The answer to this will be in the unfolding. Up to now, I would call Katrina’s behaviour malignant, but if this further behaviour is true, then, in my view transmogrifies to something close to evil. (Katrina Casey is, as some will know, the deputy secretary of education intimately involved in the Salford case.)
In a recent posting in the Attack! series (10) the introduction said:
Schools are ineffably sensitive to any education system change. What appears the tiniest change at the top can escalate to severe dislocation for teachers and the curriculum at the bottom. In most Western countries, those in charge of education systems have devised a managerialist system of separating the administration of the education system and role of principal, from teachers and classroom practice. This is done by having those in administration inculcated in the values of the centre so that the values and purposes of schools don’t get in the way of the values and purposes of the centralised agencies. People are purposely chosen for administration on the basis of no experience in education, or no experience in that part of education, or being highly amenable to the centre’s values. From the centre’s view, this has the further advantage of desensitising those undertaking actions to the effect of those actions on schools, and of demeaning the value of the knowledge held in schools and the professionalism of those involved.
And that, on contemplation, is where I see you Katrina. Your inexperience in education seems to have desensitised you to the effects of your actions on schools; as well, you probably think the behaviours you are being asked to carry out on behalf of Hekia Parata are somehow the norm, but they are far from that. In using the expression close to evil, I am using the components of expediency, constructed ignorance, and selfishness.
In this posting, I am not looking in any depth at ministry behaviour past, which I have already recounted as notorious, but ministry behaviour present.
In the employment court, Judge Corkill found against the ministry, saying that Marlene Campbell’s sacking was unjustified and unlawful, and awarded $82,000 in salary, also ordering a substantial amount in costs to be determined. The commissioner involved was Nicola Hornsey, an employment lawyer would you believe? and before Hornsey was Peter Macdonald as statutory manager.
But following the court judgement Katrina, through Salford School, (though you deny ministry involvement ha ha!) you decided to appeal the costs to the Court of Appeal. You did not directly challenge the decision of unjustifiable dismissal; you used Salford School to challenge the costs. It was an excuse to go to the hugely expensive Court of Appeal on the pretext of getting Marlene Campbell to pay some costs to Salford.
You are using the resources of the state to drive a wonderful Southland, South Island, and New Zealand girl into the ground. There is nothing to lose except taxpayers’ money, even something to gain by polishing off Marlene Campbell through ill-health, striking more fear into schools, and delaying the day when you could well be forced to release information by the ombudsman which might have you taken to court for criminal behaviour.
You are trying to get Marlene Campbell to pay costs to Salford School – costs to Salford School resulting from your illegal behaviour to Marlene, already determined by a court. Can you see why I think this is behaviour close to evil? As a moral being Katrina, you have the human right and responsibility to behave within an acceptable moral code.
On Friday, 4 December Katrina, you met with Denise Torrey, president of the NZPF, and she put a number of questions to you on behalf of Marlene Campbell.
You told Denise (by the way, well done Denise for approaching Katrina):
- that you were ‘absolutely adamant that the MoE wants this [the Campbell case] to go away’
- ‘they [that is the ministry] have not directed anyone to recover the fees [costs]’
- ‘we deny that we are involved’
- ‘There is an insurance company and they instructed the commissioner to appeal the costs’
- ‘it was the insurer to the commissioner to the courts’
- ‘not the MoE and their insurer’
- ‘The commissioner is independent of the MoE’
- ‘It is the school who pays the commissioner not the MoE’
- ‘Under the legislation the commissioner and board are independent of the MoE.’
Denise in her letter to Marlene says ‘If the commissioner has been told to seek recovery of costs those orders came from the schools insurer, whoever they are. As you know I have no influence on either the insurer or the commissioner. With the MoE vehement denials, unless you have proof they are directly involved I’m sorry I can’t help anymore.’
A rather weak au revoir by Denise: did you not smell a rat when Katrina said that: ‘the commissioner is independent of the MOE’ and further on ‘Under the legislation the commissioner and board are independent of the MoE.’?
What legislation is that? Of all the parts of the education system, surely a commissioner and board are the least likely parts to be independent.
You could prove me wrong Katrina, but I suspect that every one of your statements is a lie, and if all or most are, what does that say about your behaviour?
If you are ‘absolutely adamant that the MoE wants this to go away’ why are you stalling on the payment of the salary awarded to Marlene Campbell – an award that is not legally challengeable?
Is Vero the name of this mysterious insurance company referred to?
Can you verify if Vero, which you say is controlling events with the commissioner – is actually still involved with the Salford case?
Can you confirm or deny whether Vero walked away from Salford because of Peter Macdonald’s illegal behaviour (I have no absolute proof it did walk away, just knowledge of how insurance companies respond – my strong belief is that there is no insurance company).
Will you release the correspondence between Hornsey and the ministry that confirms that Vero instructed the commissioner to appeal costs, all completely independent of the ministry?
Would you refer to the legislation, or any legislation, that has a commissioner independent of the ministry?
Would you refer to the legislation, or any legislation, that has a board independent of the ministry?
Can you confirm or deny the ministry has retained a high-charging law firm (Duncan Cotterill) to be involved in the costs case?
In the case of Salford, are you lying when you say the school not the MoE paid the commissioner?
When you refer to the board, aren’t you really referring to the commissioner, because, in effect, the commissioner is the board?
Katrina: I have information that the Salford School at the beginning of the process had about $60,000 in its bank account, and that after that, nearly all the statutory and commissioner costs were paid by the ministry
Leaving aside the purely transaction side, why do you say it is the school that pays the commissioner not the MoE? This seems another lie wrapped in a deception.
OK – you deny this. How about some evidence from my side?
Thursday, 6 June 2013 minutes of a meeting with Peter Macdonald, Nikki Hosking (MoE) and board chair:
‘Peter’s invoices will continue to go to the school, and then the school is to invoice the Ministry of Education.’
And then the killer nailing the lie: ‘When the financial assistance was originally offered, the school would have to pay this back, but given the situation Salford has been granted – the school has no additional funds paid and for that reason they do not have to repay the additional funding back.’
Katrina, I believe you are lying when you say the ministry is not ultimately behind the decision to challenge the costs but I will consider any information you provide to the contrary. What you have done to the texture of school education is monstrous; what you seem to be intent on continuing is close to evil. Perhaps in your ignorance you are unmindful of the consequences of your behaviour. But if I am right, I call on you to resign – under a better morality, following orders is no excuse. If I am wrong – I will carefully detail that wrongness and sincerely apologise.