On the 31st October 2007 I wrote to the Director General Michael Coutts-Trotter in response to a letter forwarded by him. I marked the letter urgent. It is now the 21st November 2007 and I have not receieved and acknowledgement or a reply so I am setting the letter out here as follows:
Mr. Michael Coutts-Trotter.
We refer to your letter dated 24 October 2007 and would advise as follows:
With regard to the agreements made at the ADT on 18 August 2003, we acknowledge your advice that test papers, answer templates and results for the Opportunity Class tests for Danny, Katie and Amanda will be made available in due course as per the DET’s previous agreements. We take this opportunity to express our concern that the Departmental staff designated to organise our viewing of the documents have a conflict of interests/duties
Whilst we appreciate being given the opportunity to view the tests, as agreed at the ADT, we have serious concerns with regard to the meeting with Magda Pollak and in particular given your advice that following this meeting correspondence from us will be filed away without comment. A meeting of this nature with Magda Pollak can hardly be regarded as an appropriate substitute for a proper investigation.
Indeed in light of this we query the purpose of the meeting. It seems that perhaps the time for any mediation with Magda Pollak has well and truly past. Clearly from our perspective unless Ms Pollak's presence involves true accountability such a meeting is pointless. Could it be that the intent of the meeting is a way for the DET to shut down a file and thereby to conveniently avoid investigation of any allegations of misconduct? Such lack of transparency is most alarming to people such as ourselves who have waited year upon year for adequate investigation of serious misconduct issues.
This hardly seems fair and accordingly we confirm our previous agreement with Mr John Murn that should this meeting take place we will require a Solicitor to be present at the meeting and written confirmation that this meeting will not be a substitute for an investigation. We would also request to be advised of the name of the Probity Officer attending the meeting and that the probity officer not have any conflict of interest/duties.
There are serious outstanding issues with regard to our family’s complaints and allegations. We seek your written assurance that issues to do with our complaints and allegations will be responded to and acted upon and as per policy and procedure require. We have previously expressed our desire to separate the FOI matters and the investigation of the allegations as confirmed in the attached letters dated 19 July 2004 and the response from Mr John Murn dated 26 August 2004.
As well as the Department not honouring the agreements that they made at the ADT on 18 August 2003 in relation to FOI there are also other outstanding matters with regard to the investigation of our family’s complaints as follows:
On 4 August 2003 Mr. Refshauge promised an investigation into the original allegations that we had made as per letter attached.
You will note from the attached email by John Murn from the Legal Services Directorate that was hand dated the 6th August 2004 that John Murn confirms that Mr. Refshauge promised an investigation and that the investigation has never taken place. The fact that the allegations have never been investigated is also confirmed in internal documents produced under FOI by Chris Ballentine from Audit Directorate, Magda Pollack & Bob Wingrave from the Selective Schools Unit, Dr. Anthony Bendall from the FOI Unit and Dave Wasson from the Educational Measurement and School Accountability Directorate and even in correspondence from the Ombudsman, copies of these documents can be provided on request.
In 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 fresh complaints and allegations were made under the Responding to Suggestion and Complaints Policy of further systematic bias, bullying, victimization and discrimination aimed at our children that included allegations of a conspiracy to cover up. These complaints/allegations related to different children at different times and that included our other children. These complaints were ‘not accepted’ and ‘not investigated’ on the grounds that they referred to the same issues as before and that the matter had been investigated and deemed closed! This is despite the fact that documents clearly showed that agreements made at the ADT had not been honoured by the Selective Schools Unit and no investigation had ever taken place.
Recently we made an FOI application requesting documentary evidence of the decision to deem me vexatious, as documents produced under FOI clearly presented me as such despite the fact that we were never directly or formally informed of this determination.
The FOI application also sought documents/evidence with regard to the investigating of our family’s complaints.
The Department of Education did not provide documentary evidence of any formal process by which it was determined that I was vexatious yet numerous submissions and internal DET correspondence presents me as having been deemed vexatious by the Minister and that I was informed of this fact by the Minister.
The DET also did not provide any evidence under FOI of the investigation of any of the complaints yet submissions to Ministers etc., clearly state that the allegations have been investigated by the Department and externally and that the persons about whom the allegations have been made have been cleared of any misconduct. If this is the case then there should be some sort of documented evidence of the Terms of Reference and the findings of these investigations. Quite the contrary, all documents produced under FOI show that this is not the case.
The Ombudsman has confirmed in writing that they have not investigated the complaints under the Ombudsman Act.
It is clear from the documents and evidence that there has never been an investigation into any of our family’s numerous complaints and allegations despite the Minister Mr. Refshauge ordering that one take place and despite policy and procedure requiring that allegations of this nature be formally investigated and despite desperate pleas from our family to afford us procedural fairness and natural justice so as to protect the children from further victimization and harm.
There are clearly serious breaches of process, policy and procedure. In light of this we trust you will understand our concerns with regard to the arrangement of the viewing of the tests and the meeting with Magda Pollak and the handling/closing of our complaints.
As well as the Department honouring the agreements made at the ADT we request that the promised and required formal investigation also be undertaken by persons who are independent and impartial so that all the outstanding matters can be dealt with and resolved once and for all and this matter can be put to rest.
26 November 2007: A response to our letter has now been received. I will post the response and my reply as soon as I have got my letter together.
Recent Comments