HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS ENOUGH TO RAISE SUSPICION?

I have decided to present a question to the public in relation to the process used to assess matters for investigation.

We have made formal allegations of bias, victimisation, bullying and misconduct against the leader of the Selective Schools Unit originally in relation to incidents in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 and then subsequently in relation to incidents in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

We present hereunder details of the documents that we received that triggered the original complaint in 2002.

1.  Year 2000 OC test results for eldest son challenged. 

• So called 'certified true and accurate copies of test results forwarded by the DET, at our request, had inconsistancies and errors.  Documents produced by the Selective Schools Unit are incomplete and/or missing.   Formal complaints made against Leader of the Selective schools Unit.   Allegations not investigated.

2.  Year 2001 OC test results for eldest daughter challenged.  

• Data file and documents produced under FOI show evidence of bias, manipulation and  tampering.  Formal complaints made against Leader of Selective Schools Unit.  Allegations not investigated.

3.   Year 2002 Selective High School test results for eldest daughter and eldest son challenged.  

Documents produced under FOI show that for both our eldest son and eldest daughter the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit acessed the file after the Selection Commitees met and had made their decision and changed the marks for both my daughter and for my son to lower marks, under the guise of an error in calculation so that they would not be successful for selective school placement.  In the case of my son the leader of the Selective Schools unit physically took away his place in a Selective School and moved him to the Reserve list after the decision was made to offer him a place by the Selection Commitee members.  There is clear evidence of bias and manipulation.  Allegations were not investigated.

4.  In 2003 the original test papers were destroyed on the day the matter was for planning meeting at the ADministrative Decisions Tribunal with the full knowledge of the DET that these original documents had been requested to be produced under FOI and we were actively seeking these original documents so as to verify test marks.  The matter was being put before the Administrative Decision Tribunal as the DET would not obey the FOI rules in relation to the production of documents.   The fact that the Selective Schools Unit destroyed State Records that were requested under FOI seems not to matter to those in power within the system.  Our allegations were ignored and not investigated on the basis that I was a deemed a repetitive corresondent and was presented as vexatious by the person against whom the allegations were being made.

4.    From the Year 2000 to date all formal complaints that involve even our younger children and that refer to different incidents in the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 an 2008 are given to those whom we allege are targeting and inflicting this harm on our family to 'deal with'.  These people  have chosen a 'cover up' as a way of dealing with the complaint and the DET have taken no action to protect the children from further bullying or harm.

5.  For over 6 years we have been making formal requests that certain persons not be permitted to handle any school applications, tests or matters to do with our family including accessing documents requested under FOI as they have had serious formal allegations against them of bias, manipulation, tampering, bullying and misconduct - our requests are ignored.

6.  Recently we requested the Selection Commitee Registers (that the members sign on the day that they sat on the Selection Committee deliberations  to indicate that they have no conflict of duties and to show who was sitting on the commitee and these documents are not being produced.  These documents would clearly show what happened on the day of the meeting and what decisions were made.  These documents are said to not be able to be located. 

7.  Recently the Lists and reports in relation to the Selection Commitee meetings were produced but the Primary list that set out the outcomes  on the day the Selection Committees met is not the original list that was prepared and decided on the day.  The list that was produced is not the orignal document.  The DET says that they have produced what they have.  Documents are being withheld and destroyed. In certain documents that were produced it clearly shows that for both my eldest children their applications were accessed after the decision was made to offer them a place and their scores were changed to lower scores to deny them access and to discredit them.

8.   An FOI application was lodged seeking evidence by way of the report of the 'investigation' that the DET have said to have conducted and that they have referred to numerous times in order not to investigate even fresh complaints and allegations that involve the treatment of our other children.  The DET have refused to provide evidence of their 'alleged' investigation stating that it is an unreasonable diversion of resources.  This is despite the fact that they clearly say in briefings/submissions that investigations have taken place and that those with allegations against them have been cleared of any misconduct.  It is a fact that all evidence in our possession clearly says that this is not the case even to the point of written statements being made by the Legal Directorate and other Departments that we received under FOI that that clearly says that the allegations have never been investigated.  

9.  Despite the DET stating in numerous briefings and correspondence that the Ombudsman has investigated the matter (documents from the Ombudsman's office clearly say that the matter was not investigated under the Ombudsmans Act).  The DET  have said in evidence that they hold no documentary evidence of any conversation or any communications with the Ombudsman.  They say it is normal practice not to keep any correspondence in relation to any investigations by the Ombudman?

10.  The DET says that the Policy regarding how they should handle complaints are only guidelines and that they do not have to be followed.   They also say that not all allegations of abuse of children require to be 'investigated'   It appears that bullying and victmisation is ALLOWED and children being abused by adults are not protected.

11.  Policy Documents that relate to the process used for each period in relation to Selection Committee guidelines have gone missing and have not been produced.   

12.   Certain applications lodged by my children have been lost or cannot be located.

13.  The more they targeted our children and family the more we complained the power it gave them to discredit us and ignore our complaints.  The less records that they kept and the more records they destroyed the more power it gave them to cover the matter up.

You have to wonder what has to happen to trigger a proper and fair investigation into the actions of public servants.  It seems that in order to be afforded rights you have to do something criminal.