Ministry of Justice workers call researcher a 'bitch' in online conversation
Ministry of Justice workers call researcher a 'bitch' in online conversation
Researcher Barbara Sumner discovered the "deeply disturbing" conversation through an Official Information Act request.
Two Ministry of Justice workers are in hot water for describing a researcher as a "bitch" in an online conversation.
Academic and author Barbara Sumner made a number of Official Information Act requests as part of her PhD research into the systems around adoption. Then, in October last year, she asked for all correspondence mentioning her by name.
"Because I had felt all along that there was a resistance to everything I sent in and you know, just the sort of snottiness, I guess, of some of the responses that came in that request. I wanted to understand how they were treating me throughout the process."
One page of the response stood out among more than 100 others. A November 2022 Teams conversation between two staffers, whose names were redacted, complained about Sumner's latest request.
They described it as "a waste of time" and said it "should have been refused on the ground of substantial collation" or that the ministry should "charge her for it and get a contractor".
"our ministerial services team sucks cuz they wouldnt let us refuse, and helen didnt push back hard [sic]," one worker wrote.
"but also shes a bitch for wanting everything. does she think govt just has unlimited resources for this type of crap lol.
"like theres no public interest in our emails back and forward."
You're viewing a single thread.
Any thoughts on this? I tend to think anyone that asks for all correspondence relating to them is kinda being a dick unless they have a good reason, and we only get one side of the story here. And it probably depends on the person but I don't find the language used here to be particularly strong, as in I interpret this as meaning she's being annoying, but I would acknowledge not everyone would see it that way.
Plus it tends to be SovCits or similar that request everything held about themselves, and it's a bitch to collate because no one has a system that you just click a button and all emails, chats, comments, and notes from everywhere all come together in one place.
However, I think the staff have it wrong. The information is about herself, so it's a Privacy Act request and not an Official Information Act request. Goverment agencies can't charge for Privacy Act Requests (Unless something changed in the new Act, it's been over a decade since I was near this stuff).
My thoughts are that there are no villains here.
a) being annoyed at being overworked is understandable. (Writing what you really think/personal opinions in an institutional email is crazy though - save it for ftf).
b) wanting access to information for a major research project is also understandable and it's not her fault they are overworked.
c) she's an ex journalist and filmmaker and her current research seems to be about the web of lies and ommissions surrounding historical closed adoptions.
The only way anyone has ever got any traction on institutional "secrets" - everything from baby theft adoptions of the 1960s, child abuse in boarding schools in the 70s, the "Unfortunate Experiment" killing women at National Womens in the 80s, etc etc has been by being a "bitch" and pushing the authorities for information they don't want to part with.
OTOH as an ex journo she knows talking to the media about this will create a bit of buzz around her forthcoming research.
and her current research seems to be about the web of lies and ommissions surrounding historical closed adoptions.
Wow, I didn't see this in the article but that provides some much needed context!
OTOH as an ex journo she knows talking to the media about this will create a bit of buzz around her forthcoming research.
Yeah this is probably what's happening here. With the above context I can definitely see why she made the request. It was dumb for the staff to put that in writing, but I don't think they should lose their job over it. Her making such a big deal seemed on the surface to be just someone making a big deal, but you're probably right that as an author and ex journalist she is probably trying to get in the media to build some buzz and recognition for when her research is released.
It got me interested in her other work! Turns out I've actually seen one of her documentaries, it's this thing about a Maori family who breed horses in the Ruakines, plays on Maori TV sometimes.
Relevant to OP article though, found this in a review of her book:
As she tells her story, she very clearly identifies the cause of the suffering of those involved in adoption, the archaic 1955 Adoption Act. A policy formed on an ideology that total disconnection between adopted children and their biological parents was essential.
“In all, I had over seventy interactions with government departments. The result was always the same. Yes, they had my files. Yes, any staff member could read those files. But no, I had no right to them.”
If that was her experience, then going forward, feeling like you were being obstructed in an OIA process would reopen a few old wounds. Especially when now here she is at uni and trying to undertake academic research.
I think many people don't realise these days how bad adoption in NZ was, you sort of have to hear about it from the old timers. Teenage"unmarried mothers" were taken to special facilities and when they gave birth their babies were taken, even against their will/without consent in some cases, and never allowed to know who their parents were or why they were adopted or even what their own ethnicity was.
It got me interested in her other work!
No, that's what she's trying to make you do!
Sorry, gotta break up the seriousness. Back to serious face.
I've got some limited knowledge on adoption stuff, and yeah, some pretty awful processes. I'm tempted to say it was a different time, but I'm pretty convinced we* will find out in 50 years about terrible things happening today that would horrify future generations and probably horrify current generations.
* Well maybe not us specifically, 50 years is a long time in the future
No, that’s what she’s trying to make you do!
I mean I mentioned it because it's working on me!
Wait why aren't you going to be around in 50 years? Live to 100 go on I dare you.
I have no desire to live to 100! But maybe now I know about anticholinergic burden I might be able to be a sprightly 100 year old.
I used to know a sprightly 100 year old who still lived alone in their own home. Their longevity advice was "don't eat too many takeaways"! Bet they had a low anticholinergic burden though 😃
You've got to be careful with single data points. There are also 100 years olds saying the secret to longevity is a whiskey before breakfast, and a pack of cigarettes a day to keep the bugs away.
Yeah I'm not going to let it get between me and takeaways ha ha.
Seriously though as well as being a single data point it was self-reported and I noticed it changed depending on the interlocuter - from memory they told the local paper that the secret is going to church.
I'm pretty sure the real secret behind living a really long time is some combination of genetics and statistics (as in, if you have a 0.0001% chance of living that long, if you apply this to 8B people then you get 8,000 of these people).
She did the request for her own info because she suspected staff were dragging their heels with her other requests, and the request for her own info proved her suspicions were well-founded.
Asking for information on how a section of government operates should be commended, not discouraged. The government works for the people and their operations should be transparent. Doubly so when they act like they have something to hide.
But, Ive been a staff member who had a bad day and found a customer's legitimate request frustrating - "this is the last thing I needed" - so I have some level of sympathy for the staffers too.
Yeah, I fully support government transparency and see the need for it. I guess I've only seen this from one side, which is the side where you're being ask for this info but you're unable to correct the media because you can't give out personal information, so the media gets a one sided story.
I guess my main feeling was that the headline "Ministry of Justice workers call researcher a 'bitch' in online conversation" sounds really bad, but the sentence it's used it to me feels a lot softer.
On the other hand, there's really no excuse for a staff member whose job it is to respond to OIA and Privacy Act requests to not recognise that these chat conversations would be part of what is returned to her.
Part of their job is to respond to OIA requests.
That those requests might take effort is irrelevant, or at least considered by higher-ups before directing staff to assemble the OIA material.
The PhD had among the strongest reasons for her principal requests: research. That she felt that something was slightly off is relevant: if her requests have been responded to without proper care then her research is flawed.
She likey was looking for evidence that some of her requests were not properly responded to... instead she found a personal attack.
This is possibly a mismanagement problem.
"You must deliver this project in this timeframe, no matter what additional requests come through"So workers see these requests as an impediment to their progress.
This doesn't excuse the staffers behavior, but I imagine they were under some sort of pressure.Part of their job is to respond to OIA requests.
On thinking about this, this is relevant for another reason: they know that the chat information will be provided, so they have no excuse for their comments regardless of context.
She likey was looking for evidence that some of her requests were not properly responded to… instead she found a personal attack.
I don't think I quite got this on my first reading. But on scanning through the article again, I think you're right. My bias is that people ask for all information about themselves as a sort of punishment for staff not doing what they want. I have this bias because it happens all the time. But this case is different, it's about a feeling that the information provided may not be correct, which is important when it's for research.