Teacher Bullying in Queensland Schools - The Bad Apple Bullies Blog.

Robert Needham, Chairperson, CMC, Letter dated 4 March, 2009.

 

Mr Robert Needham, Chairperson,

Crime and Misconduct Commission

GPO Box 3123

Brisbane

QLD 4001

4 March 2009

Dear Mr Needham,

On 31 August 2001 I made a Public Interest Disclosure to Jim Varghese, Director-General of Education Queensland.

I made the disclosure again to Anna Bligh and Jim Varghese in person on 23 June 2002.

I disclosed to them that the Education Queensland Diminished Workplace Performance (now called Managing Unsatisfactory Performance) Policies and Grievance polices were being abused to drive Queensland classroom teachers into ill health and out of work.

In 2007 99.8% of Australian teachers reported in UNE research that they had been bullied at work.

Bullying was reported to be "rife" in Queensland schools.

Up to 50% of Queensland teachers now leave the profession after five years.

Students with OP’s as low as 19 are now being accepted into Queensland universities to train to be teachers.

And Queensland parents are increasingly concerned about the falling academic standards in Queensland State Schools.

There is a Public Interest in identifying -

1) Exactly how Education Queensland policies are being abused by school principals and senior public servants to bully good Queensland teachers into ill health and out of work.

and

2) Why Queensland teachers who are bullied at work are advised by the QTU to "accept the things they cannot change" because there is no hope of justice.

I did hope.

I hoped that I could stop the systemic abuse of Queensland teachers.

Since early 2003 I have investigated this systemic abuse of policies because I appreciate that the time of your own CMC officers is limited and so "the wool is very easily pulled over their eyes" by Education Queensland officers.

On 17 September 2007 Anna Bligh announced to the people of Queensland that there would be an independent overhaul of Queensland's Freedom of Information laws.

She told Queenslanders that she wanted to provide the public with greater accessibility to information and better transparency.

But Anna Bligh's senior public servants, including the ... , had secretly agreed in 2006 to block - or "facilitate differently" - my FOI applications!

I had been bullied myself in November / December 2000 by Mrs GR, the acting principal of Lynch-Mob State College.

I had asked Mrs GR to support me in dealing with the unsupervised groups of Grade 7 children who were roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes.

Mrs GR would have been aware that it was going to be very difficult for me to complain about her abuse, because we were both active members of the Labor party.

Mrs GR was campaign manager for ... at the time that she was bullying me.

We were in the run-up to the February 2001 State election.

...

I had spent many hours organising groups of Labor party supporters to go out and lobby for ... .

Mrs GR had asked me - during several school lunchtimes in late 1999 - to join her own branch of the Labor party.

I had not joined Mrs GR’s branch, in fact I had become less enthusiastic about the Labor party in late 1999, and Mrs GR’s behaviour towards me became more aggressive.

At the time that Mrs GR attacked me - November 2000

- it seemed that Labor was going to lose the election.

I was worried that Mrs GR might be trying to drive me out of work before her Labor "power base" vanished.

It was very hard for me to deal with Mrs GR’s bullying because I liked and respected ... .

I did not hold ...  responsible for Mrs GR’s bullying and I did not want to cause problems for ...  and ...  during the run-up to the 17 February 2001 state election.

13 December 2000

at 1:12 AM I first tried to contact the Education Queensland CMC Liaison Officer by email.

She did not respond.

This seemed shocking to me at the time. It seemed to support the QTU organiser’s advice to me that there was no hope of justice.

5 February 2001

I was threatened five separate times during what was represented to me as a meeting to discuss Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL’s Stage 1 Grievance Investigation Report.

These threats seemed to support the QTU organiser’s advice to me that the Education Queensland Grievance system was corrupt and that there was no hope of justice.

31 August 2001

I made a Stage 2 Grievance to Jim Varghese, the Director-General of Education, that there was systemic abuse of the Education Queensland DWP and Grievance processes to bully Queensland teachers into ill health and out of work.

23 June 2002

I spoke to Anna Bligh and Jim Varghese.

9 July 2002

I gratefully accepted ill-health retirement, having been twice assured by ... that he had the bullying under control.

I believed that the situation had been informally resolved and that ... would make sure that Mrs GR’s behaviour would be carefully monitored in future.

A few days after my retirement Mrs GR was given a significant promotion opportunity - an "acting principal" position at a big local state school.

This did seem odd.

Then in late December 2002 I was told that Mrs GR’s promotion had been "confirmed" and I began to realise that I had been tricked.

26 February 2003

at 5:44 PM and again on

29 June 2003

at 2:06 PM I emailed Peter Beattie and "disclosed" to him that-

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

… both Mrs GR (the bully) and I were Labor Party members when all this began.

We both worked for ...  who is  …

Because Mrs GR was ... ’s campaign manager (at the time that she was bullying me) … I tried very hard to deal with the bullying informally. …

When ... told me he had the bullying well under control I believed him.

I trusted him. …"

OPS 70524 FOLIO 23, attached to letter to me from Kim Poiner, Manager, Cabinet Liaison and legal Services, dated 6 July 2007

Rachel Hunter was Public Service Commissioner at that time.

8 August 2003 Ms CHR

, Principal Advisor - Regional Services wrote a "Briefing Note for the Minister of Education".

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

Ms CHR did not make clear in her "Briefing Note for the Minister" the various conflicts of interest that were affecting my Grievance-

the fact that Mrs GR was ... ’s campaign manager

 

and also the fact that Mrs GR had consulted / had recorded imaginary consultations with / had consulted but made no record of her consultation with several members of the Cairns District office staff - Mrs AG,  the Principal Personnel Officer, District Office, Mrs GN, the District Director and Ms CHR herself - before making her 29 November 2000 agreement with Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL that "the (DWP) process is justified".

 

All of these Education Queensland officers seem to have based their advice to Mrs GR on malicious gossip and the imaginary conversations concerning me that Mrs GR claimed to believe that she was having with children, parents, teachers, other principals, the local QTU organiser and District Office staff.

And Ms CHR did not make clear that, even after all of this consultation, Mrs GR’s total knowledge of the DWP process was contained on one sticky note - 2421 F 60 - at the time that she and usual principal Mr EL made their agreement that "the (DWP) process is warranted".

And that it must have been obvious to each of the Education Queensland officers that Mrs GR had consulted that Mrs GR had not read the DWP policy and knew almost nothing about the DWP policy.

You might consider that this was negligent.

I certainly do.

14 August 2003

Rachel Hunter wrote to Ken Smith, Director-General of Education Queensland, and asked him to provide her with a brief on the issue.

I presume that Rachel Hunter was given Ms CHR’s "Briefing Note for the Minister".

24 September 2003

I contacted InformationPrivacy@qed.qld.gov.au

to ask, "How do I go about finding out why I was put on DWP?"

This was FOI 2361.

I am still waiting to receive these documents.

16 October 2003

, Rachel Hunter signed a Chief of Staff Briefing Note recommending that nobody respond to my correspondence.

Peter Beattie personally approved Rachel Hunter’s recommendation, as did Neil Smith, Jeff Loof and George O‘Farrell.

OPS 70524 FOLIO 16, attached to letter to me from Kim Poiner, Manager, Cabinet Liaison and legal Services, dated 6 July 2007

27 November 2003

I made a full disclosure to Eve Gardiner of the CMC.

I also emailed a copy of my disclosure to her.

At some time during 2003, before I made this disclosure to Eve Gardiner, I had spoken by phone to a CMC officer - also Eve Gardiner, I believe.

I was bewildered when Eve told me repeatedly that "it wasn't bullying".

I knew that it was bullying because of Mrs GR’s manner.

She seemed to be enjoying bullying me.

I protested to Eve that Mrs GR had not seen me teach for twelve months, so could Mrs GR possibly claim to have "concerns" about my classroom management?

Eve told me that Mrs GR had asked another person to watch me teaching.

I protested that this had not happened.

Eve said that, in these situations, the CMC believed the school principal.

After 12 July 2004, I discovered that this untruthful claim had been made in a handwritten comment on FOI 2469 File F document 72.

2469 F is the file containing the Stage 1 Grievance investigation documents that Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL had handed in to The District Office at the time of my retirement.

This created the false impression that the mass of falsified and re-falsified documents in 2469 F had been discussed with me and that I had been given the opportunity to respond to the falsified "records" before Mr EL dismissed my Stage I Grievance.

Document 72 was an untruthful / inaccurate "record" written by Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Miss AL and dated 13 October 2000.

Miss AL had handed the falsified "record" to Mrs GR and it had been concealed from me till after July 12 2004.

This was done in breach of several Education Queensland policies.

At the bottom of this "record" Mrs GR had written by hand:

"Confidential request made to (Grade 7 teacher) L---- to act as "supportive colleague" to (my name) to try to give her some positive BM strategies. L---- agreed to do this."

This simply had not happened.

I had to search for Grade 7 teacher L---- at the end of most of my lessons.

And it is not an accepted policy of Education Queensland to make a secret agreement to conduct this sort of process on a teacher without her knowledge or consent.

If Mrs GR really gave Grade 7 teacher L---- this instruction, it would simply be another example of Mrs GR’s own behaviour towards me being in serious breach of Education Queensland official policies.

The fact that Eve Gardiner was aware of Mrs GR’s falsified claim, and Eve’s statement to me that in this sort of situation the CMC believe school principals, suggests to me that Eve Gardiner had been in contact with Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL and Mrs GR before I made my disclosure to her on 26 November 2003.

And that Mr EL and Mrs GR had "pulled the wool over Eve’s eyes".

29 December 2003

I complained to the CMC and the Ombudsman about the conduct of ... .

3 January 2004

I complained to the CMC about the negligent refusal of Education Queensland senior public servants ...  and ... to deal with my complaint.

After 30 March 2004

my FOI documents were gradually released to me and I began to realise that a huge mass of falsified "records" had been secretly placed on my official Education Queensland files.

Many were "records" of imaginary conversations concerning me that Mrs GR claimed to believe that she had been having with children, teachers, parents, principals and District Office staff.

13 April 2004

I wrote to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission trained Education Queensland "Discrimination Solicitor". I made an application for an internal review of FOI 2421.

I explained that I knew nothing about most of the documents in 2421 File F and that large numbers of these documents must be falsified.

This was the private file of falsified "records" of imaginary conversations concerning me that Mrs GR had provided to the FOI officers on 5 February, 2004,

340/5/1295 document not numbered but seems to be 3010

and which Mrs GR had also handed to Mr EL to be placed in the Stage 1 Grievance Investigation file 2469 F, to create the impression that these imaginary ‘records" had been discussed with me during the investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance.

So it would have been obvious to the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" from that date that my Education Queensland records had been significantly falsified.

27 April 2004 Miss AL

’s "records" of the "mediated meeting" on 27 November 2000 were released to me for the first time.

2421 File F Mrs GR’s "private file" of real and imaginary "records" concerning me, document 31, number at top right hand side of page.

Miss AL had recorded that:

"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."

To this day I have no idea what these "things" are that "may have happened".

I made an FOI application for copies of these "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened".

June 21 2004

I emailed Ken Smith and copied the email to the CMC, the Ombudsman,

MailBox@justice.qld.gov.au

I attached a letter to Ken Smith and my responses to five of the falsified documents that I had found in 2421 File F - Mrs GR's "private file" of real and falsified "records" concerning me.

At 12:45 PM the next day, I handed in a printed copy of my letter to Ken Smith and my responses to the five falsified documents at the front desk of The District Office.

I emailed the Director-General at 3:37 PM that day to advise him of the name of the person in the District Office to whom I had handed the printed copy of these documents.

I later discovered under FOI that all copies - both printed and emailed - of my letter to Ken Smith and my responses to the falsified documents had simply been "lost".

29 July 2004

an officer of the Information Commission persuaded me to put FOI application 2361 and 2421 (Infocom ref: 2004/F04730) "in abeyance".

This now seems to have been a trick.

The remaining 2361 and 2421 documents have not been released to me to this date, 18 February, 2009.

In mid-2004 Ken Smith appointed John Ryan Director of Ethical conduct, so John was able to control the "internal review" into ... .

John Ryan met with CMC officers and discussed my complaint about ... .

John Ryan, ... told the CMC what "I wanted".

And the CMC seem to have simply copied John Ryan’s words into their own records and into their letters to me:

"… you have consistently claimed that action should have been taken against individuals she (sic) identified."

Letter to me from Helen Couper, 4 January 2007

When I complained to CMC officers that it was inappropriate for John Ryan to be controlling the "internal review" into ... , they told me that it was not their responsibility.

16 November, 2004

David Douglas, Executive Director, seems to have asked for my correspondence to be automatically filed and not read by anybody.

OPS 70524 FOLIO 11 attached to letter to me from Kim Poiner, Manager, Cabinet Liaison and legal Services, dated 6 July 2007

In late 2004 The District Director

 disclosed to officers of the Information Commissioner that he had visited Lynch-Mob State College and discussed putting me on DWP with Mrs GR during Term 4 2000.

A principal - whose "comments" concerning me were quoted by Mrs GR in three separate imaginary "records" - stated to Anne Lindon "that she did not recall having had any conversation with Mrs GR about you".

Letter to me from the Information Commissioner dated 14 December 2004.

Similarly, a District Office employee told Education Queensland FOI officers that they did NOT remember having the conversations with Mrs GR that Mrs GR had "recorded" and placed secretly on my file.

19 December 2004

I wrote to Margaret Newbery, Assistant Information Commissioner, and pointed out that this meant that, during the run-up to the state election, the ... District Director had met with the Local Member’s campaign manager and, although neither of them had seen me teach or looked at my program, they had planned to put me, another Labor party member and a campaign worker for ..., on DWP.

Then the District Director had left the school without discussing the situation with me.

I said that I found this story quite incredible.

I made an FOI application for the records of this conversation.

To this date I have had no response to this FOI application.

24 January 2005

I wrote again to the Information Commissioner, explaining that I was being bullied and disclosing the political background to the situation.

I also complained about the behaviour of the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination solicitor", who was "internally reviewing" my FOI application and ... .

28 January 2005

Greg Sorensen, Deputy Information Commissioner, wrote to Education Queensland to say that the Information Officer would review my complaint.

Within a few weeks Rachel Hunter chaired and ... was a member of a committee that selected Cathi Taylor, Ken Smith’s wife, to be the new information Commissioner.

I consider that ... had a conflict of interest in making this decision. ... was her husband’s boss.

... ’s campaign manager, her husband’s boss and her husband were all the subject of active Infocomm FOI searches and complaints to the CMC.

Cathi Taylor’s first act was to sack Greg Sorensen.

27 May 2005

I wrote to my Local Member, complaining about the behaviour of the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "discrimination solicitor", who seemed to be refusing to release the FOI documents to me.

My Local Member did nothing to help me.

But by September 2007 the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" had been appointed ... .

14 July 2005

A officer from the Office of the Information Commissioner rang me. She told me that tbe CMC rules had changed and that now I would not be able to get access to any document produced by the CMC.

I now wonder if

application 2361 and 2421 (Infocom ref: 2004/F04730) documents were CMC documents and this was why I was persuaded to put them "in abeyance" - so that the law could be changed and the documents could be refused to me.

My concern is that, during October - December 2000, Mrs GR seems to have been experiencing imaginary conversations concerning me with children, parents, other teachers, other principals, the local QTU organiser and at least one District Office employee.

Since I discovered the hidden mass of falsified "records" on my Education Queensland files, I have been concerned that Mrs GR may have claimed to have "heard" a confidential allegation concerning me, or that she may have groomed a child or parent to make such an allegation.

And that the allegation may have been handed to the CMC or some other body for investigation so that I would never be able to find it and never be able to prove myself innocent of this imaginary / groomed "confidential disclosure".

27 October 2005

, one month before the Verifact Investigation into my complaint about the falsification of my official records began, 2733 File F Administrative Law Services Branch document 24 - number at the bottom of the page - was released to me and I discovered for the first time that Mrs GR had "recorded" that she had made statements concerning me to the staff because of allegations that had been made about me in "notes to Grade 7 teacher L----  from Desley".

These allegations had never been discussed with me.

I made an FOI application for copies of these "notes to L----  from Desley".

Wednesday 15 February, 2006

I emailed Rod Welford, the Ombudsman, Ken Smith, Peter Edwards, the CMC, the EQ "internal reviewer" and John Ryan.

 

I said that I was beginning to wonder if some of the "records" hidden on my file were simply made up.

I had phoned a child, a teacher and a parent who seemed to be named in Mrs GR’s "records".

They had told me that they had not had those conversations with Mrs GR.

20 February 2006 12:25

I sent a copy of this email to the Information Commissioner.

10 February 2006

the Verifact investigator first tried to contact Mrs GR.

13 February 2006 Mrs GR

 contacted the Verifact Investigator.

2875 File J document 10 released to me after 11 October 2006, records that the Verifact Investigator had "liaised" with Mrs GR and that an appointment had been made to speak with Mrs GR the next day - 15 February 2006.

But the Verifact Investigation Running Sheet released to me after 12 June 2008 makes no mention of the meeting on 15 February 2006.

It only records that a meeting would be scheduled after Mrs GR "considers matter".

27 February 2006 Mrs GR

 rang the investigator. She told him that she was seeking Queensland Teachers' Union (QTU) advice.

1 March 2006 Mrs GR

 spoke to John Ryan, Director of Ethical Standards, Education Queensland.

At 4:44 PM John Ryan emailed Kathryn Mahoney and The District Director:

"Mrs GR sounds very fragile -

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 - …"

2875 File A Legal and Administrative Law Branch, document 681

2 March 2006

9:36 AM Kathryn Mahoney sent John Ryan’s email to Jason Davies, the Education Queensland FOI officer:

"Would like your thoughts on this matter sometime. Kathryn."

 

Mrs GR contacted the Verifact investigator. She told him that she had discussed the situation with the QTU and also with John Ryan "and was now aware of the extent of the allegations being made by claimant".

7 March 2006

the Verifact Investigator interviewed Mrs GR.

After this meeting the Verifact Investigator recommended that consideration be given to whether disciplinary action should be initiated.

340/ 5/1295 document numbers obscured but seem to be 1006 and 1010

Strangely, the Verifact Investigator records no further telephone contact with Education Queensland Officers for the next month.

29 March, 2006

The Verifact Investigator submitted a Report. I presume that this report would have recorded his recommendation that disciplinary action be considered.

This report has not yet been provided to me.

Susan Barker, Assistant Information Commissioner wrote to me to advise me that my application for the 2361 and 2421 (OIC ref: 2004/F04730) documents had been taken out of "abeyance".

4 April 2006

John Dobbie, Principal legal officer, Legal and Administrative Law Branch, Education Queensland wrote to advise me that-

 "I have today spoken to Mrs GR who has advised that she has no recollection of … the "notes to L----  from Desley".

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

My solicitor wrote to Education Queensland.

He asked Education Queensland to confirm in writing that there were no grounds for me to be placed in the Diminished Workplace performance program.

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 960).

2 June 2006

at 10:21 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 then refused to re-open the external review application for two years.

Then the officer declared my application 2004/F04730 "closed".

To this date, 18 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".

These are the documents that I want.

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".

 

I presume that they would also have discussed - 

The recommendation of the Verifact Investigator (four months before this meeting) that disciplinary action be considered against ... .

And the pressure that they were all under to refuse to process my FOI applications in the normal manner.

And my application for the first FOI documents - 2361 and 2421.

 

The last section of the "record" of this meeting has been concealed from me.

26 July 2006

Ken Smith wrote on a General Briefing Note -

" ...Mrs GR is not to be contacted with respect to any issues raised by (my name) . ..."

340/5/1295 external Review Document 1307

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

 

"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.

But this is not the whole story.

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

I discovered after June 12 2008, two years after the Verifact Investigation had been "completed", that Education Queensland senior officers had significantly limited the investigation.

Education Queensland senior officers had not allowed the Verifact Investigator to investigate the falsification of Mrs GR‘s secret "records":

The

63 2421 File F documents were described as "Lynch-Mob State School 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 63 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.

Several of the documents had been falsified twice - Mrs GR had written falsified messages to Mr EL on several of her falsified 2421 documents.

And Mr EL had hand-written notes 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.

After 12 June 2008 I discovered that a new document dated 5 February 2004 had appeared on my file.

The following words have 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"

340/5/1295 document has no number but is in the position 3010-3011

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 they had placed the mass of falsified documents in the 2469 F file that contained the records of Mr EL’s "investigation" into my Stage 1 Grievance about Mrs GR’s (and his own) abuse of the Diminished Work Performance process.

 

And then Mr EL had noted in his "Stage 1 Grievance Investigation 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

The Verifact Investigator seems to have only been allowed to establish that the falsified documents were placed on my Education Queensland files without my knowledge.

He was not allowed to 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 Verifact 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 advised me to me to write to Rachel Hunter, who had been appointed Director-General of Education.

To this day, Rachel Hunter refuses to communicate with me concerning my complaint.

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."

 

This is gibberish.

Mrs GR hand-wrote comments on the falsified 2421 F "private file" of falsified documents concerning me.

Then she seems to have handed the falsified "records" to Mr EL, who also seems to have hand-written a comment on one of the documents.

Then they seem to have placed the falsified and re-falsified documents in 2469 F to create the false impression that the falsified documents had been discussed with me during the Stage 1 Grievance.

Somebody has "pulled the wool over Helen Cooper’s eyes".

And I am not saying this because I am a "vexacious applicant".

I am saying this because somebody has "pulled the wool over Helen Cooper’s eyes".

17 September 2007

Anna Bligh announced that there would be an independent overhaul of Queensland's Freedom of Information laws.

On about

19 September 2007 Cathi Taylor, Ken Smith's wife, resigned as Information Commissioner.

 

Mr Needham, I hereby request-

1 ) All documentation concerning and related to Helen Cooper’s letter to me dated 4 January 2007.

In particular, I would like a copy of the Education Queensland document from which Helen Cooper seems to have copied the gibberish:

"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."

2 ) All other documents / records concerning and related to me that have not been released to me to this date.

3 ) As you are aware, I am concerned that Mrs GR may have claimed to have "heard" a "confidential disclosure" concerning me, or that Mrs GR may have groomed some gullible child or parent to make such a disclosure.

If you or any other body are concealing any such "confidential disclosure" from me to protect Mrs GR, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with some clear and full explanation of this circumstance and as many of the related documents as can be released to me at this time.

Yours sincerely,

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

Rod Welford and Rachael Hunter - Education Queensland "Ministerial Briefings" are disgraceful!

 

If you are an Education Queensland employee, you must read "Ministerial Briefings":

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

When you read these "Briefings" you understand why psychopathic principals laugh and jeer at you when you make a Grievance - why they are so obviously confident that they are going to "get away with it".

 

ROD WELFORD and RACHAEL HUNTER-

EDUCATION QUEENSLAND "MINISTERIAL BRIEFINGS" ARE DISGRACEFUL!

Queensland teachers are being driven into ill health and out of work and Education Queensland "Ministerial Briefings" on this situation are brazenly misleading.

Please have the integrity to deal with this systemic problem.

SING! - a new website by Karen Smith, Queensland Health whistleblower.

Do you know what is going to happen to you when you get old in Queensland?

Read what Queensland Health whistleblower Karen Smith has to say:

http://whistleblowerssupportgroup.blogspot.com/

The teachers are blowing their whistles!

Queensland teachers are blowing their whistles!

They are talking about their working conditions, and the news is not good:

http://www.theteachersareblowingtheirwhistles.com/

Letter to Rachel Hunter, Director-General, Department of Education Queensland.

 

Ms R Hunter,

Director-General,

Department of Education, Training and the Arts,

PO Box 15033

CITY EAST QLD 4002

27 November 2008

Dear Ms Hunter,

I request that I be provided with a letter to state that the following decisions concerning me are legally invalid and have been officially "stuck off" my official "Departmental Record".

a) The 29 November 2000 decision made by Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR, acting deputy principal Miss AL and usual principal Mr EL to put me into the Diminished Work Performance (DWP) process in 2001.

2421 F Lynch-Mob State School document 59 - number on top right hand corner of document.

2469 F The District Office document 19 - number on top right hand corner of document .

and

b) Lynch-Mob State School usual principal EL’s decision on 5 February 2001 to dismiss my Stage I Grievance about this abuse of the DWP process.

2469 F The District Office documents 142-143

Because these decisions concerning me were made in breach of-

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

For your convenience I have responded to these decisions / documents in detail on my website:

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

and

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

and

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

In brief, Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR seemed to be abusing the DWP process to "pay me back" for asking for her support in dealing with the unsupervised groups of Grade 7 children who were roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes.

And Lynch-Mob State School usual principal Mr EL was on leave when he agreed with Mrs GR on 29 November 2000 that the DWP process "was warranted".

Mr EL had not discussed the situation with me before making this agreement with Mrs GR.

In 2004 an Education Queensland Aboriginal "internal reviewer" chose / was instructed not to "consider" my responses to the mass of falsified "records" that Mrs GR had secretly placed on my official records.

And in 2006 a Verifact Investigator seems to have been instructed to simply copy down what Mr EL told him, even though it was obviously untrue:

"There was no decision to put her on DWP."

340/5/1295 document number concealed but seems to be 975.

"Investigations" of this standard simply demonstrate the systemic nature of the abuse of Queensland teachers.

Ms Hunter, please demonstrate that you will not tolerate the abuse of Queensland classroom teachers.

Please provide me with a letter to state that these decisions were legally invalid and that they have been have been officially "struck off" my Departmental record.

I appreciate your attention to these matters.

Yours sincerely,

_______________

Message for Robert Needham, Chairperson, Queensland CMC.

Mr Needham,

In January 2007 the CMC "accepted" an "independent" investigation into my complaint about workplace abuse.

I have just been allowed to read a few pages of the "independent" investigation report.

I emailed a letter to you on 23 October 2008 at 10:37 PM.

The letter contained some recommendations based on my experience of workplace abuse.

I am concerned that a junior CMC officer will simply file the letter without reading it "as instructed by senior officers".

I have decided to publish part of the letter here in the hope that you will read it.

 

Recommendations:

The Queensland government have a responsibility to ensure that Queensland teachers are safe at work.

If the CMC do not have the resources to investigate the systemic corruption of the Education Queensland Grievance investigation process, the CMC Chairman has a responsibility to make this known to the Queensland State Premier, and to ask for sufficient funding to protect Queensland teachers effectively.

The CMC practice of allowing Education Queensland officers to investigate themselves is not working.

It must be possible for a Queensland teacher to prove themselves innocent of an allegation.

If it is not, if there really is no hope of justice for a Queensland teacher, then the CMC / Education Queensland investigation process is corrupt.

Documentation

Education Queensland documention is of an appalling standard.

There is an urgent need for Education Queensland to develop documentation systems that are of a professional standard.

This appalling standard of documentation facilitates workplace abuse.

Verifact records are of a far, far higher standard. They use an "investigation running sheet" which details a series of actions. The CMC use a similar system.

There is an urgent need for Education Queensland officers to adopt an "incident running sheet" that clearly explains their series of actions or decisions.

There is a need to develop an "incident report" form on which a principal can record any allegation against a teacher. The form should contain space for the teacher's response.

There should be serious consequences for any principal who places a "record" secretly on a teacher's file without allowing the teacher to respond to the allegations in writing.

This behaviour should be clearly identified as workplace abuse.

There is an urgent need to protect teachers from imaginary or malicious allegations.

It is much too easy for a malicious or mentally disturbed principal to claim to have "heard" a confidential allegation against a teacher and to place the "records" of these imaginary "confidential disclosures" secretly on a teacher's official record.

The allegation should be provided to the teacher in writing.

The allegation should be clearly stated. It should consist of more than the principal's vague "concerns".

The allegation should contain specific facts that provide the teacher with the opportunity to respond effectively.

The teacher must have the opportunity to prove themselves innocent.

The teacher should be allowed to respond to the allegations in writing.

Because at the moment allegations can be continually changed. It is impossible for a teacher to respond to an allegation effectively and to prove herself innocent of an allegation when the allegation is being continually changed in this manner.

 

For example:

 

On 27 November 2000, GR, acting principal of Lynch-Mob State School stated that-

Allegation ( A ) 

My "old principal" had agreed that I should be on  Diminished Work Performance.

I responded to this allegation.

But, in July 2004, when I received a copy of the secret meeting notes written by AL, acting deputy principal of Lynch-Mob State School, I discovered for the first time that my "old principal" had been falsified out of AL's meeting notes.

 

In AL's secret meeting notes I discovered-

Allegation ( B )

"GR, acting principal of Lynch-Mob State School, then stated that the principal of Annie's other school shares her concerns".

And my response to the first allegation had been "edited out"of AL's secret "official record" of the meeting.

And I discovered that GR had claimed in several of the secret 2469 F "records" that the principal of my "other" school had expressed concerns about my work-

" the next day (i.e. 5 October 2000) ... I spoke to (name of principal of my other school) who appeared to be experiencing very similar problems when constructive suggestions are offered."

2469 F document 82, number at top right hand side of page.

 

and again, six weeks later

"Confirmed with (name of my other school) that they shared similar performance concerns."

Handwritten on 2469 F document 36, signed by acting principal GR and dated 23 November 2000.

 

So, in 2004, I responded to this second version of the allegation.

And in late 2004 the principal of my "other school" told Infocomm officers that she had not discussed me with acting principal GR.

 

So, in May 2006, usual principal EL claimed for the first time that-

Allegation ( C )

He was the "other principal" who had "noticed this problem"!

 

And this third version of the allegation was "accepted" by Education Queensland and the CMC!

 

And it was concealed from me till June 2008.

 

Education Queensland and the CMC have refused to allow me the opportunity to respond to this new allegation.

Because they consider the investigation "finalised".

 

So I can only respond to this third version of the allegation on my website:

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

 

Policies

Queensland teachers who have been bullied must be involved in the development of new, effective anti-bullying policies.

Because, although Education Queensland claim to have written new anti-bullying policies, the new policies seem to have been written by the officers who were involved in the bullying and / or mobbing.

Or in "not knowing about" the bullying and / or mobbing.

You can't deal with bullying if you "can't find any evidence of bullying".

These officers seem to have no motivation to stop the bullying.

And the "new policies" seem to be based on the findings of investigations that were "set up" to find no evidence of abuse.

So the new policies are not effective.

One of the most shocking findings of the Verifact investigation was that acting principal GR, acting deputy principal AL and usual principal EL had developed no insight into their abuse.

None of them expressed any remorse. 

Which suggests that the new anti-bullying policies developed by Education Queensland since 2000 have failed to raise their awareness of workplace abuse, and that these administrators will continue to abuse classroom teachers.

 

Education Queensland administrators must follow Education Queensland policies.

This is not happening.

Example A.

The Diminished Work Performance Policy clearly states-

3.6 The principal should verify that there is substance to any complaint against a teacher prior to initiating a diminished work performance process.

The principal must inform the teacher of any complaint and provide a copy of the complaiant's written statement. ...

Usual principal EL had highlighted these words ( 2469 F document 97).

But he, acting principal GR and acting deputy principal AL all ignored this policy.

 

There is a need to make Education Queensland policies known and readily available to staff.

Education Queensland policies are not known by Education Queensland staff.

They are not readily available to staff.

Example A)

Acting principal GR and acting deputy principal AL had agreed to keep secret "records" on me within a few days of taking up their acting positions.

This was a breach of Education Queensland polices.

Either GR and AL did not know that this was a breach of Education Queensland polices, or they deliberately ignored the official Education Queensland policies. 

In 2006, five and a half years later, they both still seemed to be unaware that their behaviour was in breach of Education Queensland policies.

Example B)

AL did not seem to realise that I had the right to Natural Justice - the right to respond to GR's allegations.

She edited my responses out of her notes of the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000, repeatedly describing my responses as "arguing the point".

I myself knew nothing at all about the DWP and Grievance policies in November 2000, and I had great difficulty in obtaining copies of these policies.

 

Training

Education Queensland employees should be required to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Education Queensland policies before they are appointed to "acting" positions.

An inexperienced "acting" principal or deputy principal who has no knowledge of departmental policies puts classroom teachers at risk of workplace abuse.

Acting principal GR's total knowledge of the Diminished Work Perfomance process seems to have been contained on one sticky-note.

2421 File F document 60.

In addition to my basic three-year training as a teacher, I had spent eight years studying in the evenings to complete two good education degrees

For Education Queensland to have exposed me to an administrator with such limited skills was negligent.

The senior officer who gave GR the basic advice on this sticky-note must have known that GR's knowledge of the DWP policy was very limited.

But nothing was done to protect me from GR's abuse of her powers.

This was also negligent.

All Queensland classroom teachers should be encouraged to familiarise themselves with Education Queensland policies, and to undertake impartial written tests on their understanding of these polices.

This should be seen as a Health and Safety issue, and as necessary preparation for "acting" positions.

 

Such a test would simultaneously evaluate a promotion applicant's reading, writing and thinking skills.

 

Promotion

There is a problem with the Education Queensland promotion system. And this problem puts classroom teachers at risk of workplace abuse.

Principals seem to be being selected largely on the basis of their glib oral skills - their ability to "spin" the facts. And there is a very fine line between being a good "spinner" and being a brazen, abusive liar.

I have no way of knowing if the abuse that I suffered was the result of limited intelligence, mental dysfunction or poor training.

But I do know that in November 2000 I had the overwhelming feeling that I was dealing with profoundly stupid reasoning.

Acting principal GR began the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000 by stating:

 

"... This is not going to get better by changing methods ..."

 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 32 - number at top right hand side of page.

Notes made by acting deputy principal AL.

 

So there was nothing that I could actually do that would prove my innocence of the "lots of" mystery allegations.

 

"... it's about fundamental beliefs."

 

So, to prove myself innocent of acting principal GR's mystery allegations, GR was demanding that I change her beliefs about my own "fundamental beliefs".

Which was clearly going to be rather difficult because GR had always refused to listen to me:

On 10 November 2000, GR told the staff that there was "a person" on the staff who humiliated children.

The next day a teacher warned me that "the person" was me, and that GR believed that I had told a child to "put her nose against the wall".

On 20 November 2000, I gave GR a letter to explain that this had not happened.

The child had never been anywhere near a wall.

I asked for a meeting with the School Behaviour Management Committee.

But

On 27 November 2000, knowing that I had not told the child to face the wall, GR stated:

"It's not OK to have students face the wall."

When I said again that this had never happened, acting deputy principal AL did not record my actual words.

 

She described my response to the allegation as arguing:

"Annie started to argue ... "

 

And acting principal GR refused to listen to me:

"GR said let's not get into I did or didn't do this or that."

So the facts did not matter.

"This is about how you treat children not individual issues."

So, again, the facts did not matter.

 

"Annie again began to argue the point.

Acting principal GR said, "it's not about academically arguing each point."

Again, my actual response to GR's allegations is edited out of acting deputy principal AL's notes.

 

GR said, "it's not about academically arguing each point."

" ... you can't argue your way out of it."

And my response to GR's incorrect allegations is repeatedly dismissed as "arguing".

 

The fact is that the child had been sitting on the carpet in the middle of the room, watching other children acting in an Indonesian play. She was calling out and disturbing them. I told her to turn around and face the back wall so that she would stop distubing the class.

The child was never anywhere near the wall.

 

The problem was inside GR's head.

 

And that was why I could not prove myself innocent.

 

There is a need to select administrators who have better thinking and reasoning skills.

Or to provide appropriate support and training for principals who have poor reasoning skills.

 

The concept of "Natural Justice".

There is systemic abuse / misuse of the concept of "natural justice".

The concept needs to be re-thought.

1) When I followed the School Behaviour Management Program and sent children to acting deputy principal AL for poor behaviour, AL allowed the children "natural Justice" - they were allowed to make untruthful allegations against me.

And the children's untruthful allegations were secretly placed on my "official records".

But I was not allowed "Natural Justice" - the opportunity to respond to the children's allegations.

 

2) During the meeting on 27 November 2000, my responses to acting principal GR's allegations were not recorded.

And GR repeatedly refused to listen to my responses.

And GR made no mention of the allegations in the "notes to Leigh from Desley".

And she did not show me the "lot of allegations" or the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened."

I was not allowed Natural justice.

 

3) Acting principal GR, acting deputy principal AL and usual principal EL did not show me these allegations before-

 a) agreeing together on 29 November 2000 that "the (DWP) process is warranted" and

 b) asking me to a formal meeting and

 c) giving me a formal letter to advise me that I would be in the DWP process in 2001.

I was not allowed Natural Justice.

 

4) Usual principal EL did not show me the documents before dismissing my Stage 1 Grievance about the abuse of the DWP process.

I was not allowed Natural Justice.

 

5) The Education Queensland "internal reviewer" copied from the falsified documents on my file, but decided not to "consider" my responses to the falsified documents.

I was not allowed Natural Justice.

 

6) The Verifact Investigator was instructed to record a new version of the "departmental story" and to record new allegations against me.

This "report" was accepted by the CMC one and a half years before I was allowed to read even a limited version of the report.

I have never been allowed Natural Justice.

 

Conflict of Interest issues.

District Office staff, senior officers and FOI officers need to be trained to recognise "grooming" strategies and to resist being groomed.

Senior officers who are asked to conduct Grievance investigations or to write "Briefings for the Minister" should be required to declare any conflict of interest in the situation.

Acting principal GR sems to have extensively "groomed" senior officers by appealing to them for "advice" on how to deal with her imaginary version of my conduct.

This "grooming" process seems to have made these senior officers feel responsible for GR's abuse of the DWP.

GR's own secret 'records" reveal that she had "groomed" three senior officers in the District Office into "advising" her, or into participating in her abuse of the DWP.

The District Director revealed to Officers of the Information Commission in 2004 that he had also been "groomed" by GR during late 2000.

So, when-

a) Usual principal EL conducted his "Stage 1 Grievance Investigation" in January 2001,

b) and when the District Director assured me that he had the bullying under control in July 2002,

c) and when Dictrict Office Employee CHR wrote her "Briefing for the Minister" in August 2003,

- they all had a conflict of interest because they had all been groomed into feeling responsible for the advice that they had given GR.

"Acting" principals must be expected to know Education Queensland policies, or they must be directed to the policies.

And they must be expected to make the effort to read the policies themselves and to take responsibility for their own actions.

Because, when senior officers are 'groomed" by abusive principals seeking "advice" on policies, the Grievance system is corrupted.

Principals should be clearly instructed that it is not acceptable professional conduct to spend lunchtimes repeatedly pressuring other members of staff to join their own branch of a political party.

Their attention needs to be drawn to the potential conflict of interest issues raised by this behaviour.

Classroom teachers need to be protected from this abuse of a principal's position.

There is a need for inexperienced administrators to be monitored, and for alarm bells to ring loudly when there are signs that an inexperienced administrator may be abusing a classroom teacher. 

Acting principal GR claims that she first discussed putting me on DWP with District Office staff on the sixth day that she was acting principal.

If this really happened, it was a clear signal that acting principal GR was struggling in her role.

Alarms should have rung out in the District Office.

Immediate action should have been taken to ensure that I was protected from workplace abuse.

Reporting Mental Health Concerns.

There is a need to develop a proper process by which a classroom teacher can report a concern about the mental health of a school principal.

The lack of any such process exposes teachers and students to the risk of abuse.

I reported to usual principal EL on 25 January 2001 that acting principal GR's menacing behaviour during the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000 suggested to me that she had a "mental or emotional" problem.

He seems to have done nothing.

I emailed a letter to Ken Smith on 21 June 2004 at 12:35 PM in which I stated that the extensive falsification of my "official records" suggested to me that acting principal GR had some sort of significant mental health problem.

 I copied this letter to the CMC, the Ombudsman and MailBox@justice.qld.gov.au

The next day, 22 June 2004, I handed a printed copy of this letter in at the District Office.

I understand that all copies of this letter were simply "lost".

 

Mediation

Principals must not be allowed to abuse their power to refuse mediation.

Teachers must be protected from "payback" for asking for mediation.

I had asked for a meeting with the School Behaviour Management Committee.

And I had asked for a mediated meeting with acting principal GR.

There was at least one person on that School Behaviour Management Committee who knew exactly what acting principal GR had said about me to the staff.

That was why GR would not allow me to meet the committee.

That was why she refused mediation.

That was why the "mediated" meeting had to be changed to a meeting for the purpose of putting me on DWP.

That was why GR would not allow usual principal EL to speak to the seven teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years, and who all fully supported me.

 

Abuse of Education Queensland Aboriginal employees.

A junior Aboriginal employee with no qualifications in education, law or psychology was given the task of "internally reviewing" my January 2004 CMC complaint.

The fact that he was an Education Queensland employee was concealed from the CMC till October 18, 2004.

I told the CMC myself.

The CMC officer that I told was quite aggressive in her disbelief.

 

If I had not told the CMC that the Education Queensland "review" of my complaint was being conducted by a junior Education Queensland employee, would they ever have found out? 

 

This Aboriginal employee came from a primarily oral culture.

But I was not allowed to speak to him.

The fact that he was Aboriginal was concealed from me.

He decided / was instructed to copy from the falsified documents that had been secretly placed on my file.

He decided / was instructed not to "consider" my responses to the falsified dcouments.

I consider that this was abuse, both of me and of the Aboriginal employee.

 

I was brought up in England.

I have a totally different cultural and language background to this Aboriginal employee.

I was brought up in a culture where "a man is as good as his word" and children are taught to "tell the truth and shame the devil".

I was not brought up to expect my government to be corrupt.

 

But Australian school children are being taught that it is OK to lie about their behaviour.

And not to "rock the boat".

And Aboriginal Australians have been horribly abused for generations.

 

I now realise that Australians, and Aboriginal Australians in particular, expect their government to be corrupt.

I discuss this in more detail on my website at:

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

 

Investigations

It must become possible for a Queensland teacher to prove themselves innocent of an allegation.

On 27 November 2000, the first advice to me from the QTU organiser was that there was no hope of justice and to "accept the things you cannot change".

He told me that he had never known a teacher's grievance to be upheld and that teachers who "fought it" were mentally and physically broken.

Other QTU organisers have suggested to me that this was good advice.

 

My own experience suggests that, even if it is radiantly obvious from the first moment that the teacher is being abused, there is no hope of justice.

Because-

Education Queensland documentation is so appallingly unprofessional that it is impossible to find out what is really "going on".

The allegations are so vague that the teacher cannot respond effectively.

If a teacher does manage to respond effectively to an allegation, the allegation is changed.

Education Queensland senior officers deal with complaints by continually "losing" them.

Decisions are based on "Reports" and "Briefings" writen by Officers who have a conflict of interest in the situation.

Investigations are delayed for years so that the abusers can claim to have "forgotten" their abuse.

Investigators do not investigate a teacher's complaint.They side-step the teacher's complaint. They investigate a new complaint that is chosen by the senior officers who were themselves involved in the abuse. Then they find no evidence to support their own complaint. 

CMC officers do not read a complainant's complaint. They simply copy out the advice given to them by Education Queensland officers who have a conflict of interest in the situation.

 

This abuse of Queensland teachers is systemic.

And it must stop.

 

Mr Needham, the Queensland government has a responsibility to protect Queensland teachers from this sort of systemic corruption.

 

Details of the huge mass of falsified documents that I discovered on my Education Queensland "official records" can be found at:

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

Letter to David Solomon : Page 1.

Dr David Solomon AM, Chair,

FOI Independent Review Panel,

GPO Box 5236, Brisbane,

Queensland 4001

March 6, 2008

Dear Dr Solomon,

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission in relation to the administration of Freedom of Information in Queensland.

I hope that the Independent Review Panel will not allow themselves to be abused as puppets to destroy Queenslanders' rights to Freedom of Information.

Freedom of Information can sometimes seem to be the only Queensland government "accountability process" that is functioning.

Without the right to Freedom of Information, Queensland teachers and other Queensland public servants would have no workplace rights.

There would be no accountability in Queensland.

Queensland teachers and other public servants would be even more exposed to workplace abuse.

Freedom of Information enables Queensland teachers who are dealing with workplace abuse to -

• Find out if the official records of their complaint about workplace abuse have been falsified.

• Find falsified "official records" that have been secretly placed on their Departmental files.

• Find details of internal and external "investigations" concerning them that have been conducted without their knowledge.

• Realise that what was represented to them as an "investigation" may not have been described as an "investigation" in the official records.

• Read "Briefings for the Minister" and gain an understanding of the strategies used by public servants to avoid "knowing" about public service workplace bullying, harassment, victimisation, discrimination and victimisation or "payback".

• Identify the Department of Education officers who have made untruthful statements to them and about them.

(If you can't see the rest of this letter, please click on March 2008 archives at the right hand side of this web page.)

Letter to David Solomon Page 2:

Why I made a Freedom of Information application in September 2003.

In 2000 I was employed as a specialist teacher in a Queensland State School.

Groups of Grade 7 children at the school were missing from their classrooms, roaming unsupervised around the school.

I discussed my concerns about the situation with the acting principal of the school.

The acting principal advised me to speak about it to the staff at the next staff meeting.

She put it on the agenda for the meeting.

But, directly before I spoke, the acting principal spoke to the staff at some length about "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

One of the other teachers later told me that I was this "person".

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

I was advised by the QTU, the staff welfare officer and two specialist advisory teachers to ask the principal for a mediated meeting.

At the meeting the acting principal told me that "a lot of allegations" had been made against me and that she had "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened".

This statement was recorded by the acting deputy principal and secretly placed on my Department of Education official record.

Two days after this meeting the acting principal gave me a letter to advise me that she and the usual principal - who had not discussed the situation with me - had decided to put me into the Diminished Workplace Performance process the next year.

This letter was also placed on my official Department of Education file.

These letters remain on my Queensland Department of Education official record to this day.

Since September 2003 I have been making FOI applications for copies of the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened".

To this date I have not found any document that answers that description.

But I have found a loose scrap of paper on which the acting principal has scribbled that she made her statements to the staff concerning me because of allegations that were made concerning me in "notes to L---- (one of the Grade 7 teachers) from D-----".

These "notes to L---- from D-----" were never discussed with me at any meeting.

I knew nothing about them till I found a copy of this loose scrap of paper in FOI documents that were released to me on 27 October 2005.

I only know two people called D-----, and they have both assured me that they know nothing about this situation.

Letter to David Solomon Page 3:

To this date I have not been allowed Freedom of Information.

But I have established that my official Queensland Department of Education "records" have been extensively falsified.

Many of the falsified documents are described in detail at - http://badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm

My Freedom of Information applications are detailed at -

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

I anticipate that my experience will be the sort that is portrayed to you as a "problem with a vexacious applicant".

But I would suggest that it is not my applications for these missing "lot of allegations" in the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened" that is the problem.

It is the refusal of the acting principal to either produce these documents or to admit that there were no allegations against me, and to remove her offensive and deeply unprofessional letters to me from my official Department of Education files.

The problem is not the policies, it is the practices.

My Freedom of Information experience suggests to me that the real problem is not a problem with the official Department of Education policies, but with the abusive workplace practices of Department of Education administrators.

The bully administrator is able to establish inappropriate "mobbing bonds".

My own bully administrator managed to form inappropriate "mobbing bonds" with other administrators and even with Head Office staff, including -

• a very senior officer who was controlling the investigation into my complaint
• and also one officer who was involved in "searching" for my FOI documents.

I have found the documentary evidence of these inappropriate "mobbing bonds" in the FOI documents.

These inappropriate "mobbing bonds" have affected my FOI applications.

Letter to David Solomon Page 4:

Falsified "records" can be maliciously placed on a Queensland teacher's official files.

It is too easy for malicious and untruthful "records" concerning a teacher to be secretly placed on that teacher's Queensland Department of Education official files.

Notes on loose scraps of paper can be secretly placed on a teacher's file.

These loose scraps of paper can be introduced, changed or removed at any time by an abusive principal.

Queensland school principals have their own offices and their own computers. There is no excuse for keeping files of sticky-notes and loose scraps of paper "recording" their secret thoughts and feelings about teachers.

It is much too easy for a malicious principal to secretly place "records" of imaginary conversations with children, parents, other teachers, other principals and District Office staff concerning a teacher on that teacher's official Department of Education files.

If the teacher ever manages to find these documents under Freedom of Information, the names of the children, parents, etc. involved in these imaginary conversations will have been concealed, so the teacher has little chance to prove that their "official record" has been falsified.

The FOI policy of deleting all names from documents exposes Queensland teachers to workplace abuse. 

And then, even if the child, parent, teacher, principal of member of the District Office staff tells the teacher or an investigator that they did not have this imaginary conversation concerning the teacher, Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) officers will advise the teacher that the principal's "record" of their imaginary conversation is not a lie, it is a "different recollection".

So you can never, ever disprove a malicious principal's "different recollections".

Undated, unsigned scribbles on sticky-notes can be secretly placed on a teacher's file.

These scribbled notes may convey no clear meaning. They can be interpreted to suggest more or less anything.

These sticky-notes can be stuck on top of dated and signed "records" to create the false impression that the sticky-noted comments are related to that particular incident and that particular date.

And then the sticky-note can be moved to create a different impression.

Because the scribbles on the sticky-notes are undated and unsigned, nobody can be held responsible for the suggestions that are being created by the scribbled notes.

Similarly, unsigned and undated notes can be scribbled in pencil onto documents that have been written, dated and signed by another person.

This can create the false impression that the events described in the scribbled notes happened at the same time as the events in the original document.

Or "records" concerning the actions of another teacher may be carelessly / maliciously placed on your Department of Education file.

• All documents concerning teachers should be signed, dated and shown to teachers before they are placed on teachers' files.

• There should be space on the document for the teacher's response. A response should not be "attached" to the official record, because it could be too easily "lost".

• No document should be placed on a teacher's Department of Education file if the teacher concerned has not had the opportunity to respond to the document.

• There should be serious consequences for administrators who are in breach of this policy.

This simple strategy would have protected me from workplace abuse in 2000.

If this simple strategy had been in place in 2000, I would not have needed to make any Freedom of Information applications.

This simple strategy would improve professional conduct, protect Queensland teachers from workplace abuse, and save a lot of FOI time and money.

Letter to David Solomon Page 5:

Falsified 'records' of meetings can be secretly placed on a Queensland teacher's official file.

Records of meetings may be falsified to the disadvantage of teachers.

For example, a teacher's response to allegations may be 'edited out' of the official records.

Or the allegations may be changed.

And the names of the people making the allegations may be changed.

The teacher may not realise that the allegations have been changed for several years, till they receive copies of the "records' of the meeeting under freedom of Information.

A lot of the teacher's time and effort may have been wasted writing responses to allegations that have been changed.

The teacher may even find that they have been used as a puppet to do themselves harm. Falsified official records may secretly have been made of their own 'confessions', 'demands' or 'poor professinal conduct'.

Union organisers may also have been abused as puppets to hear / not hear / not be able to remember what happened at the meeting and to do the teacher harm.

QTU organisers seem to feel helpless to prevent this abuse because of the QTU policy that 'no help will be given to any member who is in conflict with another member'.

This QTU policy exposes Queensland teachers to workplace abuse.

A teacher may be given verbal assurances at a meeting which are the direct opposite of what is in the official records.

Or the teacher may find that events that take place immediately after a meeting make nonsense of the assurances that they were given at the meeting.

For example, a bully principal may be promoted, celebrated in Parliament House or given a special award a few days after such a meeting.

• All Queensland Department of Education meetings to discuss complaints should be tape-recorded and transcribed.

• A copy should be given to each meeting participant.

• This simple strategy would raise the standard of professional conduct and eliminate many workplace problems.

• It would also reduce the need for teachers to make FOI applications for falsified "meeting notes".

 

Letter to David Solomon Page 6:

Queensland Department of Education officers seem to deal with documents, letters and emails of complaint by 'losing' them or by instructing each other not to read them.

The standard of documentation of complaints / internal reviews / investigations by the Queensland Department of Education is appalling.

And it puts Queensland teachers at great risk of harm.

The Department of Education has a responsibility to protect employees from exposure to the risk of harm because of poor workplace practices.

The horror of the incompetence / dysfunction / corruption of the Queensland Department of Education Grievance / Investigation practices is beyond the powers of belief of any ordinary person.

I would suggest that this systemic dysfunction is the cause of many repeated Freedom of Information applications.

• If Department of Education officers documented their activities to a professional standard, professional conduct would be improved and less public time and money would need to be wasted responding to / avoiding responding to FOI applications.

My own experience of this dysfunction is described in detail at http://www.badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm

Letter to David Solomon Page 7:

The Queensland Department of Education 'investigation process' is dysfunctional.

Again and again, the person that you are complaining about (or a person under their close control, or a person who has a conflict of interest in the situation) is allowed to investigate your complaint about their own behaviour.

They then write a report "finding no evidence of" their own bullying.

All later decisions by other Queensland Government Departments are based on this first "finding".

Your letters of protest are disregarded.

When you make a Freedom of Infomation application for the documentation of the "investigation" of your complaint, all copies of this first "investigation" finding are "lost" by all Queensland Government Departments.

And the Premier and senior public servants agree that you have written a lot of letters and that they will not reply to your letters.

And so no Queensland public servant actually reads your letters.

Your letters are automatically filed.

When you write to protest that your official record has been extensively falsified, your letters are simply 'lost' or disregarded.

And no Queensland public servant can be held responsible for not reading your letters and not "knowing" that your official record has been falsified.

Because they were all instructed by the Premier and their senior officers not to read your letters.

Letter to David Solomon Page 8:

Strategies used by Queensland Department of Education Investigators / Reviewers.

An investigator may change the wording of your complaint to avoid investigating the real problem.

This seems to be a very common Queensland public service strategy.

Your complaint / grievance may have been falsified by being "lost".

The official record of a 120 page grievance can be reduced to three pages with this strategy.

An "internal reviewer" may simply copy from documents that he knows to be falsified.

He may have been instructed not to "consider" your responses to the falsified documents.

An "internal reviewer" may have been instructed not to ask questions and find out any facts.

He may have been instructed to "infer from the documents".

This gives the internal reviewer carte blanche to claim to have "inferred" more or less any nonsense from the documents, even if the evidence in the documents totally contradicts the "inference" drawn by the reviewer.

• The Department of Education practice of making "inferences based on the documents" is wide open to abuse. It should stop. 

Official "investigation reports" may be ambiguous and suggest several different meanings to different readers.

And what you are told at a "meeting to discuss the findings of the investigation" may be quite the opposite to the real findings of the investigation.

There may not even have been an investigation.

Letter to David Solomon Page 9:

The word "investigation" is used carelessly by senior officers of the Queensland Department of Education.

A phone call to a "mate" is not an investigation.

And it is unjust, abusive and deceptive for senior public servants to allow one of the people whose behaviour is the subject of a complaint to organise a tightly controlled "internal review" - which simply consists of -

• "drawing inferences" from falsified documents,
• refusing to allow any questions to be asked,
• refusing to allow the complainant's responses to the falsified documents to be considered

- and then for them to describe this very limited "internal review" in phone calls to other Government departments and in the official records as "an investigation".

I suspect that the careless use of the words, "we investigated it and found no evidence of ...", to describe poor professional practices is the cause of much wasted FOI search time.

I suspect that FOI officers are being asked to search for the documentation of "investigations" that were really little more than quick phone calls to a "mate". 

If Department of Education Education official reports were referenced to a professional standard - the standard expected of any university student, for example - it would improve accountability, discourage workplace abuse and greatly reduce the need to make repeated FOI applications for this documentation.

• The official records of an investigation should contain an accurate copy of the original complaint.

• Reference should be made to the specific document that supports any statement, finding, etc. made in internal review reports, investigation reports, Briefings for Ministers, etc.

• Department of Education officers who claim "I am told" or "I understand" something should be required to identify the documentary evidence that supports that claim.

This would discourage malicious gossip and mobbing, improve the quality of professional records and reduce the amount of time spent searching for FOI documents.

• A copy of all documentation that supports the findings of an investigation should be kept with the investigation report so that it cannot be "lost".

This simple strategy would -

• reduce the abuse of the Department of Education internal review / investigation / grievance / FOI processes to abuse teachers
• and reduce the time spent searching for "lost" FOI documents.

Letter to David Solomon Page 10:

There are problems with the Queensland Department of Education Freedom of Information (FOI) process.

The process takes many years.

I have been waiting since September 2003 for copies of the "lots of allegations" that the acting school principal stated on 27 November 2000 had been made against me in "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened".

When a teacher first makes an FOI application, they know very little about the FOI process and it is easy for them to be bluffed out of their rights.

I now realise that my first application - FOI 2361 - was "personal" and that I should have been given the documents free of charge in late November 2003.

To this date I have not received these FOI documents, despite applying for them over and over again, and paying many application fees.

Several documents that existed in early 2004 have mysteriously vanished during the FOI process.

I have identified some of the documents that have vanished at http://www.badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm .

Several "investigation reports" also seem to have vanished.

Department of Education FOI officers have a practice of suggesting responses to officers who are being asked for documents.

They sometimes seem to suggest that respondents simply say that they can't find any documents.

Sometimes you suspect that the FOI officer did not even contact the officer concerned.

• All FOI searches should be conducted in writing, and all respondents should be allowed to respond in their own words, because this allows you to check that the FOI officer did actually search for the documents and that the documents that the FOI officers have "searched" for are the documents that you actually requested.

Sometimes Internal reviewers do not seem to search.

They just give you their opinions about the documents. Their comments may be misleading, but they know that they cannot be held responsible for their misleading response because they did not search and so they do not "know" that they are misleading you.

One Department of Education FOI officer wrote to me one day, accepting my application fee, then wrote to me the next day, refusing to search for the documents.

This is an unjust and abusive practice.

Some FOI documents are photocopied "half off the page" so that the number of the page / key words / key dates / key names are "edited out" of the photocopy that is provided to you.

So you have to re-apply for a full copy of the document.

Some FOI officers choose not to photocopy information concerning you on the original covers of folders, so that the fact that a Discipline file has been opened on you, for example, is concealed from you.

• The original covers of all folders should be photocopied and included in photocopies of FOI documents.

Department of Education FOI officers seem to be fairly low down on the head office 'pecking order'.

This may be the cause of some problems. For example, sometimes they have to ask their superior officers for FOI documents. This seems to be difficult for them.

And if the senior officer just says that he has lost all of his documents, it must be difficult for an FOI officer to tell them to "stop playing the fool and hand over the documents".

Documents related to bullying and mobbing should be provided to applicants free of charge under FOI.

Bullying and mobbing are not part of the official duties of a Queensland public servant. They are personal.

Documents that you produce in order to protect yourself from mobbing and bullying, and documents that you use as evidence of bullying and mobbing, are also personal.

And allowing a bully administrator to "investigate" his own behaviour and find "no evidence of bullying" is not evidence that this was not workplace bullying because "we have investigated your complaint lots of times and we have found no evidence of bullying".

It is evidence that the mobbing problem is systemic.

Two very senior Queensland Department of Education public servants responded to my FOI application by claiming to have lost all of their emails and letters to me and from me over a period of several months.

I presume that they lost all of their other official documents as well.

You may think that this is an appallingly dysfunctional way to run a Queensland Government department.

• There is an urgent need to raise the standard of record-keeping in the Queensland Department of Education. The present level of workplace dysfunction is a waste of public funds and it creates a psychopath-friendly working environment.

When I made my first FOI application, the files containing the mass of falsified documents were numbered backwards, so that the last page of the last document was number one, etc.

Many of these 'documents' were unsigned and undated. They were scribbled by hand on loose scraps of paper and sticky-notes.

They concerned events that I knew nothing about - I eventually realised that many were 'records' of entirely imaginary conversations with me, my students, parents, other principals and other administrators.

These 'records' were not shown to me or discussed with me at the time that they purported to have been written, and when I did eventually receive FOI copies of the documents, the names had all been 'edited out'.

There was no document that actually explained what was 'going on' at the school - why all of these falsified 'records' had been secretly placed on my official files. 

At least one of the documents seemed to have been substituted for the original document. Several documents 'vanished' during the FOI process.

All of this muddle made it really, really difficult for me to comprehend the situation and to develop any kind of concept of what had been 'going on' at the school and what missing documents I should look for.

The Freedom of Information problem here is not my behaviour in making 'vexatious' FOI applications for these missing documents.

The problem is my struggle to make sense of the deliberate falsification of my Department of Education records, and the careless indifference to my welfare and to professional record-keeping that senior officers of the Queensland Department of Education have demonstrated.

They have demonstrate no leadership on this issue.

Recent UNE research suggests that as many as 99% of teachers are bullied at work.

But the senior officers of the Queensland Department of Education do not seem to care about this sort of teacher abuse, and so nobody else cares.

Letter to David Solomon Page 11:

Senior officers of the Queensland Department of Education seem to abuse Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "discrimination solicitors" and Aboriginal employees "in training" to facilitate discrimination and workplace abuse.

If you make a complaint about discrimination, and a Queensland Department of Education Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "discrimination solicitor" is employed to conduct an internal review of your FOI application, and then quite a lot of your documents vanish during this process, you might suspect that this Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained discrimination solicitor is being employed / abused by the Department of Education to facilitate discrimination by losing the evidence of discrimination.

And if the employee chosen to "review" your complaint is an Aboriginal "trainee" with no qualifications in psychology, law or education, and if he is asked to "review" a mass of falsified "records" that have secretly been placed on your Education Queensland files, and if he is instructed that he cannot ask any questions to find out the facts, and if he is not given all of your documents, and if he is instructed / persuaded to ignore your responses to the falsified "records" - you might think that this Aboriginal employee is being abused.

And if you have spent ten years of your life studying to get two good degrees from prestigious universities, and if you have been inspected for a whole day in NSW and placed on the First Primary Promotion List, and if your health and your career are then destroyed in Queensland by an inexperienced and incompetent administrator with malicious gossip and sticky-notes, and if your complaint about this utterly dysfunctional "decision-making process" is given to an Aboriginal employee "in training", who has no qualifications in law, psychology or education - you might also think that you are being abused.

Letter to David Solomon Page 12:

Some Office of the Information Commissioner, Queensland, (Infocomm) policies and practices seem to facilitate workplace abuse.

Infocomm officers demand that you prove that a document exists before they will search for it.

But under FOI I have found -

• huge numbers of falsified 'records' that have been secretly placed on my Queensland Department of Education files to my disadvantage.
• many references to 'lost' investigation reports.
• and my own documents have been extensively falsified.

In an environment of this nature - where my documents have been so very extensively falsified over such a long period of time - asking me to 'prove' the existence of documents is ridiculous.

Infocomm officers need to appreciate that teachers who have been abused at work - and recent UNE research suggests that as many as 99% of teachers are bullied at work - are not dealing with reality, logic or facts.

They are dealing with extensively falsified 'official records'.

Anything is possible.

You may not discover a reference to a lost / missing / falsified document for several years.

Then an FOI is released which makes reference to the earlier document.

When you apply to the Office of the Information Commissioner for a copy of this lost / missing / falsified document, Infocomm officers refuse to search for it because they have already closed down their external review for the period of time during which the lost / missing / falsified document seems to have been created.

• You should be able to ask for a document, the existence of which has been concealed from you, even if you do not find evidence of the existence of the document till after the external review for that period of time has been declared closed.

Infocomm officers "authorise" Queensland Department of Education FOI officers to release documents to you.

They refuse to send the documents to you themselves.

These are documents that the Department of Education FOI officers have refused to release to you at least twice previously.

Infocomm officers advise you to contact the Department of Education FOI officers and apply to them for the documents again. But the documents that the Department of Education FOI officers eventually send to you may not be the same as the documents that the Infocomm officers have 'authorised' them to release to you.

This seems to be an organised 'cop-out' strategy by Infocomm Officers. They do not seem to want to be responsible for 'knowing' that the right documents are not being released to you.

When you point out that the documents released to you have been falsified, Infocomm and the Department of Education officers then enter into long and improbable explanations to each other and to you of how these changes came about.

This all seems to be an absolute waste of time.

And it facilitates the endless falsification of your FOI documents.

• The Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland should release documents directly to applicants.

Letter to David Solomon: Page 13

Queensland Department of Education FOI officers and Office of the Information Commissioner, Queensland officers seem to employ abusive strategies to avoid searching for documents.

The "No Fishing Allowed" strategy.

There can be a very significant difference between the search response reported to you by an internal reviewer and the actual words written by the person whose documents are being "searched". An FOI applicant needs to make a second FOI application for the documents that record the "search" conducted by the internal reviewer to find out whether the internal reviewer has searched for the correct documents and reported his findings accurately.

The "Can We Deal With Your Second FOI Application First?" strategy.

In this disgracefully abusive strategy the FOI / Infocomm officer asks you if you will wait for your first FOI documents till a second, "broader" FOI application is finalised. They advise you that the first FOI documents may "turn up" in response to the second application.

You agree to wait.

Big, big mistake.

You wait for years.

No work is done on the second FOI application for months. The first FOI documents that you asked for do not "turn up" in response to the second application.

Five years later the FOI / Infocomm officers are still refusing to search for the first documents that you asked for.

And, in the meantime, public servants promote each other, change jobs or retire and the likelihood of the first documents ever being found is hugely reduced.

The "Two-Stage-Release" strategy.

In this strategy the FOI officer "allows" you to have a copy of an email from the bully administrator in which certain statements are made.

Then, months later, a second email is found. It appears to have been sent later on the same day as the first email - but who would really know? - In this second email significant changes are introduced into the Departmental "story".

Or

Version 2 of The "Two-Stage-Release" Strategy.

In version 2 of this strategy, a file of falsified documents is released. The target responds to these falsified documents. Months later a second file containing many of the same documents is released. But this file has been significantly re-organised and undated, unsigned, handwritten notes have been made on the original documents, introducing significant changes to the official "story".

The "Am I Understanding You Correctly?" strategy.

This Infocomm strategy is really draining and it can be used to delay your external review application for as long as a year. It consists of re-writing the applicant's external review application so that it is unrecognisable, then asking the applicant to confirm within the next eight days that this is the application that they are making or they will lose all of their FOI rights.

The external review applicant then has to "drop everything" and struggle for hours to find any relationship between their own original application and this strange document.

Finally the external review applicant comes up with Hybrid Version 2 of their own application. They mail it off and hear nothing for months. They receive no documents.

Suddenly yet another unrecognisable version of their external review application arrives. And again they are asked to confirm in the next eight days this is the application that they want to make or they will lose all of their FOI rights.

Again the external review applicant has to "drop everything" and work for hours, comparing their own original application with this unrecognisable document.

Finally they come up with Hybrid Version 3 of their external review application. They mail it off and again hear nothing for months.

Finally one or two documents arrive.

• This continual re-writing of applications must consume a lot of the time of the FOI and Infocomm officers. I would respectfully suggest that Infocomm officers consider simplifying the external review process for the applicant, be more accepting of layman's concepts and original language, and thereby reduce their own workload.

Actually, I think that the Infocomm officers are so highly qualified that they genuinely do not appreciate the demands that the FOI process makes on the skills of an ordinary person. They can become a little 'snappy' and impatient with the bumbling efforts of applicants at times.

I have a good Master's degree in linguistics and I have found making FOI applications demanding.

It must be very, very difficult for anybody who is less literate or who has less time.

Letter to David Solomon Page 14:

The Queensland public service promotion system seems to be psychopath-friendly.

The Department of Education promotion system, for example, favours glib talkers who 'interview well'.

Psychopaths are glib talkers.

Glib talkers may not really comprehend the words that they are babbling. They may not apply their words to their own behaviour. They may not comprehend what other people say to them. They may not be willing readers or writers.

When faced with a problem, gib talkers may not bother to read the official Department of Education policies related to their problem.

They may just ring somebody at the District Office and ask for their advice.

This 'verbal advice seeking' is a waste of the time of the District Office staff.

It also functions as a grooming strategy.

The advice given by District Officers is based on the glib talker's version of the situation. if a Grievance is later made about the consequences of the advice, the District Office staff will be compromised and may feel obliged to protect the glib talker who followed their advice.

• There is a need for teachers who are seeking promotion to demonstrate an understanding of the Department of Education official policies before they are appointed to 'acting' positions.

By this I mean some sort of written test that teachers seeking promotion have read the official Department of Education policies, understand the policies, and can apply the policies.

If a teacher is not willing to read the Department of Education policies and to demonstrate a basic understanding of the policies, they should not be considered for promotion.

• Then, when appointed to a promotion position, they should be expected to follow the policies and to be accountable for their own actions.

• District office staff should not become involved in giving 'advice' on policies over the phone. This is a waste of time and public funds. It also facilitates workplace abuse.

At the very most District officers should refer principals to the relevant policy documents.