in what - according to the new July 12 2008 FOI story - seems to be his own version of my "official record", 2469 F document 57.

But acting principal G.R. write a message for usual principal E.L. on the document before giving it to him / putting it on my file.

She states:

 "(first name of acting principal A.L.) rang to find out why ...(name of acting principal A.L.) suggested (student) write to (me) ..."

A.L. did not discuss this situation with me, nor was I given any letter from the student.

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

 

27 November 2000

On what now seems to be acting principal G.R.'s private file on me, File 2361 / 2421 File F, Documents 28-32, are acting deputy principal A.L.'s notes on the "mediated" meeting with the QTU rep on 27 November 2000.

Usual principal E.L. also had a copy of these documents in what - according to the new July 12 2008 FOI story - seems to be his own version of my "official record", 2469 F documents 27 - 31.

 

Acting deputy principal A.L. seems to have signed - but not dated - the last document 2421 F 28.

I was not aware that A.L. was making notes at this meeting, although the detail in the notes suggests to me that the meeting was recorded in some way.

 

" 37. A.L. recalled that the Complainant was informed by acting principal G.R. that she would be placed on a Diminished Work programme the following year ... A.L. added that this decision was made by usual principal G.R."

During the meeting on 27 November 2000 acting deputy principal A.L. stated to me, "We have to do it to you, so that you will take it seriously, (my name)".

  • A.L.'s words demonstrate that she felt part of the process of deciding to "do it to me". 

 

  • A.L. knew I had sick leave after being abused by student D.A., Mother D.A. and acting principal G.R. 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 G.R.'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 G.R.'s seemingly irrational behaviour. But still she wanted to put me on DWP because she considered that I was not "taking it seriously". I had the overwhelming feeling that I was dealing with seriously stupid people.

 

When the seven grade 5 and 6 teachers (who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years) told acting deputy principal A.L. that they did not agree with putting me on DWP and asked for a meeting with G.R., I understand that A.L. told them that "We want to change the way that (my name) is thinking."

 

  • This comment again seems to demonstrate that acting deputy principal A.L. felt that she was contributing to the decision-making process concerning me.

 

  • And that A.L. intended to punish me till I was able to convince her that I thought like her.

 

 

29 November 2000

" 38. Acting principal A.L. advised that to the best of her recollection, the paperwork to commence this program was never completed, ... "

 

Acting deputy principal A.L. was sitting beside acting principal G.R. when she handed me the letter dated 29 November 2000 in which acting principal G.R. advised me that I would be on DWP in 2000.

Usual principal E.L. had a copy of this documents in what - according to the new July 12 2008 FOI story - seems to be his own version of my "official record", 2469 F document 19.

The number of this document 19 is strangely "off the page", so only the marks at the very bottom can be seen.

Documents 18 and 20 are numbered normally.

 

" 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 E.L. 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 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 A.L. said, "We have to do it to you, (my name) because you keep denying it."

Acting deputy principal A.L. did not seem to grasp that-

  • I had the right to respond to any allegations.
  • She herself had recorded acting principal G.R.'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 strong sense that I was dealing with deeply stupid people.

It is interesting that 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.

 

5 December 2000

Acting deputy principal A.L.'s falsified / hidden "record" of this meeting is in acting principal G.R.'s private file on me ( 2421 F document 13).

Usual principal E.L. also had a copy of this document in what - according to the new July 12 2008 FOI story - seems to be his own version of my "official record", 2469 F document 16.

This very brief meeting took place on the day after the seven Grade 5 and 6 teachers had met with acting principal G.R. and told her, at some length, and very firmly and clearly (I understand) that there was no problem with my management of students.

They had seen me teach.

G.R. had not seen me teach for twelve months.

A.L. had never seen me teach.

This is quite a significant document.

Neither G.R. nor A.L. 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 200 and gave me an official letter to that efect.

So I now realise - in August 2008 - that this hidden / falsified document creates the impression that at this meeting that I was first told about the DWP process.

This document is quite significantly falsified.

 

14 December 2000

Acting deputy principal A.L.'s falsified / hidden "record" of this meeting is in acting principal G.R.'s private file on me (2421 F document 22).

Usual principal E.L. also had a copy of this documents in what - according to the new July 12 2008 FOI story - seems to be his own version of my "official record", 2469 F document 6.

It is interesting to compare acting deputy principal Miss AL's 'record" of this meeting - which is relatively honest - with acting principal Mrs GR's own record.

This can be found on Mrs GR's private file on me (2421 F documents 26 and 27).

Mrs GR's record is horribly falsified.

 

20 June, 2006

The Verifact Investigator spoke to his "client", Peter Edwards.

Peter Edwards said that he would call the Verifact Investigator back.

22 June, 2006

Peter Edwards rang the Verifact Investigator.

They discussed the file.

Peter Edwards told the Verifact Investigator that he had no further instructions.

The information could now be collated and the Report written.

  • So, at every stage of what was called an "independent investigation" Peter Edwards or some other Education Queensland senior officer seems to have controlled exactly what the Verifact Investigator was allowed to "investigate".

The Verifact Investigator copied the recordings of the interviews onto a CD.

24 June, 2006

The Verifact Investigator submitted his report.

29 June 2006

Robyn Martin, Director, Legal and Administrative Law Branch, Department of Education, Queensland, wrote a General Briefing Note.

The Subect of the General Briefing Note was "Correspondence from Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR re concerns."

"Background

On 29 April 2006 Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR wrote to you (presumably Ken Smith, the Director-General) expressing her concerns about what she described as - concealed by FOI officers s.44 (1)- "

(My name) continues to hold the view that she was unfairly treated by the Department in relation to her workplace relations with other Department staff such as principals and fellow teachers ...

This is not correct.

My Public Interest Disclosure is that -

Education Queensland official policies are being abused to bully good teachers into ill health and out of work.

My own FOI documents demonstrate that the abuse of Queensland teachers is systemic.

A malicious principal can take nothing at all and turn it into a reason to punish a teacher.

And Senior Education Queensland officers passively facilitate this bullying.

The only people with the guts and integrity to speak out about the bullying are your fellow classroom teachers.

And they are ignored.

FOI 340/5/1295 External Review Documents 1307 - 1308 attached to letter to me from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI Education Queensland. Also TRIM 2006/067155

 

Also 29 June, 2006

I phoned the Verifact Investigator.

He told me that his Terms of Reference had been to look at the falsified documents that were put on my file.

i.e. not to look for the missing documents such as the "notes to Leigh from Desley".

 

He said that he thought that he had told me the Terms of Reference.

I said that first of all he had told me that the investigation was "wide open".

Then in our last conversation but one (approx) he had told me that Kim Newman was going to give him the Terms of Reference.

 

And in our last conversation he had told me that Peter Edwards was back and that he might change the Terms of Reference.

The Verifact Investigator seemed to feel pretty comfortable about his report.

 

14 July 2006

Ken Smith, Director General read and initialled the General Briefing Note.

He wrote:

"I would like to ring Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR to discuss.

I would also like to discuss with Robyn - Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR's comments about being "stalked by process" have some veracity.

What can I do."

FOI 340/5/1295 External review Document 1307 attached to letter to me from Elane Merkouriou, Manager, FOI, Education Queensland.

 

17 July 2006

Ken Smith wrote a long letter to Mrs GR.

 

18 July 2006

Education Queensland Legal and Administrative Law officers Tom Jumertz, Trevor Morris, Andrew Smith and Matt Woodforth met with officers from the Office of the Information Commissioner, Sue Barker and Anne Lindon.

They discussed my FOI applications and the problem of “vexacious applicants”.

The last section of the “record” of this meeting has been concealed from me.

 

26 July 2006

Ken Smith seems to have hand-written a note on the top right hand side of this General Briefing Note.

FOI 340/5/1295 External Review Documents 1307 - 1308 attached to letter to me dated 9 January 2009 from Elane Merkouriou, FOI Manager, Education Queensland. Also TRIM 2006/067155

" Principal Legal officer FI 19 Robyn Martin.

"I met with Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR and (District Director who had a political relationship with acting principal Mrs GR) at (name of school that Lynch-Mob State School acting principal was promoted to a few days after I had been repeatedly assured by the District Director that the bullying was under control) on Wednesday 26 July.

Subject to the independent investigation undertaking Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR is not to be contacted with respect to any issues raised by (my name).

I will not subject her to any more stress on this matter ...

Please discuss (seems to be initialled by Ken Smith) 26/07

(ADG HRS) Mr.Peter Edwards

(??? ??? Standards)

Please brief me on the outcome of the investigation, once available.  26.07.06 (seems to be initialled by Ken Smith)."

 

This explains why my FOI applications have been delayed for years.

Today, 29 January 2009, I am still waiting for documents that I first requested in September 2003.

 

23 August 2006

Regan Nuemann, Director, Workforce Standards and Performance Unit wrote to District Director S.K.

(34/5/1295 document 1391-2 first read by me after June 12 2008)

The letter seems to have been actually written by Peter Edwards for Regan Neumann to sign.

The letter is headed PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL.

It was not released to me under FOI till after June 12 2008.

The Workforce Standards and Peformance Unit had "reviewed" the completed Verifact report and endorsed the findings.

 

To this date, 27 November 2008, I have not been allowed to read a full copy of the Verifact report.

 

The investigation found that I had not been placed on a formal Diminished Workplace Performance Program.

But this is playing with words.

On 29 November 2000 acting principal Mrs GR and acting deputy principal Miss AL asked me to come to a meeting.

They gave me a letter to advise me that acting principal G.R. and usual principal E.L. had agreed that I would be on DWP when I returned to school in January 2001.

I have the impression that Education Queensland officers seem to be pretending "not to know" about this letter.

But there are multiple copies of the letter on my official record, for example 340/5/1295 Document 2588, 2622, etc.

  • My complaint is about this letter and this decision.

This decision to put me on DWP was made in breach of Natural Justice, the Code of Conduct, The DWP process and the Public Service Regulations.

I do not believe that the decision to put me on DWP was legally valid.

 

"The investigation further found that acting principal G.R. had kept a file which contained notes of a number of performance issues concerning acting principal G.R."

 

This seems to be correct.

Mrs GR seems to have been making "records" of imaginary converstations with children, parents, teachers, other principals and District Office staff concerning me.

These "records" were being compiled in breach of Natural Justice, the Education Queensland Code of conduct, The Public Service Regulations, etc.

The "records" kept by acting principal Mrs GR demonstrate acting principal G.R's poor professional conduct.

 

  • The investigation did not prove that the file was secret from anybody other thn myself. The falsified "records" seem to have been placed on my official "records".

 

  • The investigation did not prove when the notes were written.

 

  • Nor did it find that the notes "recorded" real events.

 

  • And it needs to be noted that many real events had been "edited out" of the secret "records".

 

"The existence of the file and the contents were not known to (me).

... The investigation failed to establish how these notes came to be placed on (my) personal file."

 

If the Verifact investigator had been allowed to examine the original documents it would have been obvious to him that there were two main files that contained falsified documents.

  • 2421 F (and possibly also 2361, an earlier file that has not been fully released to me to this date 30 July 2008)

 

  • and 2469 F.

(This file 2469 F seems to be the file of documents used by usual principal Mr EL in writing his Stage 1 Grievance investigation report.)

 

And that -

1) Acting principal G.R. had written messages to Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL on several of the 2469 F falsified documents.

For example, on 2469 F 60 acting principal G.R. has hand-written -

 

"(Acting deputy principal Miss AL ) can explain this better, but I gather it was given to her by (me) to make some sort of point regarding (Grade 6/7 teacher B.O.'s class) (They were asked to name the 4 most disruptive students I gather)."

 

The attached documents had been significantly falsified.

 

Usual principal Mr EL did not discuss this 2469 F 60 note or the falsified documents attached to the note before either-

  • deciding to place me on DWP
  • or refusing to support my Stage 1 Grievance about the abuse of the DWP process.

 

2) And usual principal Mr EL had made hand-written notes on one of the 2468 documents written by acting deputy principal Miss AL 

If you compare the handwritten notes on the left of 2469 F 74 with the handwriting on document 2469 F 146, they both seem to have been written by usual principal Mr EL 

The handwriting is the same.

I knew nothing about these notes in 2000.

I knew nothing about them till 2004.

Usual principal E.L. did not discuss acting deputy principal A.L.'s notes with me before either-

  • deciding to put me on DWP
  • or refusing to support my Stage 1 Grievance about the abuse of the DWP process.

Thursday 31 August 2006

12:00 PM: Regan Neumann emailed Peter Edwards.

"Peter

The District Director had some concerns with regard to the letter I have forwarded to him.

In short they include:

Paragraph 5 about MUP - (acting principal Mrs GR) putting herself on MUP - I think just an error I should have picked up on

(My name) was on stage 1 of MUP - informal stage

- he believes this was confirmed by QTU organiser

Requesting to inspect file in (my town) - no files are kept there

Whether Verifact did read all of the contents of the boxes relating to the matter ( District office employee Ms CHR question)

I said that we will have a conversation and make contact with them about these matters.

Can we catch up soon about this

Thanks

Regan"

FOI 340/5/1295 Document Number 4646

 

So, by 31 August 2005, The District Director, Regan Neumann and Peter Edwards all knew that the Verifact Investigator had been misled and that I had been on Stage 1 of the MUP.

 

The implication of the statement- 

" ... (my name) was on stage 1 of MUP - informal stage - he believes this was confirmed by QTU organiser. ..."

is that-

A)

When the Verifact Investigator "found" that-

"39. A Diminished Work Performance was never implemented against the Complainant, (my name), although she had been informed by Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR, that such a process would be implemented."

FOI 340/5/1295 Document Number 1433

He was disregarding the fact that my complaint was not about the formality / informality of the decisions that acting principal G.R., acting deputy principal A.L. and usual principal E.L. were making concerning me.

My complaint was about-

  • the abuse of the DWP decision-making process
  • and the abuse of the DWP to "pay me back" for trying to deal with the unsupervised groups of grade 7 children who were roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes.

and

The Verifact Investigator was only able to reach that conclusion because he had been misled by acting principal G.R., acting deputy principal A.L. and usual principal E.L.

And the Verifact Investigator's Terms of Reference seem to have been to simply copy down whatever they told him, even if it was obviously untruthful.

 

B)

Two decisions now seem to have been made to put me into a punishment processes.

The first decision to put me into  the DWP punishment process was made by acting principal G.R. , and usual principal E.L. on 29 November 2000.

In her letter to me dated Wednesday 29 November 2000, acting principal G.R. states-

 

"Following our discussion on Monday afternoon regarding the implementation of a Diminished Work Performance Program ...

It would seem reasonable that the intitial phase would be better instigated at the commencement of next year. ...

Given that usual principal E.L. 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 with him about the matter and he is in agreement that the process is warranted.) ..."

 

Acting principal G.R. gave me this letter at a formal meeting with herself and acting deputy principal A.L. on 29 November 2000.

She also told me clearly that I would be in the DWP process in 2001.

 

Acting deputy principal A.L.'s words to me during the meeting -

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

Suggest that acting deputy principal A.L. also felt that she had been involved in this decision-making process.

 

I note that neither acting principal G.R. nor acting deputy principal A.L. made any "record" of this formal meeting.

And that this seems to be a strategy to falsify this meeting out of the "official records".

 

  • This falsification of this 29 November 2000 meeting out of the "official records" seems to indicate an awareness of the part of acting principal G.R. and acting deputy principal A.L. that their behaviour was in breach of Education Queensland policies.

 

The second decision to put me into a punishment process was made by usual principal E.L. on 5 February 2001 when he wrote in his Report: Grievance Meeting Stage 1 that-

" ... 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. ..."

It now seems that usual principal E.L. was, essentially, playing a trick on me with the wording of this 5 February 2001 "decision".

In response to my Stage 1 Grievance about the abuse of the Diminished Workplace Performance process he was "deciding"

  • to stop the Diminished Workplace Performance process.

 

  • But he was "deciding" to start the Managing Unsatisfactory Performance Process.

And the wording of FOI 340/5/1295 Document Number 4646, released to me for the first time after June 12 2008, suggests that - unbeknown to me but secretly understood by usual principal E.L., the District Director and the QTU organiser - at the time of my retirement from Education Queensland I was still in the MUP process.

 

1 September 2006

9:50 AM: Jenny Taylor emailed Regan Neumann.

She copied the email to Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR and District Director S.K.

The email is headed

THIS MESSAGE IS SENT ON BEHALF OF S.K. DISTRICT DIRECTOR ...

District Director S.K. tells Regan Neumann that Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR has requested that Education Queensland immediately supply her with a copy of the Verifact investigation report.

District Director S.K. strongly endorses her request.

District Director S.K. requests that Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR is also given a copy of the letter that has been sent to me, advising me of the Verifact investigation's findings.

Strangely, District Director S.K. also says that it would be helpful if acting principal Mrs GR is made aware of-

  • the nature of my complaint
  • the scope of the investigation
  • the instructions given to Verifact.

But when acting principal Mrs GR contacted the Verifact Investigator on Thursday 2 March 2006 she had advised him that she had discussed the matter with the Queensland Teachers' Union, as well as John Ryan and was aware of the extent of the allegations.

And the Verifact investigator had advised Mrs GR that the Terms of Reference were limited to the falsified / secret documents.

 

17 October 2006

Peter Edwards, Manager, Investigations and Complaints Management Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, wrote a General Briefing Note to The Director-General.

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 957-959

{eter Edwards explained that in late 2005 Education Queensland had employed "Verifact Investigations" to conduct an "external investigation".

The investigation took till July 2006 to complete.

"4. Verifact found that Mrs GR had kept some notes on (my name).

… (My name) had not previously seen these detrimental records.”

 

This is correct.

And for this conduct alone the Verifact Investigator recommended that Disciplinary Action be considered.

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

 

But this is not the whole story.

I discovered after June 12 2008, two years after the Verifact Investigation had been completed, that Education Queensland had introduced significant changes to their "story":

1) The 63 2421 File F documents were described as "Lynch-Mob State College documents" when some of them were released to me for the first time after 27 April 2004.

But in 2006 Mrs GR told the Verifact Investigator that she had actually kept this file of 2321 F falsified records in her own possession.

 

But that was not the only file of falsified “records".

 

2) After 12 July 2004 another file of falsified "records" described as "2469 File F The District Office" had been released to me.

This file contained 146 documents, about half of them falsified.

Mrs GR had written falsified notes to Mr EL on several of her falsified 2421 documents.

And Mr EL had written on one of the falsified documents himself.

2469 File F document 74 - number at the top right hand corner of this document. Miss AL’s notes on the meeting on 12 October 2000.

This file was called 2469 File F "The District Office Documents".

 

  • These two files - 2421 and 2469 - held different versions of the falsified documents.

 

But after 12 June 2008 I discovered that the Education Queensland story had been changed.

Now a new document dated 5 February 2004 had appeared on my file-

340/5/1295 document has no number but is in the position 3010-3011

The following words had been written by hand on a scrap of paper-

 

"5 February 2004

Dear Stephannie (Kalas- the Education Queensland FOI officer),

Please check out what may be relevant in the attached file.

Copies of these were also filed at Lynch-Mob State College.

Mrs GR"

 

So, if we accept that this document that appeared for the first time after 12 June 2008 is a genuine document, it proves that Mrs GR not only had -

 

  • a 2421 F file of 63 falsified "records" concerning me that she was storing at home,

 

  • but she had also filed another set of falsified documents 2469 F at Lynch-Mob State College, on which she had written notes to Mr EL.

 

  • and that Mr EL had written notes on one of the falsified documents himself,

 

  • then he had placed the mass of falsified documents in the 2469 F file that contained the records of his investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance about Mrs GR’s (and his own) abuse of the Diminished Work Performance process.

 

  • And then he had noted in his Stage 1 Grievance Report"-

"On the matter of the Grievance all paperwork was received ..."

2469 File F document 143, number at the top right hand corner of the document, Mr EL’s Stage 1 Grievance Investigation Report.

This is the Stage 1 Grievance File that Mr EL seems to have sent to the District Office a few days after my retirement on July 9 2002.

This created the false impression that the mass of falsified "records" in this file 2469 F had been discussed with me during the investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance about Mrs GR’s abuse of the DWP process.

And that I had been given the opportunity to point out that many of these "records" had been significantly falsified.

 

"8. ... the WSPU will be closing the matter and will not enter into any more correspondence on all matters previously investigated. ..."

Peter Edwards' General Briefing Note: 340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 958

 

But the Verifact Investigator seems to have only been allowed to establish that the falsifed documents were placed on my Education Queensland files without my knowledge.

He did not investigate the actual falsification of the "records".

 

And he seems to have been instructed to copy down exactly what Mrs GR, Mr EL and Miss AL told him, even if it was obviously untrue.

In tiny-weeny writing at the very top of his investigation report, the investigator has written:

"The witness based information contained within this report is soley sourced from interviews.

No conclusions are drawn in this report as to the veracity of such information."

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 1003

 

You might think that this is a very strange sort of "investigation".

I certainly do.

 

At what stage of this process will Education Queensland actually investigate the falsification of my "records"?

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

 

"9. It is recommended that the Department continue a "Nil Response Required" approach in all matters previously investigated, raised by (my name)."

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 958

 

23 November 2006

I met Ken Smith and discussed my complaint.

He said that he was not able to help me because he was no longer Director-General of Education.

Ken Smith's only advice to me was to write to Rachel Hunter, who had been appointed Director-General of Education.

Ken Smith told me that the problem was that nobody knew what I wanted.

He asked me to explain to Rachel Hunter exactly what I wanted.

 

I wrote to Rachel Hunter, as Ken Smith had advised.

 

To this day, 26 February 2009, Rachel Hunter has made no response to my letters.

 

4 January 2007

Helen Cooper, Director Complaints Services, CMC, emailed me.

In discussing the falsification of my official “records”, Helen Cooper stated:

 

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

 

Helen, this is absolute gibberish.

The Education Queensland officers have made a fool of you.

Don't let them get away with it.

 

Helen - my complaint -  

- is that Mrs GR “recorded” imaginary conversations concerning me with children, teachers, parents, other teachers, principals the local QTU organiser and Cairns District Office staff and then gave these imaginary ’records” to Mr EL to place on my Education Queensland files.

These imaginary “records” were not discussed with me either before Mr EL and Mrs GR made their 29 November 2000 agreement that “the (DWP) process is justified” or before Mr EL made his 5 February 2001 decision to dismiss my Stage 1 Grievance about the abuse of the DWP process.

 

 

Helen Cooper advised me that-

 “... the CMC does not propose to correspond with you further, nor to engage in any further conversations with you by telephone or in person about this matter.”

 

This decision demonstrates the total failure of the Queensland CMC / Education Queensland “investigation” processes.

 

17 September 2007

Anna Bligh announced that there would be an independent overhaul of Queensland's Freedom of Information laws.

Cathi Taylor resigned as Information Commissioner.

 

26 February 2009

I still have not been provided with the FOI documents that I requested in September 2003.