UPDATE 11/1/2016

THE GRIEVANCE The UNIVERSITY of NEWCASTLE Report of the investigation into the grievance by Ms VS  against the Department of Social Work  16 January 2000 We don’t know when but it looks like Prof ENGLISH is back. Try to find him on Uni website 1 The grievance and the grievance enquiry team 1.1 A grievance enquiry team was convened to deal with a grievance raised by Ms V S against the department of social work, concerning Ms Simundic's failure in SWRK303. The team consists of Simon (chair), Loris Chahl, and Gail White. The particular complaints of the grievance are 1.2 that Ms VS's failure in SWRK303 was in breach of the university rules governing unsatisfactory progress, in that she was not given prior written notice and a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the matter, and 1.3 that her failure on the basis of her field educators' assessment of her placement as unsatisfactory and their early termination of her placement for perceived breach of confidentiality was unreasonable. The case presented by the grievant 2.1 Ms VS presented a great deal of written material only some of which was directly relevant to her failure in SWRK303 The remainder of the material, some of which is designated by Ms VS as background material, relates to other difficulties she has had with the department, notably her 1998 placement in S 06 and an accusation against her of intimidatory behaviour. Ms VS has drawn no explicit connection between the background material and the directly related material. Constrained by the grievance as submitted to it, -the team made no use of this material. 2.2 One part of the background material that does appear to be connected to the failure concerns an apparent allegation by one of the department's staff that Ms VS had breached confidentiality by raising issues from her SWRK303 placement in a peer support group. By Ms VS's interpretation, the peer support group would appear to be exactly the right place to raise such issues; and because the group is itself bound to confidentiality, it is hard to see how raising issues here can be a breach of confidentiality. It is interesting; too, that the liaison person then reported to the field educators what had been said about them in this confidential meeting. The relevance of this episode is that when Ms VS was experiencing subsequent problems with her placement she felt unable to discuss them with either the peer support group or the staff of the department, with whom she has clearly had mutual difficulties in the past. Needing to discuss them with someone, she therefore raised them with another social worker during informal chat after a meeting. 2.3 The next day the department liaison person visited the placement. Several problems appear to have been resolved at that meeting. The visit report, while noting that Ms VS had certain problems, indicated that she would 'need to continue to consistently demonstrate appropriate and competent work with clients and in the team in order to satisfactorily complete the placement.' 2.4 Immediately after this meeting Ms Simundic emailed her confidant to let him know that the problems had been resolved and that all was well. He replied that he was glad for her. Ms VS, rather foolishly, printed this email exchange on a networked printer. The exchange was discovered by her field educator, who saw it as reason to terminate the placement forthwith. 2.5 That same day, the department sent a letter to examinations informing them that Ms VS had failed SWRK303. Two field educators' reports on the placement were written three days later. 2.6 Ms VS took the matter to the dean, Professor John Ramsland. Prof Ramsland wrote to the head of department, Ms Jo Gaha, saying in part 'I understand that her current field placement was terminated after an apparent breach of confidentiality ... Having ... taken legal advice on the matter, 1 need to request that you identify another placement for her in this current round Ms Gaha's reply said in part 'Ms VS's placement was not terminated which would then imply that she could be allocated another placement to complete the requisite number of days to fulfill the requirements for the subject SWRK303. This has occurred in the past where there has been a breakdown in the placement for one reason or another. This is not the case in this instance though. Ms VS, on the decision of the department examiner's board, failed that placement and a fail result [was] recorded with the examination section of the university.' On the basis of this reply Prof Ramsland withdrew his requirement that an additional placement be found. 3 The response from the department of social work 3.1 At its first meeting the grievance enquiry team considered the written material presented by Ms VS and, as directed by the university's Grievance Procedures for Students, wrote to advise Ms Gaha of the grievance. Ms Gaha elected to present the department's response in person, and a meeting with the team was arranged for this purpose. The team put several questions to Ms Gaha at this meeting. They, and a summary of the responses, follow.

Jo Gaha - - - Amie Grierson Letter to Gem Cheong University Secretary & Reg Thu, 21 Sep 2000 Dear Ms Cheong. I am writing in support of the letter from VS which is enclosed I support the statements she has made and the references to myself reflect accurately what has occurred and how I have felt I am extremely distressed at what has happened to Ms VS What has occurred to her in her time at University in the Social Work Department should never have been allowed to happen. It should never be allowed to happen to any students at this or any other University. And yet I have felt powerless to assist her I would urge you to take this issue extremely seriously and to bring it to the attention of the Vice Chancellor. NUSA has identified a huge problem with the conduct of the Social Work Department towards many of its students Alison Rowlands - - Liane Flynn - - - I have interviewed many students this year from the Department, more than any other department, and all other Departments combined These cases are obviously confidential but all identify a pattern of feeling abused and having no trust in the professionalism of the Department They feel violated by the behavior of some staff members and once they have complained feel that they have been systematically vilified and abused by the Department I know that many other Academics identify that there are enormous issues with the Department, and I have met with Professor Ramsland who also recognizes my concerns I have also met with the fourth year social work class to discuss posters I placed asking students who were feeling aggrieved to come and speak to myself or the Vice President at NUSA. This, as you would know, is every students right. I feel that there must be a positive resolution for all students so that they can enjoy and feel safe studying at this University I hope that finally some attention will be paid to the issues raised and that they will not be ignored as they have been for so long Yours Sincerely Amie GRIERSON NUSA President University of Newcastle NSW Deb Plath - - -

SHARON GRIERSON https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=00AMP NEWCASTLE MP SHARON GRIERSON IS THE MOTHER OF AMIE GRIERSON PRESIDENT OF STUDENT ASS IN 2000 WHO WROTE THIS EMAIL 18 Jul, 2012 FEDERAL Newcastle MP Sharon Grierson has announced she will retire rather than recontest her seat at the next election 3.2 When and how are the grades for SWRK303 usually determined, and when and how are they usually conveyed to the examinations branch? Was it unusual for Ms VS's grade in SWRK303 to be determined so early in the year, and if so, why was this done? The grades are usually determined at the end of the placement period (of which there are three during the year). Passing grades are usually conveyed to examinations at the end of the year, along with other end-of-year results. However, students have in the past withdrawn from field work subjects after failing them, that is, once the grade has been determined but before the usual time for conveying it to examinations. The department has then been unable to change the withdrawal to a fail. To overcome this problem, the department now conveys fail grades in field work subjects to examinations as soon as they are determined, which is normally at the end of each of the three placement periods. Fail grades in field work subjects are not unusual. Ms VS's was not the only one arising from this particular placement period, and all were conveyed to examinations at about the same time. 3.3 Ms VS's placement was terminated on 15 June; on the same day, Ms Gaha wrote to examinations indicating that Ms VS should receive a fail for the subject. Was a departmental examiners' meeting convened on that day, and if so, why? A departmental examiners' meeting was convened on that day. In a small department it is not difficult to convene such a meeting, and it is the department's usual practice to do so whenever field work placements are over, so that any fail results can be conveyed to examinations as quickly as possible. 3.4 As Ms VS's placement was terminated prematurely, was it, as she has claimed, the department's responsibility to find her an alternative placement? It is the department's position that the termination of the placement was not some kind of false start but an indication of failure. Factors supporting this position include 3.3 Ms VS's placement was terminated on 15 June; on the same day, Ms Gaha wrote to examinations indicating that Ms VS should receive a fail for the subject. Was a departmental examiners' meeting convened on that day, and if so, why? * the proportion of the placement that had been completed * the fact that the placement had already given some difficulty, requiring two additional visits from the liaison person * the unfavorable reports from the field educators With regard to the last of these factors, the team was assured that while the written reports were dated 18 June 1999, a spoken report had been delivered by telephone on 15 June, when the principal field educator rang to inform the department that the placement had been terminated. 3.5 Ms VS asserts that her placement was terminated because of something she had written in an email that her field educator took and read. If the email is as she has conveyed it to us, we do not immediately see that it warranted such a severe response. Was this the whole reason for the termination, and does the department believes the response was warranted? The head of department has not seen the email in question, and does not wish to. The field educator made the judgement that a serious breach of her organisation's protocol had taken place, and the department accepts that judgement. The liaison person's report after the 11 June visit observed that 'Vesna has another 3 weeks of placement. She will need to consistently demonstrate appropriate and competent work with clients and in the team in order to satisfactorily complete the placement.' It is the department's contention that, in the view of the field educator, Ms VS did not 'consistently demonstrate appropriate ... work ... in the team', and therefore stopped progressing towards passing. The incident at Centrelink on 15 June, whatever its details, was in some sense the last straw. Ms VS had reached a point in her placement from which only a squeaky clean record would ensure her a pass in the subject, and the incident made such a record unattainable 3.6 Regardless of whether the response was warranted in this particular case, we hope to find out how the depart7nent deals with cases in which the student repudiates the field educator's report, or with cases in which a placement is terminated prematurely. Perhaps the question we are trying to formulate here is what measures are in place to ensure that field educators are as capable and as accountable as full-time academic staff. The department places significant trust in its field educators, and both are bound by the guidelines of the Australian Association of Social Workers. This does not mean, however, that field educators have an entirely free hand with the students who are placed with them. The department monitors all field educators, at times overturning their recommendations, and will not continue to use field educators who show questionable interaction with or assessment of their students. The liaison person plays a big role in this monitoring of the field educators and moderation of their recommendation. In the case of Ms VS the department has no reason to believe that the field educators erred either in the decision to terminate the placement or in the subsequent reports. 4 The grievance enquiry team's findings 4.1 On the basis of the information received from the grievant and the respondent, the grievance enquiry team decided not to investigate the first point of the complaint, but to dismiss it as false, as according to point 3.4.3 (iii) of the university's Grievance Procedure for Students. This part of the complaint, that Ms VS's failure in SWRK303 was in breach of the university rules governing unsatisfactory progress, in that she was not given prior written notice and a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the matter, was deemed to be false because the rules in question deal with the case of a student's enrolment in a subject being terminated. Ms VS's enrolment in SWRK303 was not terminated she was awarded a fail result in the subject, in the usual manner and in the usual timeframe for that subject. The rules do not suggest that students failing subjects should be given prior written notice and a reasonable opportunity to make representations. 4.2 The second part of the complaint, that Ms Simundic's failure on the basis of her field educators' assessment of her placement as unsatisfactory and their early termination of her placement for perceived breach of confidentiality was unreasonable, required a great deal more deliberation. 4.3 The email exchange 4.3.1 The email exchange is clearly pivotal in Ms Simundic's failure. The principal field educator, Ms Dara Sampson, terminated the placement on 15 June as a direct consequence of discovering this exchange.June as a direct consequence of discovering this exchange. In a letter to Professor Brian English, the deputy vice-chancellor, Ms Simundic quotes Ms Sampson as saying 'I did not read this letter but how dare you [discuss] this matter with someone else and why are you using email?' Ms Gaha told the team that in a phone call on 15 June Ms Sampson described the email as defamatory and worse to herself and one other person. She added that Ms Sampson appeared to her to be making a measured response, not acting out of pique. In the Field Educator Assessment report, Ms Sampson, says 'I terminated the placement 15/6/99 due to my lack of trust in Vesna's ability to act in an ethical manner specifically in the area of confidentiality ... Further to this I have been informed that Vesna approached a Centrelink colleague about shifting her placement to that site. I have been advised this occurred before and after the termination of this placement.' The department liaison person, who had been on leave when the placement was terminated and the result determined, wrote on her return 'I was informed by Jo Gaha that Vesna's placement had been failed by the field educators due to unethical behaviour by Vesna ... 1 spoke with Dara ... Dara had found on a department printer a copy of an internal email sent by Vesna to a departmental staff member criticising the field educator and requesting a change in placement location. This was a breach of confidentiality and professional boundaries. Dara felt that there was insufficient trust and honesty in the supervisor-student relationship for the placement to continue. In her discussions with Vesna, Dara said that Vesna demonstrated no insight into why the behaviour was inappropriate.' The picture that emerges from these different reports is that Ms Sampson read or glanced at the email, found it deeply critical of herself and somebody else, and found that it mentioned arrangements to move Ms Simundic's placement to another location. 4.3.2 Ms Simundic includes what appears to be a copy of the email in her submission to the grievance enquiry team. She had written 'Following our conversation yesterday, this letter is just to let you know that I was able to work through issues and I do not have any more strong concerns about my placement. Thank you for your willingness to share with me the issues that I was worried about and your feedback. PS I have a feeling that you thought I was the student who will come and work with you on Tuesday next week... 1 was not that student!' The reply said 'You're right - 1 was confused. But let that stay between us. I'm glad to hear you have resolved those issues with Dara and Fiona. Life (and placements) weren't meant to be easy. Seriously though, these last few days are the crunch time for assessments, the very time when final opinions are given out. But DON'T lose your nerve. (I have practice saying that - my wife says she is on a continual learning curve with her employers!) Whatever happens, roll with the punches. PS: Punches can also knock you INTO shape!!!' 4.3.3 The grievance enquiry team can find nothing defamatory, or even critical, in Ms Simundic's indication that there were 'issues' and 'strong concerns' about her placement, or in her confidant's additional indication that the issues were 'with Dara and Fiona.' To the contrary, the email states that earlier problems have been resolved and these problems were not news to either the department or the field educators. It might therefore appear that Ms Sampson's reaction was not so much to contents of the email as to the criticism that she imagined had been made in the conversation that preceded the email. The grievance enquiry team also finds no indication in the email of any attempt to arrange an alternative location for the placement - although Ms Simundic's postscript could perhaps, if only glanced at, be misinterpreted as such. If the email exchange quoted above is the one that was read by Ms Sampson and that sparked the termination of the placement, the grievance enquiry team is of the opinion that the reaction was totally out of proportion to the impetus. 4.3.4 What remains is the possibility that the email exchange shown to the team by Ms Simundic is not exactly the one seen by Ms Sampson: that the original email exchange had been edited after the event, removing the parts that Ms Sampson found defamatory or critical and the parts relating to the relocation arrangements. If the email exchange quoted above is the one that was read by Ms Sampson and that sparked the termination of the placement, the grievance enquiry team is of the opinion that the reaction was totally out of proportion to the impetus. 4.3.4 What remains is the possibility that the email exchange shown to the team by Ms VS is not exactly the one seen by Ms Sampson: that the original email exchange had been edited after the event, removing the parts that Ms Sampson found defamatory or critical and the parts relating to the relocation arrangements.

Ms Gaha told the team that she had not seen the email, and, further, that she did not wish to see it.  Therefore she was unable to assist the team in determining whether the email is the original, and unwilling to make her own judgement on Ms Sampson's interpretation of the email. The team notes that Ms Simundic has shown the same email exchange to various other parties in an attempt to have her failure reconsidered; and that according to Ms Simundic, Professor Phil Foreman, the dean of students, believes that it was not a breach of confidentiality. 4.3.5 To resolve the question of whether the email is the original, the team would need to consult with Ms Sampson.  This might also shed light on why she reacted as she did if the email is indeed the original.  It might also be necessary for the team to consult with the social worker with whom the exchange took place. The team therefore took advice as to whether it could in fact talk with these people, bearing in mind that they have no formal connection with the university.  The advice was that the team should not involve people outside the university, and would have to make its determination without consulting' these people. 4.4 The department's determination of a fail grade 4.4.1 The head of the department of social work, Ms Jo Gaha, gave the team a document entitled 1999 Guidelines for Students - Bachelor of Social Work & Bachelor of social Science (Welfare Studies). ]he team was unable to find in this document any concrete indication of how results are determined in field education placement subjects. The team understands from its discussion with Ms Gaha that the result is based on the field educator's report, with the liaison person contributing significantly to the final determination, even, in extreme cases, overturning the field educator's recommendation. 4.4.2 The guidelines document does describe the standard process that 'at the completion of each subject all marks are reviewed by the departmental board, acting as an examiners' meeting, and recommendations are made to the faculty board.' Ms Gaha has indicated that this process is not in fact followed for field placement subjects, in which results are determined as soon as possible - before the formal completion of the subject - and fail results conveyed to examinations immediately thereafter (see section 3.2). While there might be some slight irregularity in this process, the team finds no significant fault with it.  The intent of the process, to prevent students from formally withdrawing from a subject after learning that they have failed it, is accepted by the team as sound and valid. Me university requires that results be approved by a departmental examiners' meeting before being conveyed to the faculty board by way of the examinations section.  There is no stipulation that the examiners' meeting be a formal departmental board meeting, with its contingent requirements of prior notice, minute-taking, and student representation.  Therefore it is quite possible for an examiners' meeting to be convened at short notice by calling together those academics who are in their offices. 4.4.3 There is, though, another aspect of the process that is of rather more concern to the team.  In the absence of concrete guidelines as to how the results of field education subjects are determined, the team relies on its information from Ms Gaha that the result is based on the field educator's recommendation, with strong and perhaps overriding influence from the liaison person. The team notes that the fail result was not only determined and approved, but conveyed to examinations, three days before the field educators' reports were written; and that the liaison person was on leave at the time and was not contacted.  It is clear that the usual process was not followed in determining the result, and in the absence of a clearly laid out process the usual process must be taken as the benchmark. The field educators' reports are arguably more negative than positive, and can therefore be seen as supporting the fail result that was determined before they were written.  However, given Ms Sampson's apparently disproportionate response to the email, the team cannot be absolutely confident that the reports are a dispassionate and objective assessment of Ms Simundic's performance in the placement. This is particularly so in view of the liaison person's report, from a visit two working days before the placement was terminated, clearly indicating that a pass was achievable from that point. 4.5 Complaint upheld

In light of the material discussed in sections 4.3 and 4.4, the team upholds the second part of Ms Simundic's complaint, that Ms Simundic's failure on the basis of her field educators' assessment of her placement as unsatisfactory and their early termination of her placement for perceived breach of confidentiality was unreasonable. 4.6 The correspondence between the dean and the head of department 4.6.1 The team is concerned about the exchange of correspondence between the dean and the head of department after Ms Simundic presented her case to the dean. The dean, Professor John Ramsland, wrote to Ms Gaha I understand that [Ms Simundic's] current field placement was terminated after an apparent breach of confidentiality on the email ... Having ... taken legal advice on the matter, I need to request that you identify another placement for her in this current round, so that she can attempt to complete this stage of the field component successfully.' Ms Gaha replied 'It looks as if you have been given incorrect information in relation to her situation.  Ms Simundic's placement was not terminated which would then imply that she could be allocated another placement to complete the requisite number of days to fulfill the requirements for the subject SWRK303.  This has occurred in the past where there has been a breakdown in the placement for one reason or another.  This is not the case in this instance though.  Ms Simundic, on the decision of the department examiner's board, failed that placement and a fail result [was] recorded with the examination section of the university.' The dean accepted this correction and did not pursue his request that the placement be continued in a different location. 4.6.2 The team believes that Prof Ramsland was misled by Ms Gaha's reply, and should have stood by his request. Ms Simundic's placement did not run to completion because her field educator asked her to leave.  It requires no subtle twist of semantics to see this as the placement being terminated. Indeed, in the field educator's report, Ms Sampson wrote 'I terminated the placement 15/6/99 due to my lack of trust in Vesna's ability to act in an ethical manner specifically in the area of confidentiality.' It is the team's interpretation that the placement was terminated in response to the email, and that the fail result was determined after, and essentially because of, the termination.  Ms Gaha appears to have been incorrect when she wrote 'Ms Simundic's placement was not terminated'. 4.6.3 Accepting that the placement was in fact terminated, it is clear that Prof Ramsland and Ms Gaha are agreed that Ms Simundic 'could be allocated another placement to complete the requisite number of days to fulfil the requirements for the subject SWRK303'. Recommendations 5.1 Urgent completion of the placement at a different location 5.1.1 As a matter of urgency, Ms Simundic should be given a chance to complete the field education placement of SWRK303 before the start of the 2000 academic year, and her result should be adjusted accordingly. While the university has no formal prerequisites for any of its subjects, the department views its field education placement subjects as hurdles, and would not be happy for a student to enrol in 400-level subjects without having passed SWRK303.  If Ms Simundic undertakes another placement within the 2000 academic year, either as a continuation of her 1999 enrolment or by enrolling again, it could have the effect of setting back her whole programme of study by one year.  In the current circumstances the team sees this as unacceptable. 5.1.2 While there is some disagreement as to exactly how much of the placement remained when it was terminated, the team suggests that a minimum of 15 days would be required to produce a credible result.  Given the requirement of completion before the start of first semester, 15 days might also be the practical maximum.  However, the department should be free to set a somewhat higher maximum if time permits. Rather, it should be based on the earlier documents from that placement (up to and including the liaison person's report of 11 June 1999) in combination with all feedback from the continuation placement. 5.1.5 Further, the continuation placement and the determination of a final result should be overseen by a suitably placed person such as the dean of students, the university grievance officer, or (because of his background) the deputy vice-chancellor. 5.1.6 In case it is difficult to find a suitable neutral placement in Newcastle at such short notice, Ms Simundic has (again) indicated her willingness to travel to a placement on the Central Coast. 5.2 The department of social work 5.2.1 The department should set clear and explicit guidelines as to how field education subjects are assessed and how formal results are determined in those subjects, and should promulgate those guidelines to students. The guidelines should explicitly indicate a course of action to be taken if a placement is terminated prematurely for any reason.  In particular, and in view of Ms Gaha's opinion that this termination was not a termination, a clear distinction should be made between terminations that lead to automatic failures and terminations that lead to the opportunity to continue elsewhere. 5.2.2 While the department has, and promulgates, a policy barring withdrawal from a field education subject once the placement has begun, it is clear that a better process is needed for implementing this policy.  'Me current process can lead to the appearance of indecent haste in informing examinations of fail results, and appears to be unreliable anyway. The department should liase with appropriate people in student administration to design and implement a better process. 5.2.3 The team is deeply concerned about the question of accountability of voluntary field educators who are integrally involved with the assessment of students.  The university provides various avenues for dealing with student grievances with their educators, but those avenues appear to assume that the educators work for the university and can therefore be held accountable to the university.  The team recommends that the university and/or the department review the question of academic accountability of such educators. So long as the current arrangement prevails, the department must accept full accountability for the decisions of its field educators. It must therefore be prepared to take an active refereeing role, or to appoint somebody else to do so, in cases of dispute between field educators and students.  It is not acceptable simply to take the word of the field educator over that of the student, particularly where there is concrete evidence that can be used to help judge the matter. 5.2.4 It is always difficult during and after a dispute for the participants to remain on normal terms with one another.  None the less, the team trusts that the department will proceed to treat Ms Simundic as it would had this grievance not arisen. 5.3 This report The team is acutely aware of the frustration that can be engendered by receiving a decision with little or no explanation as to why that decision was reached. In this light the team explicitly recommends that complete copies of this report be given to Ms Simundic, Ms Gaha, and Prof Ramsland. Consideration should also be given to providing copies to Prof Foreman and to Ms Amie Grierson of NUSA, Ms Simundic having consulted at length with both of these people as the matter proceeded 5.4 The time taken to investigate this grievance 5.4.1 This grievance has taken an inordinate length of time to proceed from its lodgement to the submission of this report.  Some of the delays have been 'normal' for a grievance investigation.  One delay was brought about by the team's need to seek further advice about its own powers; another when one of the team underwent surgery.  The team believes that most of the delays have been unavoidable, though the chair does accept some blame for slowing down over the Christmas - New Year break. The team's greatest concern about the delays is that the grievance enquiry team as constituted included one person who was just embarking upon a month's leave, and that the team was therefore unable to meet until that month had expired All eight members of the grievance panel, from which the teams are drawn, are aware that it can be difficult to draw together a grievance enquiry team at short notice.  All eight members have great demands on their time, and must reserve the right to declare themselves unavailable for an enquiry at a particular time The team fully appreciates the difficulty that must be experienced by the university grievance officer in constituting a team. 5.4.2 In view of this difficulty, and of its impact on this particular grievance, the team strongly recommends that the university consider expanding the grievance panel to ten or twelve members, to ease the university grievance officer's burden and to reduce the chances of a recurrence of this sort of delay         end of report

THE DEPUTY VICE CHANCELLOR  The Deputy VC Prof BRAIN ENGLISH               The UNIVERSITY of NEWCASTLE   28 January 2000 - Dear Vesna, I understand that you have contacted some members of the Grievance Enquiry Team I can assure you that the findings of the Team were unanimous and that the summary of their report is accurate. Yours sincerely, Prof of Social Work, Brian English, DVC Dear Vesna, I resigned from the GET, which was set up to investigate your grievance, prior to the submission of its Final Report. The GET for your grievance has been disbanded Head of Grievance Investigation Team Prof Martin J Watts Dear Ms VS,  I have now received the report of the Grievance Enquiry Team appointed to deal with this matter The report is a long one and I have provided a copy to you under qualified privilege as a participant in the hearing.   The team investigated two complaints: that Ms VS's failure in SWRK303 was in breach of the University rules governing unsatisfactory progress, in that she was not given prior written notice and a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the matter, and· that her failure on the   basis of her field educator's assessment of her placement as unsatisfactory and that the early termination of her placement for perceived breach of confidentiality was unreasonable.  The team rejected the first complaint on the grounds that it relied upon rules relating to termination of enrolment which do not apply in this case. The team upheld the second complaint and found that the early termination of the field education placement, for a perceived breach of confidentiality, which led to the failure in the subject was unreasonable. The team has made a number of recommendations relating specifically to Ms VS, her academic standing and an opportunity for her to complete the placement.  They also made some recommendations relating to policies and procedures in the Department of Social Work and a recommendation about distribution of their report. I have carefully considered the recommendations of the Grievance Enquiry Team and have determined as follows: 2. Recommendations relating to Ms VS, her academic standing and the opportunity for her to complete the placement          Urgent completion of the placement at a different location. Ms VS's result for SWRK303 for 1999 should be converted to an I2000 (incomplete, result to be determined this year).  A makeup field education placement, of sufficient length to satisfy the Learning Goals of SWRK303, the professional requirements and the usual conditions for establishment, conduct and assessment of a "make up" placement is to be arranged as soon as practicable.  The learning goals and other issues of the original placement are to be taken into account in determining the nature and length of the "make up" placement. In determining the location, in arranging the placement and appointing the liaison staff member the Department should note that Ms VS is prepared to travel to the Central Coast and should have in mind the recommendation that Ms Rowlands or Ms Crofts might be the liaison person.  However, the nature of the placement and the current responsibilities of all staff should determine appointment of the placement liaison person.  The Dean Of Students Prof PHIL FOREMAN The final assessment for the make up placement should be made in relation to the learning goals, activities and outcomes of the make up placement. Normal processes of oversight by the staff liaison person, the Department and the Faculty should be sufficient to ensure a result for a completed placement.  Ms VS, as for all students will have access to the Dean of Students or other officers of the University without the appointment of a particular officer from outside the Department to oversee the make up placement.The withheld result pending completion of the make up placement should not prevent Ms Simundic from enrolling in her fourth year program.       Recommendations relating to the Department of Social Work  The Dep should undertake a review of the current guidelines on field education with a view to addressing the concerns raised by the grievance enquiry team about the clarity with which they deal with the termination of placements, the relationship between "termination" and failure, and with the clarity with which the guidelines deal with the role and responsibility of field educators. The outcome of this review should be made available to my office by the end of Semester I, 2000.    I fully support the Grievance Team's view that all members of the Department will proceed to treat Ms VS as they would if the grievance had not arisen. Recommendation about the release of the report of the Grievance Enquiry Team I have accepted the advice of our Legal Liaison Officer that Ms Jo Gaha and Ms VS should receive copies of the report under qualified privilege as participants in the enquiry. I am not making copies of the full report available to the other persons named in the report. However, I am giving a copy of my determination to the following: · Professor John Ramsland, Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Science · Professor Phil Foreman, Dean of Students · Ms Amie Grierson, President, NUSA  Yours sincerely, Brian English, Deputy Vice-Chancellor. PROFESSOR BRIAN ENGLISH, DEPUTY VICE-CHANCELLOR TELEPHONE: 02 4921 5114 FACSIMILE: 02 4921 7060 INTERNATIONAL TEL: +61 2 4921 5114 INTERNATIONAL FAX: +61 2 4921 7060 Email: deputy-vc@newcastle.edu.au THE CHANCELLERY, UNIVERSITY DRIVE, CALLAGHAN NSW 2308 AUSTRALIA

SOCIAL WORK DEP. APPEAL Professor R. Holmes  Vice-Chancellor University of Newcastle 1st February 2000 The UNIVERSITY of NEWCASTLE A U S T R A L I A CONFIDENTIAL Department of Social Work University of Newcastle From:  Freda Briggs @unisa.edu.au Sent:  Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:51 PM Subject RE: social work student Newcastle Uni POLICY 2000 RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS STUDENTS Dear Vesna Thankyou for your letter. I have read the attach I have been lecturing in tertiary education for 31 years and during that time I have received three students' complaints of abuse You will be interested to know that all  three have been in the last 18 months and all three came from Newcastle University   Re: Grievance by Ms V S Yesterday morning (31/1.2000) the Head of our Department met with the Deputy Vice Chancellor and was given verbally and in writing his determination on the recommendations of the Grievance Enquiry Team. After discussing the determination at a staff meeting, the Department wishes to appeal against this decision on two grounds: 1 . The substance of the individual case. 2. The broader principles involved.1 . The substance of the individual case Pt 1.3 of the Grievance Enquiry Team's report records the second grievance as follows: That her failure on the basis of her field educator's assessment of her placement as unsatisfactory and their early termination of her placement for perceived breach of confidentiality was unreasonable. The way that this complaint is framed assumes that the termination of the placement led to the fail grade in the field education subject. This assertion by the student does not seem to have been challenged by the Grievance Enquiry Team and they upheld the complaint and recommended "urgent completion of the placement at a different location. "The Grievance Enquiry Team has based its recommendation on: 1 . Whether the field educator acted appropriately in terminating the placement. 2. The grade awarded Both the Team and the Deputy Vice Chancellor have erroneously come to the conclusion that the termination of the placement, and the reason for termination, in and of itself led to the fail grade. (The Deputy Vice Chancellor in his letter to the Head of department connects the placement ending and the fail grade ? " the early termination of the field education placement, for a perceived breach of confidentiality which led to the failure in the subject...") In doing this the Team has, in essence, made an academic judgement about a student grade and has done this considering partial information. We view this with serious concern and do not see this as appropriate to the role of the Grievance Enquiry Team. Should the University decide that it is within the role of a Grievance Enquiry Team to make recommendations about academic grades certain implications, which are detailed later, must be considered. Most importantly the Deputy Vice-Chancellor's directive sets a precedent within the University that a Grievance Enquiry Team has the mandate to recommend the overturning of a properly made academic decision. Rationale for the Academic Decision The incident that led to the student being asked not to return to the agency was a breach of agency protocol and of her written and signed learning contract with the agency and the Department of Social Work. (For example, point 8 of the learning contract requires that the student "demonstrate a professional approach to work through ... regard for agency policies and rules".) It is worth noting that the Head of Department made it clear to the Grievance Enquiry Team that she was not judging the issue of the termination as a senior member of staff of that agency (a statutory body) had made the decision that proper agency protocol and appropriate professional behaviour had been breached. It was not, however, this breach that led to the fail grade. It was one of a 2  series of serious concerns regarding  the student's performance and was the final incident that led to the practitioners involved determining that the student could not return to work in that agency. The student was allocated a placement at Centrelink under a joint supervision arrangement with a senior social worker as the primary field educator and a social worker who was learning about supervising students. This is a common arrangement in student supervision and provides the opportunity for social workers who have not supervised a student before to begin their training in the supervisory process. On the 27 th April 1999 the student received written confirmation of the placement details. Her learning contract, with a mid?placement review date, was received in the Department on the 5 th of May. This mid?placement liaison visit by Debbie Plath occurred on the 20th of May. The review highlighted that she had efficiently and competently updated the agency's community directory and that her orientation to the agency and its policies was progressing satisfactorily. However, a number of concerns expressed by both field educators at that meeting. The field educators had already given this feedback directly to the student. No improvement had been evident to the field educators following this feedback. The concerns that were explored were as follows:"There have been concerns about [the student's] judgmental, dismissive and alienating effect on clients, partly because of Vesna's choice of language and partly because of apparent values around families and relationships which are impacting upon the interpretation of clients' situations. This has also been evident in the case file notes which Vesna has written." Specific learning goals to address these concerns were agreed to at that meeting. (See att documentation.) On the 31 st May there was a follow up placement visit that was requested by the field educators. Such a follow up visit only two weeks after a mid placement visit is unusual They requested this special meeting because they had experienced the student as resistant to accepting the feedback given at the mid placement visit   BRIAN ENGLISH ABOUT; Social workers are concerned with personal and social relationships between individuals, families, groups, organisations and communities. They seek to relieve distress, redress inequality, promote social justice and participate in the processes of social change which remove structural disadvantage and create opportunities for people to achieve their own goals ABOUT DEPARTMENT

3    The liaison staff member used this visit to help the student explore her difficulty with her learning goal about utilizing feedback to improve practice. Despite this the student continued to focus on her belief that the field educators had been too negative at the mid placement visit. The liaison staff member reassured the student that she had both heard and recorded the positive feedback from the mid placement visit. Another visit was scheduled for two weeks time to discuss progress. A third placement visit occurred on the 11 th June. This meeting highlighted that the student had been closely monitored and supervised by the senior supervisor and practitioner, and whilst this had been demanding for her, the student had demonstrated improvement. It is unusual for a second placement student to require this level of support by both agency and departmental staff. Agency and Department staff were willing to offer this additional support in the interests of student learning and client protection. In social work education there is an interface between professional accountability of the field educators and Department staff, the protection of clients from possible harm, and the learning needs of students. Extra effort is expended by staff if a student's approach to meeting learning goals poses a threat to positive outcomes for clients. In this case, the student's learning deficits were such that additional visits and supervision were required.    Following this visit there was a temporary changeover of liaison person as Debbie Plath was going on leave and there were three weeks of placement to complete. At the changeover briefing, the Head of Department was advised that, whilst the student had demonstrated improvement on the learning goals set at the mid placement visit the student had been informed that successful completion of the placement required consistent demonstration of appropriate and competent work with clients and in the team. It is usual in the Department of Social Work for placement updates to be exchanged at the fortnightly staff meetings and this facilitates effective liaison to cover staff leave or absences. 4    The next working day after the third visit, Tuesday the 15 th June, the senior Field Educator rang the Social Work Department to report a serious breach of agency protocol and a serious departure from the agreed learning goals by the student. Jill Gibbons took this call in the absence of the Head of Department. Dr Gibbons' response was to ask the Field educator to review this incident in light of the goals and expectations that had been re?established and documented at the placement visit on the previous working day. The senior Field Educator's experience of the student that this student as unwilling or incapable of accepting feedback and demonstrating changed behaviour in response to the feedback was re?inforced. Dr Gibbons was advised that the senior Field Educator had asked the student to leave the agency while she discussed the issue with the University and staff of her agency. In light of the student's behaviour so soon after a placement visit had set clear parameters, and extraordinary effort on the part of the educators to support her learning, and that more than half of the placement had elapsed, Jill Gibbons formed the view that the student would not be able to achieve the learning goals in the time left in this placement. Jo Gaha, as liaison person, following a briefing from Jill Gibbons, rang and spoke with the senior field educator later that same day. The Field Educator and her team, from their experience of the student, were of the opinion that no further investment of their time and energy in this student's learning would bring positive outcomes for the student and that in fact clients and the team were at risk. Therefore she decided, with the support of her agency, that the student could not return to work in the agency. She asked Jo Gaha to inform the student accordingly. In response to the agency's depth of concern about this student and in fairness to the student's rights to be advised of her status in this subject, staff at the University immediately met at an examiners' meeting to consider the matter. After consideration of all the relevant material, a fail result was determined and the Examinations Branch notified accordingly. This is not the first occasion on which a student has been asked to leave an agency prior to the completion of the required number of days. In such circumstances, the Department determines whether the situation indicates grounds for failure or for an alternative placement to be found for a specified number of days. In this case, there was ample evidence that progress towards learning goals was unsatisfactory and that enough time on placement had elapsed to determine this. This specific incident was symptomatic of ongoing difficulties that were well documented by staff and field educators. (See attached documentation.) The Report of the Grievance Team Pt 1.3 shows that the Grievance Enquiry Team has made a decision and recommendation on the academic merits of the Department of Social Work's decision to fail this student. If that were indeed the role of the Team, then the Team needed to undertake a thorough investigation of all the facts surrounding the decision. At the very least, the following should have been addressed: 1. The Grievance Enquiry Team's role and function should have been clarified enabling the Head of Department to make a full and informed response in writing. Since the Head of Department did not see the Grievance Enquiry Team's role as such, she merely responded to the legalistic issues put before her. She was not given the opportunity to present a full account of the situation concerned and the Department's actions in awarding a fail grade. It was her understanding that procedural fairness was under investigation and not the academic grade awarded. The University has proper channels of appeal for students with regard to academic grades. The student in question used these avenues of appeal and no case was found against the Department. 2. The Field Educator's position is not made known. The senior field educator of the placement was not consulted at any point by the Grievance Enquiry Team. The decision was made about her actions on the basis of the student's perspective on the situation and written information provided by the student without consuting the field educator concerned or being cognizant of the agency's professional protocols or those of the profession of social work.The Department has further serious concerns about other aspects of the findings of the Grievance Enquiry Team in relation to the second grievance. Point 4.4.1: The guidelines relating to determination of results for Field Education are clearly outlined in the Field Education Handbook which is given to all students. Section 2.3 states that "all placements are assessed and will be graded as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Field Educators will make a recommendation and the Department Examination Board will be responsible for each students final grade . Further, Section 5.3 states that "initial grading of each component of field education subjects is done by the relevant workshop leader or Field Educator in consultation with the Departmental staff assigned to assist with the workshop or to liaise with the placement. Initial gradings are recommendations to the Department. They are reviewed by the Departmental Examiners meeting which determines the final result, as with other pieces of assessment." The Head of Department took this documentation to the Grievance Enquiry Team, and informed them about this but was not required to make it available in writing. Points 4.4.3, 5.2.1, 5.2.3.There are established written guidelines for the determination of results in field education. The Team did not avail themselves of the written material relating specifically to Field Education after it had been presented verbally by the Head of Department. The Grievance Enquiry Team decided that the e?mail exchange at the agency was pivotal to the decision to terminate the placement and fail the student. This was not the case. As previously stated the decision to fail the student was based on an assessment of the student's progress towards the learning goals. The attached reports document the grounds on which the student was deemed to have failed the placement through 7    unsatisfactory progress towards these learning goals. The Department notes in this regard that the Dean of Students advised the student that this judgement was the Department's to make.

Fieldwork is central to the social work degree.   IF YOU CONTINUE TO RUIN MY REPUTATION I WILL TAKE YOU TO COURT REPORT ABUSE info@hiil.org Therefore, field educators are pivotal to the students' learning and function as examiners on field education placements that they supervise. This has been documented in our records from the original establishment of the social work degree and is in keeping with the Australian Association of Social Workers' accreditation requirements. The Bachelor of Social Work would not be able to operate without the field educators' pivotal involvement. We are therefore deeply concerned about the Grievance Enquiry Team's apparent lack of understanding of the selection, training and role of field educators as shown in sections 4.3.3, 5.2.1 and 5.2.3 of their report. The Team made disparaging remarks in their report about the role and accountability of field educators that are offensive and based on ignorance. If it were the role of the Grievance Enquiry Team to make a judgment on the substance of the academic decision to fail the student, then the Grievance Enquiry Team needed to undertake a thorough investigation of the student's progress towards her learning goals. These are determined by SWRK 303 and the learning contract with the agency. A thorough investigation should also have incorporated an exploration of the field education program and its role within the academic degree. Failure in a social work subject and the requirement to repeat that subject does add an extra year to a student's course. There are no special circumstances in this instance that justify extending to this student the privilege of concurrently completing a third year subject with fourth year enrolment, a situation that no other student is in. 2. The broader principles involved The directive from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor arising from the Grievance Enquiry Team's findings has broader implications for the Department and the University. 8    First, it sets a precedent where academic decisions based on due process may be overturned. Within the University, other pathways exist for questions relating to academic decisions, namely the Faculty and Academic Senate processes and the Dean of Students who can and do investigate students' academic concerns. Both the Dean of the Faculty and the Dean of Students found that the Department had no case to answer with regard to this particular issue. If the role is to review grades then all academic staff need to be informed of this function of a Grievance Enquiry Team. Secondly, it raises further questions as to the role of a Grievance Enquiry Team. Their role should be clarified  from the outset and procedures should be thorough and consistent with this declared role. It is of concern that the terms of reference for a complaint were apparently dictated solely by the student's statement of an issue. NSW Universities first instituted grievance procedures in response to Universities being scheduled under Section IX (a) of the Anti Discrimination Act to deal with grievances, initially from staff, concerning discrimination on various grounds when few other mechanisms to hear complaints were provided within Universities. These procedures were extended to students at a later date and it seems at Newcastle University that the grounds upon which a grievance can be brought have been widened as to allow any matter about which a staff member or student wishes to complain. To be brought to the grievance procedures. This, in itself, seems a problematic situation when many other mechanisms now exist for dealing with particular matters and needs to be re-examined. Thirdly, there are implications for field?based educators related to professional courses who play a pivotal role in accordance with professional accreditation procedures and practices. Professional degrees rely on the goodwill and expertise of practitioners in the field. They have a fundamental and legitimate role to play in the academy and in the assessment of students. This is tacitly questioned by various comments made in the Grievance Enquiry team's report. 9    The Department of Social Work has placed students in over 600 placements. This is the first time that questions of this nature have arisen which strongly cast doubt on the Department's and Field Educators' accountability and professional integrity. In light of this and the arguments presented here we trust that our appeal meets with your favourable consideration and that our original decision about this student be upheld. The student is, of course, eligible to re enrol in SWRK 303, like any other student who has failed the subject, and will be able to repeat the placement and work towards achieving thelearning required at the designated time   10    Your sincerely, Head of Department   For, and on behalf of, staff of the Department of SOCIAL WORK:Alex Beveridge, Penny Crofts,  LIANE FLYNN Jill Gibbons, Mel Gray, Debbie Plath and Allison Rowlands

DEFAMATION is primarily a civil action where a person or entity seeks damages for loss of  Reputation from someone who has published defamatory material about them. There are three aspects to defamation publication, identification and damage to reputation. EXPERT EXPERT 2 GP REPORT GP REPORT 2   defamation is civil offence Dear Roger,  I think that this student is clinically disturbed The department has never used mental health as a criterion in assessing students. All students are judged according to the stated learning goals and assessment criteri4 for, each subject. It was on academic grounds that Ms Simundic failed SWRK 303 Field Education. I am concerned though that she could cause harm to a fellow student or staff member. I await your advice.  JO GAHA MENTAL HEALTH SOCIAL WORKER Social Work  Damages $10.000 Gaha - Law failure Gaha - Essay Gaha wont Help Gaha is Liar Gaha - Trauma Gaha lies to Dean Gaha - Gosford Gosford Grievance recommended reading      on..internet and Tue, October 30, 2001 RE; Students of social work - Uni of Newcastle  Dear VS Thank you for your letter I have read the attachment I have been lecturing in tertiary education for 31 years and during that  time I have  received three students' complaints of abuse. You will be interested to know that all three have been in the last 18 months and  all three came from Newcastle Uni. Yours..sincerely FredaBriggs@unisa.edu.au  this is your only option

Sociopaths never answer facts; they always attack the messenger Another very valuable red flag to recognize when trying to spot a sociopath is to see how they deal with attacks on their own integrity. If a sociopath is presented with a collection of facts, documents and evidence showing that he lied or deceived, he will refuse to address the evidence and, instead, attack the messenger! As an investigative journalist who exposes some of the most despicable sociopaths on the planet, I've been attacked on every front imaginable: I'm a secret government agent, they say Or I'm an alien from planet Zorg. I've heard it all, and while the accusations vary wildly, the pattern is the same: Attack the messenger but refuse to answer the documented allegations If you really try to nail a sociopath down to answering a documented allegation, they will quickly turn on you, denounce you, and declare that you too are secretly plotting against them. Anyone who does not fall for the brainwashing of the sociopath is sooner or later kicked out of the circle and then wildly disparaged by the remaining members of the cult group.

NOW, IF YOU SURVIVED UNI - YOU ARE AGAINST THE SMARTEST LAWYER NSW CAN OFFER   DO US A FAVOUR - REPORT THIS ABUSE ROBERT CRITTENDEN Level 38 201 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia T: +61 2 9286 8151 M: +61 434 076 439 In accordance with the orders made by Assistant Registrar Howe at the Directions Hearing on 22 August 2006, we set out our client's objections to your pleaded case of defamation in paragraphs 36 to 38 of the Amended Statement of Claim filed 7 April 2005 as follows;  1. Imputations 37.4 and 37.6 do not differ in substance   R.C.       1. Correct but the substance of Imputations 37.4 differ from Imputation 37.6 I believe you have overlook that Thank you V.S 2. Imputation 37.5 should be struck out, as it is imprecise and thus bad in form by the use of the phrase 'improper conduct of a serious nature’ The conduct is not specified nor is it said why the unspecified conduct was improper. R.C. 2. Imputation 37.5 should NOT be struck out as the phrase 'improper conduct of a serious nature’ as the unspecified conduct is unspecified and as such was NOT improper. 3. If the improper conduct referred to in imputation 37.5 is the sending of a threatening letter to another student, then it does not differ in substance from imputation 37.3. If the improper conduct is threatening other students and their safety then it does not differ in substance from imputations 37.4 and 37.6. If the improper conduct is making baseless or unsubstantiated allegations and defamatory comments about staff members then it does not differ in substance from imputation 37.2.  R.C. 3. Improper conduct does differ in substance as the substance as substance is conduct itself Imputation differ from substance and substance differ from allegation, as the allegation were against Ms Flynn – I will accept the substance as allegation but NOT defamation which makes defamation appropriate to raise as well as personal injury which in return makes your argument baseless or unsubstantiated debate and your approach towards substance from imputation 37.4 should be struck out.  I will seek that your objection to strike out my request for compensation is struck out due to luck of substance Thank you. VS 4. We look forward to receiving your response to our client's objections R.C.   4  What?  You lost me here. ps to work in Phillips Fox do you have to complete year 12? Thank you, Vesna (advice If you want to stay sane, you have to have good sense of humour Don’t take all of this too seriously, it can blow your brain out)    ( '-'  )    (._. )    ( ._. )    (  '-'  )     ( ._.)    (  '-' )

1770 Captain James Cook claims possession of the whole east coast of Australia for the British Crown Many history classes and books start teaching Australian history from this point on 1788 Captain Phillip raises the Union Jack at Sydney Cove to start a penal colony Aboriginal resistance flares within a few days of arrival of the tall ship Go tell  the Spartans , passerby, That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.' 11/2/2007 AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS LIFE EXPECTANCY AMONG WORLD’S POOREST Please explain… Australia cant explain because we are the eight richest country in the world Australian population in 1788 was 750,000, or three times the previous estimate They concluded that more than 600,000 Indigenous people had died as result of white settlement'