Nick Coyle
FOI co-ordinator
Screen Australia
Level 4
150 William St
Woolloomooloo 2011
Dear Nick
Your response to my FOI request makes it clear that Screen Australia
considers that all of my correspondence with the organization this past few
years contains evidence of my “intimidating, harassing and placing Screen
Australia staff at risk.” This pretty much guarantees that the Supreme Court
case will be a long one and it will not surprise me if the presiding Judge
scratches his or her head in wonderment at the argument being presented by
Screen Australia’s counsel to back up this assertion.
The first and most obvious observation to make about the result of my
FOI request is that it does not include, as requested, the correspondence Fiona
Cameron refers to in her letter of 10th Nov 2010. To refresh your
memory:
“Unfortunately it appears from your
correspondence that you came away from that meeting with an understanding that
your application for further funding for Chanti’s World had been effectively
green lit. This is not the case. Nor could it be.”
If the correspondence Fiona claims I have written does in fact exist I
have been wasting the time of a lot of people by continuing to ask for it this
past 18 months. (Mind you, Fiona could have identified it 18 months ago when
first asked to do so!) If the correspondence does not exist, which I claim to
be the case, Fiona has allowed this dispute to fester this past 18 months based
on a false premise. So too have Ruth Harley and the Screen Australia Board. Indeed, it is clearly Screen Australia’s
contention that my continuing to ask Fiona to produce the correspondence is
evidence of the crime for which I have been banned, as you make clear, Nick, by
including the following on the first page of evidence you sent to me of my
“intimidating, harassing and placing Screen Australia staff at risk,” written
by myself to Fiona on 25th Nov. 2010.
Contrary to what you say in your letter, I have never suggested, in any
of my correspondence that the meeting with Ross and Julia on August 25th.
was “to discuss, let alone pre-empt a funding decision on, the merits of any
particular documentary project.” You have set up a straw man here, Fiona,
misrepresenting the context to make it seem that I came away from the meeting
in the expectation that CHANTI’S WORLD “had been effectively green lit.” (The
word ‘disingenuous springs to mind!) Please, Fiona, point to any one statement
in any of my correspondence that suggests or even implies that I believed
CHANTI’S WORLD had been green lit? You will not find one. To suggest this is an
insult to both my professionalism and my integrity.
This is the question I have been asking for more than
20 months now – my continued asking of it now constituting evidence of my
placing Screen Australia staff at risk!
Nick, could you please, at this late hour, provide me
with copies of the correspondence that Fiona Cameron claims I wrote in which I
made it clear that I believed ‘Chanti’s World’ had been greenlit. Please do not
send me every email or letter I have ever sent to Fiona. I would like to have
copies of the specific correspondence that Fiona is referring to. Given that it
is now five months since I made this request through FOI could you please
provide me with copies of this correspondence today or identify by date and
mode of transmission (email or letter) when I sent them.
best wishes
James Ricketson
James, you deserve a gold medal for perseverence and a silver medal for stupidity. You will probably win your case in the Supreme Court and have the ban lifted but it will be a Phyrric victory. All that will change is that the ban will become unofficial rather than official and there will be not a thing you can do about it.
ReplyDelete