 |
| Peter Rathjen, former VC and president, U Adelaide |
Such is the fate of Australian scientist Peter Rathjen, immediate past Vice-Chancellor and president of the University of Adelaide. Today in Australia, Bruce Lander, an Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, released a statement about his investigation of Rathjen, who has a long history of sexual misconduct.
The statement, a brief summary of a much longer report that is being kept secret, outlines Rathjen's latest abuses, which included the sexual harassment (including unwanted sexual touching) of two women employed by the University of Adelaide. Lander found that their allegations of harassment (or perhaps more properly, assault) after a university function in April 2019 were true. Lander also found that Rathjen lied both to him and the university's Chancellor about a number of matters related to his past misconduct.
I was gratified to see (pp. 5-6 and 8 of Lander's statement) that the inquiry included questions about prior misconduct that I had previously published on this blog. My first mention of allegations against Rathjen were very brief, part of a much longer report in July 2019 on bullying and sexual harassment by the former director of the University of Adelaide's ancient DNA lab, Alan Cooper. More recently, I expanded on those allegations, in a blog post last May. When confronted with these allegations, Rathjen lied about them several times, as Lander reports.
The report also confirms one of the most serious allegations against Rathjen, that he sexually assaulted a student while science dean at the University of Melbourne. I had originally withheld the name of the university involved at the request of a colleague of the victim of that attack, but since it is now public--and widely reported in the Australian media--there is no longer any point in doing so. This also raises serious questions about whether multiple institutions in Australia "passed the harasser" despite their knowledge of Rathjen's misconduct, thus allowing him to undeservedly climb to the summits of academia.
Indeed, there are already signs of damage control across Australian universities. Here, for example, is a message sent by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania on the heels of the ICAC report. Note that Vice-Chancellor Rufus Black states that an investigation at UTAS found no evidence that Rathjen had committed sexual harassment or sexual assault while there. He didn't need to, however. As I reported, while Vice-Chancellor at UTAS, Rathjen protected a convicted pedophile from being kicked off campus even after he had re-offended, and despite a campaign led by #MeToo activist Nina Funnell and others to get the university to do the right thing.
From:
Professor Rufus Black <listserv@UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject:
Peter Rathjen ICAC report released | We stand ready to support our community
Date:
26 August 2020 at 9:33:56 am GMT+2
Reply-To:
<vice.chancellor@UTAS.EDU.AU>
|
|||
|
|||
|
Black's letter is typical, and will be typical going forward, of attempts by university administrators to jump clear of the Rathjen scandal and claim that they either did nor know or took action as soon as they did know. And they will point to the fact that Rathjen (and thus perhaps his victims) finally got justice as proof that the system works. Actually, it does not work very often, as the failure of the University of Melbourne to alert the academic community about Rathjen's crimes indicates.
At the University of Adelaide, for example, officials continue to look the other way despite clear abuses in the School of Education and the dental school, situations on which I have also reported (see the long, long list of comments on this blog post for details about the dental school and allegations of bullying, mismanagement, and abuse.)
I'd like to end on a personal note, one which I find amusing, as serious as it is. As readers of this blog know, I have been sued for defamation by University of California, Santa Barbara archaeologist Danielle Kurin, whose misconduct I have reported on extensively. As part of the "evidence" that I falsely accuse academics of being sexual predators and the like, Kurin includes a number of examples. One of them, mentioned in section 44 of her Amended Complaint, is none other than that of Peter Rathjen.
Update August 27: Elise Worthington and Conor Duffy of Australia's ABC have more today on the University of Melbourne investigation, which Rathjen lied about when asked, according to the ICAC statement. Serious sexual misconduct is a euphemism here for sexual assault.
Update August 28: Adelaide bully and enabler express their concerns about the ICAC report and Rathjen.
As usually happens when an institution suddenly faces a public scandal, its leaders have issued statements to the rank and file expressing their concerns and assuring everyone that they are there to listen. The first of these comes from Faye McCallum, head of the School of Education, whose own history of bullying I reported on earlier; the second from Mike Brooks, who has been appointed interim Vice-Chancellor and President to replace Rathjen, and who earlier (as Deputy VC for Research) was a key enabler of Alan Cooper, ancient DNA director at Adelaide fired for bullying students and postdocs.
Note that McCallum says everything is going to calm down and advises staff not to talk to the media. Only when staff started talking to the media did anything start to change.
Dear Colleagues
Earlier this week the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) issued a public statement and findings following his inquiry into allegations of improper conduct by the University’s former Vice-Chancellor, Peter Rathjen. Professor Rathjen was found guilty of serious misconduct under the ICAC Act.
ICAC made no findings of maladministration or misconduct about any person other than the former Vice-Chancellor.
Findings about the former Vice-Chancellor are deeply shocking. I acknowledge the distress caused to the victims impacted by the behaviour of the former Vice-Chancellor.
This news will have been profoundly disturbing to staff and students as well as members of our wider community.
As our Chancellor, Ms Catherine Branson AC QC, has repeatedly stated, the former Vice-Chancellor’s conduct is unacceptable. It is grossly at odds with the values, conduct and behaviour expected of any staff member. The University is fortunate to have had the benefit of the Chancellor’s exemplary leadership over the period of the ICAC inquiry.
All of the recommendations made by ICAC to improve or clarify our policies and procedures have been accepted in full.
I strongly encourage any staff or students who have experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment to come forward and report it tocomplaints@adelaide.edu.
Along with the senior leadership, I am personally committed to fostering a culture and environment in which staff and students can thrive and feel safe, valued and welcome. All members of our community deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and collegiality.
Kind regards
Mike
Professor Mike Brooks FTSE FACS
Interim Vice-Chancellor and President
The University of Adelaide | Adelaide SA 5005
Update August 30: There has been a huge amount of media coverage in Australia about Rathjen's final downfall, which I have not been posting here because I assume that readers in Australia at least are seeing much of it (and a frustrating amount of it is behind firewalls, meaning I can't read a lot of it myself.) But I did want to link to this very good piece in The Guardian by Tory Shepherd. Tory was one of the first journalists to begin reporting on the rot inside the University of Adelaide (aside from me, of course) back when I was reporting on the many abuses of former ancient DNA director Alan Cooper. She also was very good about crediting the work of the reporter who broke the Cooper story, something that both Science and Nature refused to do in their own coverage of the firing of one of ancient DNA's leading pioneers.
As I have said many times, the most important reason to credit the previous work of other journalists is not professional courtesy--although journalistic ethics actually requires it--but to put readers in the picture about how particular stories came about. In the Cooper case, for example, it was important for readers to know that former members of his lab had approached a reporter and told their stories, and that only then had the university begun its own investigation. By not mentioning this, Science, Nature, and any other publication that failed to cite the previous reporting gave readers the false impression that the University of Adelaide had simply begun the investigation because it was concerned about protecting its staff--rather than the truth, which is that Adelaide was concerned about protecting its reputation.
In the case of Peter Rathjen, fortunately, the ICAC statement specifically referred to my previous reporting (pp. 5-6) and the role it played in the investigation, which makes it (more) difficult for media accounts to ignore it.
In Tory Shepherd's case, as I say above, she was always good about not only professional courtesy but also providing that essential context for readers. In her Guardian piece, Tory points out that Rathjen's reputation for sleaziness was long known:
"But to many in South Australia’s academic world, the finding was hardly surprising.
Rumours about Peter Rathjen’s conduct have been swirling for years. After his appointment in 2018, he became a well-known mover and shaker in Adelaide, a deal-maker. He was media savvy, often described as charming. In private, he was often described to Guardian Australia as sleazy."
and:
"The incident has prompted obvious disgust at Rathjen’s behaviour but also questions about the university’s handling of the complaints, about its culture and about its payout to Rathjen.
“The number of people expressing a total lack of surprise at this finding is absolutely damning,” prominent University of New South Wales academic Darren Saunders tweeted.
“The number of people in power who ignored the ‘rumours’, particularly those who were still in Adelaide when he returned … or those he knew in other places and didn’t say or do anything … if people who have the power and authority to make change don’t, who will?” former University of Adelaide postdoctoral fellow Hannah Brown replied."
The fall of Rathjen is a promising sign that a combination of action by fed up colleagues on the inside of the corrupt system, monitored and reported by journalists, can begin to lead to changes. There are a LOT of other well known sexual predators and bullies out there still, and I would to think that their days are numbered--along with those of the hierarchical, inhumane system that put them there and still allows them to thrive.
Update August 31, 2020: Protests at University of Adelaide.
From The Advertiser:
Update August 31, 2020: Protests at University of Adelaide.
From The Advertiser:
TERTIARY
Adelaide Uni students protest, demand review
into Peter Rathjen’s time at Adelaide Uni after
ICAC finding
Chris Russell, The Advertiser
August 31, 2020 5:10pm
Subscriber only
The culture at Adelaide University that allowed former vice-chancellor Peter Rathjen to run the institution – even while under investigation for misconduct – must change, student leaders said on Monday.
Calling for a review into Prof Rathjen’s tenure, about 100 students and staff attended a protest on the university campus on Monday.
“We need to make sure decisions have not been influenced by the vice-chancellor’s inability to understand sexual consent,” student union board member Arabella Wauchope said.
The protest was called following the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bruce Lander finding Prof Rathjen committed “serious misconduct” by groping two women staff members during a work trip to Sydney in April 2019.
Prof Rathjen also lied about his behaviour.
Stella Salvemini, president of the Women’s Collective, which organised
the protest, said students were upset they were kept in the dark about the investigation for so long.
“We hope the new Chancellor, Catherine Branson, will involve student
representatives in what the university does going forward,” she said.
“We have faith in her because of her background as a former head of the Australian Human Rights Commission. “We expect her to do a good job in cleaning up the culture.”
SRC women’s officer Rebecca Etienne said students had been angry and distressed by the ICAC report.
Ms Branson has pledged to adopt all recommendations made by Mr Lander to improve governance and policies aimed at eliminating sexual harassment but has not demanded Prof Rathjen repay his settlement payout.
However, Sharna Bremner, from a group called End Rape On Campus, said the university had previously promised to follow a very similar set of recommendations made in 2017 by the Human Rights Commission.
The university had self-reported it met those earlier pledges.
The Women’s Collective will present a petition to the university administration.
Pictured (image not available): University of Adelaide Women's Collective
president Stella Salvemini with fellow student leaders
Rebecca Etienne and Arabella Wauchope.
And from the Adelaide Women's Collective (with apologies for the poor quality image:)
And from the Adelaide Women's Collective (with apologies for the poor quality image:)
Update September 3, 2010: A letter from the University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor
It took some time, but the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Duncan Maskell, finally got around to making a statement about the Peter Rathjen affair--although with extreme delicacy. Peter Rathjen is a "former senior leader from this University," and what was clearly referred to as serious sexual misconduct in the Lander statement is now "an incident that occurred." Here is the statement, comment afterwards:
A statement far more to the point was made earlier by the president of the University of Melbourne Student Union and others:
Statement on sexual harassment conducted by Professor Peter Rathjen — 28 August 2020
Hannah Buchan, UMSU President
Aria Sunga and Naomi Smith, Officer Bearers UMSU Women’s Department
CW: Sexual Assault and Harassment
.
The UMSU Womenʻs Department is disgusted to hear of the sexual harassment committed by Peter Rathjen, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide. We condemn the University of Melbourne’s complicity in allowing a perpetrator of sexual harm to continue work in the University sector.
Yesterday, the South Australian Independent Commision Against Corruption (ICAC) announced that it found that Professor Peter Rathjen, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, had committed serious misconduct by sexually harassing two colleagues in 2019. An ABC investigation has found that a former employer of the Rahtjen, the University of Melbourne, was aware of previous cases where Rathjen had harassed people and yet they failed to inform the University of Adelaide.
Professor Rathjen was employed at the University of Melbourne from 2006 to 2011. And it was during this time that a former student alleged he committed serious sexual misconduct while he was the Dean of Science between 2006 to 2008.
The student reported this case to the University of Melbourne in May of 2018 and the University upheld the misconduct complaint. Despite upholding the misconduct complaint the University failed to refer the new findings to the University of Adelaide – where Professor Rathjen was Vice-Chancellor. Their failure to refer to these findings enabled Rathjen to continue to offend at another University campus.
This is not the first case that has been in the media this year where the University reveals its negligence and complicitness in its responses to cases of sexual assault and harassment. It is time the University or Melbourne owned up and took responsibility for sexual assault and a harassment that occurs within the University community. The University again is showing its true colours where it upholds perpetrators in power rather than survivors. We are deeply concerned with the clearly consistent amateur approach that the University takes with responding to sexual assault and harassment. The University must do better.
UMSU also unequivocally stands with survivors – we hear you, we believe you, and we support you.
We call on the University to:
- To adequately respond to the allegations that they failed to inform the University of Adelaide of the misconduct findings against Rathjen.
- To release appropriately anonymised data on the outcomes of their sexual harassment misconduct cases.
- To appoint external investigators, with appropriate sexual assault and harassment sensitivity training, for all sexual assault and harassment misconduct cases.
- To increase funding and resources to the Safer Community program and ensure all itʻs processes are independent from the University.
In the coming days we will be penning an open letter to the Vice-Chancellor Duncan Maksell, asking him to respond to our demands, and also creating a petition to collect student signatures in support of this letter. We will not rest until the University takes responsibility for their complicity and makes substantial institutional changes.
Find the ABC article here: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/12601766?__twitter_impression=true
If this has brought up any issues or concerns for you, we encourage you to contact the following services:
Centre Against Sexual Assault House http://www.casahouse.com.au/
Phone 24 Hour hotline: 03 9635 3610
1800 Respect:
https://www.1800respect.org.au/
Phone: 1800 737 732, Interpreter: 13 14 50
UMSU Sexual Harm and Response Coordinator; Dr. Patrick Tidmarsh: patrick.tidmarsh@union.unimelb.edu.au
Unimelb Safer Communities: https://safercommunity.unimelb.edu.au/
Phone: 9035 8675
I will let a current professor from the University of Melbourne, who asked not to be identified, comment on the Maskell letter:
"These are fine sentiments. However, those who protected Rathjen in the interests of protecting their institutional reputations are now scrambling to dissociate themselves from him. You can read here that Duncan Maskell joined the university in January 2019. He quotes himself from that time, where he states that he has zero tolerance for sexual harassment. That was well before Rathjen was found 'guilty' of sexual assault. Despite Maskell’s strong words, no public announcement was made, and the universities of Adelaide and Tasmania were not informed. Maskell himself 'passed the harasser'. This on the pretext of protecting the victim. Of course, there was no necessity to name the victim or even the details of the sexual assault. Conveniently, this meant there were no consequences for Rathjen, as he was a former employee and not subject to sanction, and no reputational damage to the University of Melbourne from it becoming known that senior academics there sexually assault postgraduate students."
![Peter Rathjen: Serial sexual predator, pedophile protector, and manifestation of all that is rotten at the University of Adelaide? [Update July 20, 2020: Rathjen resigns due to "ill health"]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv2zZDdkMCZ682nm_jjaMKj10YQlHM_1NXSBgpRCHqJJXltcoS7wFYbh8aYMX_M8EEkiW-gBGZTxuW6icTYY5hrPEDlBalEStHCvh6wWUS6Pl30v6Jhw45a726-uLQKtPE1tuCq9MyXqRV/w680/Rathjen.jpeg)
![](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-truth-at-last-or-at-least-some-of.html?m=1&media=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTTYlLfJJPciFfe5iknlB2hbK8jYC5SDgoJTGaFKZBvgKVDAjUHzXjHFifYPzrixQgmQPW0Udsk6Y3OMLjmJd4rCxY352IA9Nwt2DlSscScArhuGqGpsiLozqx1A2xzK2I0_u_HOjwQlfn/s320/Rathjen.jpg&description=The truth at last, or at least some of it, about Peter Rathjen, the U of Adelaide, the U of Melbourne, the U of Tasmania, etc. [Updated Sept 3, 2020: University of Melbourne "leader" finally speaks]){kind=link}
811 Comments
Both Logan and Kile are incompetent and the cause of the problems. As long as they hold the power, there is no hope.
Q8. Are you confident that the School senior management team have the personal attributes and leadership skills that the role require?
Comments:
Our Dean has not demonstrated by word or action that he possesses any leadership qualities and skills. Furthermore, although I believe he is trying to do his best, I'm concerned that he is unaware of his leadership shortcomings and/or how to develop as a leader.
In 2018, we had a recently graduated student attempt suicide on campus and the leadership was absent. That same year, we also lost a recently retired senior staff member and friend and again the leadership failed to support staff at the school.
The Dean and Head of School does not have the interpersonal skills to manage staff and is ill equipped to perform the role. He is absent from important functions and meetings and the odd time he does attend has to leave early or is checking his mobile phone continually.
There is a serious deficit in professional behaviour, language, correspondence and general interpersonal skills. Statements are often inaccurate or incorrect however they are not withdrawn nor an apology forthcoming when it is evident that she is wrong.
For the many years I've been with the University and other organisations, I've never seen a management team that is more out of touch with the staff and students.
I have had a multi decade career in dental education and have never been subjected to this autocratic style of management. I cannot refer to them as leaders, as the personal attributes they demonstrate are not aligned to leadership, but more aligned to a dictatorship!
Q9. Are you confident that the Faculty senior management team have the personal attributes and leadership skills that the role require?
Faculty senior management appear to be either unaware or uncaring about how the School is required to operate and so the decisions made at faculty level, for example about staffing, workload, student intake, professional staff support do not take account of our needs.
I have been bitterly disappointed with the fact that our new ED [Ben Kile] has not been out to the school to introduce himself, get to know and talk to staff. This signals to me that there is very little interest in getting to know what is affecting our people and devising a strategy for growth and leverage of talent. There is a lack of transparency in relation to budgeting and where priorities exist for the faculty as we move into the future.
When staff have raised issues of bullying, workload, lack of support, lack of leadership action, poor culture, faculty HR have failed to act on the bigger things that affect us daily.
I have seen no evidence that they have any interest in understanding how a Dental School operates. Faculty support is commonly ineffective and some responses to the sorts of help that were promised under the PSR are offensive.
Comments:
I have seen documents passed on from management to faculty that directly discredits the work ethic and work histories of a number of strong senior long term employees.
All of the above! Every time I am in the office I observe/hear the Dental School Manger acting inappropriately towards staff and academics. Verbally, in email and face to face the behaviour is inappropriate and confrontational. Callous indifference and mocking is "usual behaviour".
The School Manager has been caught out many times discussing staff members in very inappropriate ways. I was part of the BOH Curriculum Review Taskforce and witnessed the Dean allowing extremely disrespectful submissions to be tabled.
I have evidence of these submissions which are written accounts of the level of bullying that we have been subjected to.
SHAME ON YOU, RICHARD LOGAN, BEN KILE AND ALL THE SENIOR MANAGERS AT DEPUTY VC, PRO VC AND INTERIM VC. SHAME ON THE CHANCELLOR FOR LETTING THIS HAPPEN.
Q4. Have you seen examples where excessive workload or staffing shortage compromised patient safety and care?
I have seen clinics being cancelled, patients being frequently moved, and changes in treatment plans given the lack of back up staff (particularly early in 2019 when we were told explicitly that we were to cancel clinics if we needed to take sick leave).
Some staff have been asked to supervise students in clinics where lack of recency of clinic practice or specialist expertise compromises their ability to adequately supervise students, and also potentially compromises patient safety. For example, some staff are required to supervise students administering LA to children or perform more complex procedures without recency of practice, or it is outside their scope of practice. Some staff have taken annual or long service leave to avoid being put in a compromising position in clinic.
Supervision, case-note records and quality of discussions and care compromised when ratios increased due to staff absences and Tutor/s exhausted from consecutive long days and travel.
Q5. Have you been pressured into working outside your discipline or work area? Does staff shortage contribute to this?
I have seen many distressing examples of colleagues being sent to clinical supervision in areas that they are not comfortable with. Staff shortage, ever increasing funding cuts and mismanagement (poor leadership) are the key reasons for this.
The survey results reference claims of bullying and harassment within the School. However, I confirm that the University has not received any formal complaints of bullying or harassment from the Adelaide Dental School since the appointment of the current Dean. It is acknowledged that over the years, informal concerns have arisen and the Faculty has worked closely with the staff members involved and such matters have been resolved. I am not aware of any ongoing matters.
I note that during our meetings it was confirmed that, while there are no formal claims of bullying and harassment, some staff felt ‘undervalued’ and had ‘lost trust’ in the leadership of the School. I remain committed to implementing a culture of integrity and provide a safe working environment for staff and so I reaffirm the importance of reporting any claims of bullying or harassment via the University complaint pathways. The Faculty stands ready to investigate such claims and will do so upon receipt of specific incidents. However, in the absence of specific incidents or particulars, the University is limited in its ability to address general statements.
Should staff wish to raise concerns of bullying and harassment but do not wish to do so under the University’s complaints pathways, I reaffirm an alternative option that was offered during our initial meeting being the University utilise an independent integrity pathway. This meaning, the Faculty will engage an external provider with whom staff could approach directly in order to raise any concerns or claims of bullying and/or harassment. I remain committed to addressing claims of bullying and harassment I would value discussing this option with you in greater detail should staff deem this to be a useful mechanism to progress their personal concerns.
KILE DOES NOT DENY BULLYING OCCURRED UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP BUT DESCRIBES THEM AS INFORMAL. THIS IS A LIE. DEANS AND EXECUTIVE DEANS KNOW THEY WILL GET AWAY BY LYING.
What will it take for something to finally be done???
I noticed in particular an earlier comments from someone in the Periodontics department. It seemed a long criticism and included the following;
"Both these programs need MAJOR overhaul and should be revised by suitably qualified Academic staff. The students come out with neither sufficient knowledge in Therapy nor Hygiene, hence I would suggest, leave the hygiene to TAFE, which is structured well and review the therapy component. I believe we should concentrate on proper product of dentists and after all, most dentists only want to employ Hygienists and not Therapists, which TAFE does an excellent job!"
Was this criticism the reason for some sort of external review? How can a University employ under qualified staff and educate at a lower standard to TAFE (no offence meant to TAFE)? It appears to be a concerning reflection on the quality of our graduates and unfortunately these posts seem somewhat lacking in context for ordinary folk with an interest to follow.
The context is described in an anonymous comment from October 5, 2020 at 6:54 AM. This is a serious case of mismanagement in the school.
The school runs Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) and Bachelor of Oral Health (BOH) programs. The letter was written by a staff who teaches in the BDS in an attempt to discredit the BOH by Richard Logan (Dean and Head of School) and Lesley Steele (Dental School Manager who has been seconded to another school). They tried to close the BOH program and increase the number of BDS students. Indeed, they stopped BOH intake a couple of years ago (30 in a class per year) and increased BDS intake to compensate for it. Whatever reason was given at the time, it was a financial decision. BDS international students bring in $80,500 per year and BOH international students bring $53,500 per year. You can do the maths.
Ultimately, their move was met with a lot of resistance and it failed spectacularly. Now the BOH program is running again but the damage has already been done. The BOH staff were not provided with proper explanation about what was happening, and if they were going to lose their jobs. They were treated poorly - some used to be yelled at by the dean.
In an attempt to close the BOH, the administrators tried to produce evidence that the BOH graduates did not have good job prospects. They got the BDS Periodontics staff in charge to write a nasty letter about the BOH and this was tabled at the Taskforce Review committee. One senior BOH staff, who had won national teaching prizes, made a defamation claim again the dean for allowing this to happen. Ultimately, they gave up, took extended leave and then early retirement package. The university also hired an external expert to become part of the taskforce. It was none other than a long-term collaborator of Lesley Steele!!
The BOH staff still are treated poorly. Why else would the senior school managers and senior faculty managers get vote of no confidence from >80% of staff??
This is the anonymous comment from October 5, 2020 at 6:54 AM
A BOTCHED ATTEMPT TO CLOSE DOWN THE BACHELOR OF ORAL HEALTH PROGRAM [PART 1]
The current Dean and the past School Manager, who has been seconded to another area (for unknown reasons) allowed the submission below to be tabled in a botched attempt to close down the Bachelor of Oral Health (BOH) Program. It is alleged they hired an external, independent expert to give evidence against the BOH program. The decision to close the program was financial; Bachelor of Dental Surgery international students pay lot more money than BOH international students. The expert has published papers with the School Manager since 1998; the latest one was in 2016.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27111291/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11040576/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11421960/
Did the School Manager and the independent expert declare CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Does Richard Logan take responsibility for allowing that to happen? If it is not a disgrace and a sign of poor leadership, what is it? No apology has been made to this date.
After the damning submission was made for the BOH, no one has changed the way the curriculum. The university is content with it. The Australian Dental Council and the Dental Board seem to be content with it. Why was such a damning submission allowed to be tabled to the taskforce? Something is not add up.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-30/grace-tame-tasmanian-award-for-let-her-speak/12832864
As an author who has published high-quality research in the sample period, you may be invited to participate in the survey. The invitation will come from an email similar to this: TimesHigherEducation@surveys.elsevier.com. As a well-regarded researcher associated with the University of Adelaide, we encourage you to engage with this survey process. Your opinion matters.
The survey collects some demographic details from respondents and asks them to nominate universities with strong reputations for teaching and/or research. Unlike other surveys of this type, respondents are able to nominate their home institution.
Australians are less likely to respond to these surveys than other nationalities, and typically are reticent to name their home institution. Yet it is known that a few votes can make a huge difference.
Rankings and reputation are important as they help influence the views of prospective collaborators and students. Therefore, if you are contacted, I would encourage you as a leader in your field to consider responding to the survey."
It'd be quicker if they just asked us directly to nominate University of Adelaide rather than trying to cajole us by appealing to our vanity as "leaders in [our] field." Sadly, playing the game probably does have a trickle-down effect, even if it's not merited.
I'm sure Adelaide will help pay out any settlement, just like they paid out Rathjen and Cooper.
Then they'll pay Hoj an offensive salary, paid for by the sacking of many staff.
On top of that, as we've seen at Adelaide, there maybe many formal complaints on any grounds that never made it out of HR, that might come out after Hoj gets appointed. On top of the plethora of known complaints (bullying, etc) and court actions.
Send your query to admin@opi.sa.gov.au
States
"The Commissioner will publish a publicly available report that brings together responses from all three universities. This is expected to be complete in August this year."
It is now November. I suspect interference of some kind delaying the publication. Or maybe Vanstone and Branson are closer than we think.
I noticed in particular an earlier comments from someone in the Periodontics department. It seemed a long criticism and included the following;
"Both these programs need MAJOR overhaul and should be revised by suitably qualified Academic staff. The students come out with neither sufficient knowledge in Therapy nor Hygiene, hence I would suggest, leave the hygiene to TAFE, which is structured well and review the therapy component. I believe we should concentrate on proper product of dentists and after all, most dentists only want to employ Hygienists and not Therapists, which TAFE does an excellent job!"
Was this criticism the reason for some sort of external review? How can a University employ under qualified staff and educate at a lower standard to TAFE (no offence meant to TAFE)? It appears to be a concerning reflection on the quality of our graduates and unfortunately these posts seem somewhat lacking in context for ordinary folk with an interest to follow
It takes a while for the Adelaide establishment /private school family list to sort out their story
And besides they are working out who will be VC and will acting posts be made permanent
Will Shaw be made DVC allowing McCallum to be Dean of Arts and White permanent head of education
Please don’t rush them
Takes time to effect these changes
It was not for external review. The report was tabled in an unsuccessful attempt to shut down BOH. The same dean is allowing it to run without ant changes. If the allegations are true, he should make drastic changes to BOH. If he is in the wrong, he should apologize and quit.
Do you really think Trump will apologize and quit?
The American people are trying to vote Trump out. Logan, Kile and other bigwigs are here to stay.
As part of our comprehensive, University-wide response, we are undertaking a staged program of work, commencing now and continuing throughout 2021, which includes:
.......
Workshops with the University’s senior leadership to review the role of the leaders in responding to sexual assault and sexual harassment...
These should be the first ones to go on that workshop - Richard Logan, Ben Kile, folks from Education and many more HR managers.... and many more senior managers.
What will these workshops do? In through one ear and out through next. Futile...... Unless there is punishment for mishandling past, present and future cases, the rotten culture is here to remain.
Attend the workshop and you get away with all the bad deeds.
Is it just coincidence or is there something more sinister? Why are there same problems in the dental school and AHPRA? Read the damning report about working conditions in AHPRA.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-09/ahpra-accused-of-not-investigating-medical-complaints-properly/11279380
"There are times when investigators would have 100 files."
"We aimed for investigators at the front end to have no more than 50 … so when they've got 100, they can't do their job."
Mr Gardner warned that as well as investigators having an unmanageable workload, the agency also had chronic technology and information storage problems.
He said when he was working as an investigator in Adelaide in 2016 he accidentally stumbled upon a computer folder that contained years of complaints made in NSW that had never been investigated....
Mic drop!
The you tube clip can be accessed here:
https://youtu.be/83pFIOW7U7Q
No doubt the result will be a series of mandatory workshops for all staff, except senior management of course, comprising self criticism and re-education. Sound familiar? Let's cut out the red tape and have the Confucius Institute run them.
I'm sure each SA uni VC was very quick to send an All Staff email about it. Shall we share?
Dear colleagues
The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) has today released the results of the University Integrity Survey, which was conducted earlier this year.
The survey was available to staff at the University of Adelaide, Flinders University and the University of South Australia, and was aimed at better understanding perceptions, attitudes and experiences of staff at the three universities in relation to matters of integrity.
As the Commissioner writes in her foreword, the aggregated survey results “do not pretend to be a precise depiction of the state of affairs in South Australia’s public universities. However, the survey results are illustrative of the concerns of public officers working in the university sector”.
My thanks to everyone from our University who took time to respond to the survey last March.
The survey results have highlighted a number of areas of concern to staff across all three universities, including bullying and harassment, reporting processes and procedures, and academic standards. Inappropriate conduct of the kind outlined in the survey findings is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, whether in a university, another workplace, or the wider community.
As the Commissioner says: “I hope the insights and observations offered in this report will stimulate each university to review its operations, policies, procedures and reporting cultures. Listening to employees about their experiences of improper conduct, and taking action upon reports and complaints of poor conduct or poor systems, are the surest methods of maintaining and improving the integrity of any agency.”
I commit the University to following this guidance of the Commissioner. The integrity and accountability of our University must be foremost in our minds. I am determined that the University will become a safer and more respectful place to work and study.
As you know, the University is already undertaking a review of its policies and procedures following ICAC’s public statement into the actions of our former Vice-Chancellor. The survey findings provide us with a further opportunity to identify improvements to our culture, behaviours and processes.
We will be considering the outcomes of these survey findings more deeply as they relate to our institution, and I will update you in due course on further action to be taken.
Kind regards
Mike
Professor Mike Brooks FTSE FACS
Interim Vice-Chancellor
The University of Adelaide | Adelaide SA 5005
08 8313 5201 | vice-chancellor@adelaide.edu.au
----------
COMMENTS ABOUT THE DEAN WERE DUE ONE DAY BEFORE the ICAC University Integrity Survey was released.
The survey found only one in four agreed their employer had adequate protections in place for those who report corruption or inappropriate conduct. A majority of respondents were not confident that reporting would result in some form of action . A significant number of respondents reported feeling intimidated at the prospect of reporting and worried about whether it could impact on their job security.
GAME PLAYED
If this was a publicly listed company, the directors would be on the chopping block. University managers know they can ignore the ICAC report and get away with it. "Problematic staff" can be pushed out as they have done for a long time.
Jo-Ann Spry (Executive Director, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences) and Nadia Carapella (Director of Human Resources, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences): You are still going to cover up for the dentistry dean, Richard Logan, who has a strong track record of bullying and who failed to protect postgraduates from Gue under his care. You want to turn a blind eye to all this which makes you an accomplice with Logan.
All of these people have failed staff under them and have participated in institutional failure. They should go.
https://icac.sa.gov.au/report/university-integrity-survey-2020
"Management and leadership typically did not fare well in the qualitative feedback. The quantitative data showed a disconnect between the opinions of leaders and those of other staff. The leaders had a more positive view than their staff. Management personel were described by some as being disinterested in the problems facing staff, exploitative and immune to criticism. It was said they were tightening control over staff dissent."
"The survey also revealed consternation among respondents, particularly academic
staff, about declining standards of university education, inappropriate student
enrolment and pressure to pass students.
There were claims of an excessive and damaging focus by management and
leadership on student fees and revenue. This focus was described as impacting
negatively on integrity, encouraging poor behaviour, negatively impacting on
teaching, and contributing to a work culture where people were unwilling to speak
up.
The tension described by respondents between ensuring financial sustainability
and maintaining standards of education, research and student intake may provide
numerous opportunities and pressures for corrupt or inappropriate conduct. Those
risks must be explored and effectively managed."
"Teaching workloads, academic publishing demands, the pressure to find ongoing
grants or funding, and insecure employment suggest there are some pockets of
anxious and disenfranchised university employees. This is particularly the case
for less senior academic staff. In addition to the personal toll on staff, disgruntled
employees are at increased risk of engaging in corrupt and inappropriate conduct.
Finally, the survey responses suggested that universities do not suffer from a lack of
policies or procedures. Rather, the challenge appears to be in ensuring that policies
are disseminated, understood and complied with. There was some evidence that
compliance with policies is a problem in situations related to grading and student
enrolment, as well as among ‘high achieving’ or ‘valuable’ staff. Such staff were seen
to be held to less demanding standards."
"All public officers in the university sector, particularly those in management and
leadership positions, are encouraged to read and reflect upon the contents of this
report."
The management will try to weather the storm and all will be forgotten in few weeks. They will "read and reflect"... so what? Business as usual.
As long as they are allowed to self-regulate, they are invincible. At the end of this exercise, they will have learnt how to deflect ICAC surveys and investigations.
Fat cats will come out fatter and stronger than ever before.
employees are at increased risk of engaging in corrupt and inappropriate conduct'.
Was not disgruntled employees who engaged in stacking the School of Education with private school hires, promoting the in crowd, changing the long standing and respected focus of the School to one mirroring Adelaide SuperTafe and a Teacher's College of the 1960s plus marginalising those who did not buy the Apple Kool Aide. Not on your nellie. It was the Head of School and the Dean. One wonders if those doing the ICAC REPORT actually looked at the data.
Already the implication in internal emails is that staff perceptions are wrong and have no basis in fact. Be ready for endless compulsory workshops with only purpose to say they're doing something. At the same time the identity of critical respondents will be investigated, identified and punished. Xi Xing Ping has a lot of clones in university senior management.
Uni held a "authorship integrity workshop" in 2018, yet honorary authorship still persists. This dilutes the effort of those who actually contribute to the paper while increasing the apparent productivity of the 'leaders,' making it easier for them to secure more funding, thus perpetuating the cycle by taking a larger slice of the pie.
The same leaders take as many PhD students as they can. Not only does this reduce their teaching workload, supposedly so they're able to supervise and mentor their students, but they also have their names added to their students papers. I know of at least one leader which doubles down on this approach by ignoring the students and not providing any constructive feedback at all, giving them even more time to focus on their own career growth. Now students are required to add in a forward to their thesis to outline what effort their supervisors contributed to the ideas; but what student in their right mind would be honest when the PhD supervisor holds all the cards?
This person's position was fast-tracked at University on the basis of the students and grants he pulled and foisted off to other people to complete. He is lucky that the University willfully ignores how many of his students leave without finishing, or that his students who do finish aren't able to give an accurate measure of how much the supervisor actually facilitated their development.
University is not a meritocracy, but is a toxic place where people who game the system are able to climb the ladder through their charisma and charm, but not their research or managerial ability.
If you haven't seen the Ionnidis et al 2019 analysis data in PLoS Biology. Freely available https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/1#file-ad4249ac-f76f-4653-9e42-2dfebe5d9b01 you should.
Open in Excel and sort for the three SA unis.
See who tops the Adelaide and U of SA self citation lists.
Juniod researchers kearn from this behaviour.
Adelaide researchers should not complain about poor record of self-citation among some of their highly cited peers. At least you have people who are publishing. Dentistry staff do not even publish and those who publish have left or are leaving for other universities. With the departure of a high-profile researcher who brought in $2 million from the NHMRC, the dental school is now made up of very few researchers and a bunch of overworked, abused, bullied staff. Some know the dean is breaching the Enterprise Agreement but are helpless.
--
Chantelle Harper
5 hrs ·
Has anyone lodged a grievance request and had success?
3
Comments
Sarah McCartney
I've lodged two, but got both of them denied.
The NTEU survey conducted in April 2020 showed 78% of dentistry academic staff had experienced or witnessed workplace bullying. Some 82% said they had no confidence in senior school management (Richard Logan and Lesley Steele) and 83% said they had no confidence in senior faculty management (Ben Kile, Natalia Hubczenko and Jo-Ann Spry). Dentistry leads the way ................
Ben Kile says there is no problem. Who cares about staff? Logan is the type of leader that the Executive Dean and VC want and promote. Unhappy staff will leave and the cycle starts for new staff. It will take them few years for them to open their eyes and then it is time to replace them with newer staff. That is the holy grail of running the school.
The University must know this situation and, as per their usual approach, fail to investigate and act.
The dental school mantra - well, you have to have two faces because that is what your boss is like. Staff are liabilities so bully them. They will eventually give up and leave/ resign/ take a package or go fishing and never come back. Those in your close circle - relinquish them when they disagree with you because you are the supreme being incapable of handling feedback. Lure new staff with university lecturer's title and wallah .... old staff are forgotten. Buy few years from the new staff for a year or two. When they ultimately find out, sack them or force them out. Please your superiors at any cost - you want to get there one day.
Spread the word. You will be amazed how many university staff know about this blog. This is staff voice.
A journalist could pick it up. Some alumni have read it and it confirms what they have been witnessing. They are not happy. They have been making complaints that have fallen into deaf ears (of Ben Kile). Ben Kile does not care that the profession is very unhappy with the way Lindsay Richards has been treated - no reason for denying his application for emeritus professor. Kile will eventually be forced to answer for his actions. The matter is not gonna die down, mate.
Some people are looking at class action - this is not made up. When will it happen? Not sure. It could be decades later but there are some very angry people who have been wrong done by the university. This things might come back like the way they did to Harvey Weinstein.
Just put out everything out here first.
The issues concerning the School of Education were sent to 101 media outlets and the student newspaper. Nothing happened. Well the student newspaper did contact the NTEU which was about as useful as a chocolate hammer. We were told by one former head of school nothing would happen as most of the media ran the stories by the uni before doing anything more. And as far as the student newspaper was concerned it was run by the it pays to be private types. One student leader was a former Saints Old boy and a mate of Whites. The Adelaide Establishment knows how to look after itself. They must be laughing their heads off. And look what an earthquake it took to make them act on Cooper! They will be planning to ride all this out. And so far they would be happy at what has happened. Zero.
Dear colleagues,
Over the past year, I have looked with pleasure and satisfaction at how this blog post, and others on similar topics, have become fora (forums?) for discussions of issues in Australian academia. I have been happy to provide a secure place where everyone can express their views anonymously, and where everyone understands why such a space is needed for academics.
I make no money from this blog, and last year I explained in a piece for the Columbia Journalism why I have taken to the blog for my #MeToo and bullying reporting:
https://www.cjr.org/opinion/metoo-academia-sexual-assault-harassment.php
One main reason I have been able to successfully report on misconduct in Australia is that, despite the country's draconian defamation laws, is that as a US-based journalist it is very hard to bring a lawsuit against me from down under; and even if someone did, they would have to meet the high standards required to prove defamation (basically, truth is an absolute defense against such claims, and I don't report anything I cannot back up.)
Despite these protections, as many of you know, I am being sued for $10 million for my reporting on a California-based archaeologist who engaged in numerous abuses herself and, I believe the evidence strongly suggests, enabled abuses by her ex-husband at her field sites in Peru.
I hope blog readers and commenters would not mind if I make one end of year request for support in this lawsuit. Although I and my legal team are confident of winning it, the cost of defending it is great. Please consult this GoFundMe link for details, and consider donating as little or as much as you feel appropriate. Once you do, you will receive regular updates on the progress of the case.
And in doing so, you are not just helping a reporter in a jam. You will also be helping the survivors and their allies who came to me asking for help telling their stories, and whom this lawsuit is designed to silence.
Thanks very much!
Here is the link to the defense campaign:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/freedom-of-the-press-defense-fund-kurin-v-balter
2 Professors, 1 A/Professor, 3 Senior Lecturers, 1 Lecturer
But AHPRAH and ADC don't see it as a problem.
The Interim Vice Chancellor of Adelaide released the ICAC report specific for his uni.
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/icac-response/system/files/media/documents/2020-12/icac-university-integrity-survey-2020_-the-university-of-adelaide_0.pdf
This is what the Interim VC wrote:
From: Vice-Chancellor
Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2020 4:25 PM
To: allstaff_titlehol_vis_pgrs@list.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: [Alluniversity] ICAC University Integrity Survey – University of Adelaide findings
Dear colleagues
The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) has today provided me with the findings of the University Integrity Survey that are specific to the University of Adelaide. I wish to share these findings with you all.
Earlier this year, the survey was made available to staff at the University of Adelaide, Flinders University and the University of South Australia. The survey was aimed at better understanding perceptions, attitudes and experiences of staff at the three universities in relation to matters of integrity.
While our specific findings are broadly consistent with those previously shared with you covering all three of SA’s public universities, they also raise areas of particular concern to our institution.
Some of the findings, including anecdotal comments, make for uncomfortable and challenging reading. It is important to note that these are survey results which do not have the rigour of being tested further by ICAC. Nevertheless, of particular concern to me are references to bullying and harassment, and a general dissatisfaction with the reporting process, including a perceived lack of protection for those who report issues internally. There are also concerns raised about academic standards.
As mentioned in my previous message to all staff, inappropriate conduct of the kind outlined in these survey findings is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, whether in a university, another workplace, or the wider community.
Identifying problems is a necessary step toward implementing solutions. These findings present an opportunity for us to ensure we understand where improvements to our culture, behaviours and processes are most needed. We can do better.
I am firmly committed to improving the integrity and accountability of the University. Work is already underway to review our policies and procedures and this will continue into 2021. For example, almost 75% of staff who responded to the survey have indicated they would wish to maintain their anonymity when making internal reports of integrity matters. We are already considering an integrity reporting framework that would enable staff to do this.
Once the University returns from its close down in the New Year, we will be considering the totality of the findings more thoroughly. I will update you as this progresses.
In the meantime, I urge you to read and consider the findings of the ICAC University Integrity Survey as they relate to our institution. The survey findings can be found here.
Kind regards
Mike
Professor Mike Brooks FTSE FACS
Interim Vice-Chancellor and President
The University of Adelaide | Adelaide SA 5005
08 8313 5201 | vice-chancellor@adelaide.edu.au
If the ICAC had the resources to apply rigour to of testing all the damning claims, many senior leaders will be prosecuted. The wrong-doers should consider themselves very lucky that they are not being investigated, at least for now.
Mike Brooks also wrote: "Identifying problems is a necessary step toward implementing solutions." What?? You can't see the elephant in the room??? You are part of the problem leading the bullying culture, so you will NOT see the problem. You and your system have quashed bullying claims all along and you promise to get rid of the problems. Huh...
How can people trust you and your council?
If the university is going to do anything about the bullying culture, are you going to punish senior managers who have blatantly ignored bullies working under them? "Oh... I did not know" may be the excuse some of them are hoping to use as an excuse. How are you going to catch the liars?
You seem to finally acknowledge that there is bullying problem after denying them for ages. This is a small improvement that has happened only because of the ICAC investigation. It has damaged many lives - and people are afraid you and your senior managers will try to be sneaky yet again.
People are afraid your emails just contain lot of empty words and nothing will happen. This will be offensive.
You now know about this. Your lawyers know about this. Will you finally investigate what the dentistry dean knew and failed to do anything? Will you track down emails (complaints) that they wrote to him since 2017 or even earlier (even as co-supervisor)? Will you protect the executive dean that fully tried to protect the dean when complaints reached him? Or will you and your lawyers still try to sweep things under the carpet and pretend nothing happened?
Your management style has been grossly wrong - this goes to your management of executive deans and deans. It is highly offensive to have to work in a place where one is subjected to bullying or is forced to witness it. It is happening even as we speak. You want evidence?? And you are still writing empty words.
https://icac.sa.gov.au/sites/default/files/public/ICAC_University_Integrity_Survey.pdf
The Adelaide report is damning and upsetting to be honest. Everything seems to be so wrong - rotten to the core as Balter puts it.
Do not think the new workload model will be fair. Do not think the university will do it right by the staff. Even if you point out problems with the workload model, they will say it is only a guide.
Some day, these problems will lead to a royal commission..... some day.... after something really goes wrong.
It is upsetting that uni administrators get away with breaching the Enterprise Agreement. Staff just give up rather than taking a long, risky path to Fairwork Australia.
As long as the universities are allowed to self-regulate, nothing will change.
NTEU UofA Dentistry Survey
Q1. Do you know if the school has a clear vision and strategic plan for maintaining (or improving) the school’s international reputation for excellence in teaching and research?
Yes 8.11% 3
No 86.49% 32
N/A 2.70% 1
Q2. Has your workload been reasonably managed in terms of equity and distribution by the Dean and Head of School consistent with level of appointment and time fraction?
Yes 18.92% 7
No 78.38% 29
N/A 2.70% 1
Q3. Has excessive workload or staffing shortage compromised the health and safety for you or your colleagues (i.e. increased the risk of work-related injury or illness including work-related stress)?
Yes 91.89% 34
No 8.11% 3
N/A 0.00% 0
Q4. Have you seen examples where excessive workload or staffing shortage compromised patient safety and care?
Yes 56.76% 21
No 35.14% 13
N/A 8.11% 3
Q5. Have you been pressured into working outside your discipline or work area? Does staff shortage contribute to this?
Yes 48.65% 18
No 43.24% 16
N/A 8.11% 3
Q6. Have you experienced or witnessed workplace bullying?[According to the Fair Work Act s.789FD(1), Workplace Bullying occurs “when an individual or group of individuals repeatedly behaves unreasonably t and intimidating conduct, belittling or humiliating comments, victimisation, spreading malicious rumours, practical jokes or initiation, exclusion from work-related events, and unreasonable work expectations.”
Yes 78.38% 29
No 18.92% 7
N/A 2.70% 1
Q7. Have you been given enough opportunity to foster career development including scholarship and research?
Yes 10.81% 4
No 78.38% 29
N/A 10.81% 4
Q8. Are you confident that the School senior management team have the personal attributes and leadership skills that the role require?
Yes 16.22% 6
No 81.08% 30
N/A 2.70% 1
Q9. Are you confident that the Faculty senior management team have the personal attributes and leadership skills that the role require?
Yes 8.11% 3
No 83.78% 31
N/A 8.11% 3
Q10. Would you like to comment on any of the questions above?
Answered 25
Skipped 12
Q11. Is there anything else (not covered above) that you would like to comment on?
Answered 23
Skipped 14
18 September 2020
Dear NTEU members,
I am writing to provide you with an update on the Faculty’s response to the NTEU survey data from April 2020.
ADS staff survey results – ED initial response April 2020:
This is a follow-up on my earlier email to NTEU and staff members from 28/04/2020. In that email, I wrote that the Executive Dean (ED) of Health and Medical Sciences, Professor Benjamin Kile, discredited the survey results and discounted the seriousness of lack of vision, workload, bullying, compromised patient care, no confidence in senior school management and no confidence in senior faculty management. In his reply, the Executive Dean also made a request for any detailed information from the survey that would assist in the University developing initiatives moving forward. He also requested that staff raised their concerns individually with the Human Resources managers, which was very concerning because many staff have been doing this over the years to no avail.
NTEU meetings with ED June and August 2020:
In good faith, the NTEU forwarded the survey data with some commentaries to the Executive Dean on 04/06/2020. Since then, the NTEU has reiterated its concern about the lack of acknowledgement of workload and bullying problems by the Faculty senior managers despite a number of phone conversations and two meetings.
At the second meeting between the NTEU and the Faculty senior managers, including the Executive Dean, the Interim Faculty Executive Director and the Acting Faculty Human Resources Manager held on 24/08/2020, the Executive Dean acknowledged the School’s problems and said he was committed to resolving them. Among various things that were discussed at the meeting, the NTEU emphasised the survey data showing ‘no confidence’ in the senior School and Faculty management and lack of trust in the current Dean, Professor Richard Logan. The NTEU gave examples of how it appeared the Dean had misled the school staff and again requested a written response to the survey data. The NTEU also requested a formal response to Professor Lindsay Richards stating why his application for Emeritus Professor was rejected. To date, no explanation has been provided despite repeated requests for this.
ED written response September 2020:
After numerous requests from the NTEU, the Executive Dean finally sent his written response to me on 10/09/2020. I am now forwarding you that response and a copy of the NTEU survey data with some commentaries. There are many other very critical commentaries that cite names of senior managers that have not been included in the attachment.
ADC notification:
In April 2020, the NTEU brought the issues of work overload, staff shortage, bullying and compromised teaching quality and patient care to the attention of the Australian Dental Council (ADC), who then put conditions on all clinical programs for a few months. The Australian Health and Practitioner Regulatory Agency had also been notified by the ADC. After the university advertised four new positions and provided assertion to the ADC that there were no bullying problems in the school, the conditions were lifted but conditional upon clean audit outcome at a site visit later in 2020. Of four advertised continuing positions, two candidates have been appointed so far with one being a staff who had already been working under fixed-term contract.
Proposed ADS governance framework:
In his latest response, the Executive Dean discusses the new School Framework which has been criticised by various staff including current members of the School Management Team. The Dean and Head of School has not taken on their feedback in designing or revising the new framework which appears to streamline the organisational operations (i.e. designed “for the purpose of conducting Professional Development Review for staff”) rather than providing true leadership to move the school forward. The staff of the school are yet to see any clear vision for the school.
Impact on staff/research:
Since January 2018, the school has lost many staff due to resignation and early ‘retirement’, and the senior management team continues to have a high turnover rate (for example, resignation of the Postgraduate Coordinator recently in addition to earlier resignations by four Assistant Deans - two in Research and two in Clinical Services). With the loss of high-profile researchers, the school continues to diminish its research capability while newly advertised academic positions are being created to partially backfill the severe shortage of teaching staff. The school is riding on the ranking based on past research outputs of staff who have passed away, retired or moved to other universities. The senior management has no plan to promote research in the school or cover the shortage in teaching staff.
Faculty’s resolve to address issues in the School:
Since November 2017, I have sent four letters to the Faculty senior managers, and have met with the current Executive Dean, Professor Ben Kile, three times to discuss serious problems in the Dental School. It is disappointing that the Faculty senior managers have continued to discredit those concerns throughout this time.
In his latest response, the Executive Dean continues to discredit the survey data on bullying and workload problems. He labels all the serious bullying complaints that have been made by several staff over the years as “informal concerns”, which is very misleading and rather alarming. The Faculty senior managers have continued to ignore serious problems raised by staff in the Your Voice surveys conducted by the university. This really highlights that the current system does not work. Raising matters with the HR staff is dealt with “informally”, which we now know means that that it is very unlikely that anything will happen, and the historical data suggests that lodging a formal complaint under the Code of Conduct policy is very unlikely to get a positive outcome for the person lodging the complaint.
The Executive Dean’s comment about engaging an external party to resolve bullying claims is wrong and misleading. They have not offered to do anything about engaging an independent, external party to manage bullying complaints in the school. In our view, the Executive Dean’s response about using the Safety Learning System (SLS) to provide a safe workplace is again misleading because it is mainly used to document patient incidents and work-safety issues in the Adelaide Dental Hospital clinics (which falls under South Australian Health, Government of South Australia), which is a separate entity from the Adelaide Dental School (which falls under University of Adelaide).
Further action by NTEU:
In the NTEU survey, staff have indicated no trust in the way the senior managers (including the Dean, the Executive Dean and the Faculty Executive Manager) and the Human Resources staff handle bullying complaints. In light of the commitment to renew values of respect given by the new Chancellor at the Staff Forum on 09/09/2020 the NTEU has decided to now raise these matters directly with the Chancellor. This will give the University’s most senior people an opportunity to demonstrate that they are prepared to back up their current assertions with some action.
The NTEU would like to acknowledge your patience with this process and your continuing support for the union and your colleagues.
Yours sincerely,
Cheryl Baldwin
NTEU Industrial Organiser
Cc: Nick Warner, NTEU Adelaide, Branch President
Vision and Strategic Direction
In May 2020, I commenced a series of school forums whereby I formally introduced myself to School staff and to discuss key faculty initiatives and priorities relevant to the ADS. It was my intention to undertake these forums much earlier in the year following my appointment to the role of Executive Dean however due to the COVID-19 pandemic, school forums were postponed. The school forum for the ADS was thus held on 26 May 2020. The ADS Forum, co-presented by the Dean, Professor Richard Logan, outlined School strategic initiatives centred on the learning environment, reinvigorating research, community relationships, and School culture....
Curriculum development and innovation
World class teaching for a world class school
Continue to develop our research profile and capability
Strengthen relationships with external stakeholders
Identify opportunities for growth in the school
Culture of mutual respect and shared accountability
It is imperative that the School actively engage in discussion and planning regarding the future. It is the Dean’s ongoing responsibility to ensure that strategic initiatives are progressed. In order to enable success, the School framework is under review.
THESE ARE EMPTY WORDS. YOU ARE PLUGGING THE HOLES AND OVERLOADING STAFF WITH WORK. CURRICULUM INNOVATION IS A SHAM. WORLD CLASS SCHOOL IN TERMS OF GOING DOWNHILL AT THE FASTEST RATE? WHAT RESEARCH PROFILE WHEN YOU ARE LOSING MORE AND MORE RESEARCHERS AND ARE LEFT WITH VERY FEW WHO CAN ACTUALLY DO IT? THE ALUMNI HAS COMPLAINED ABOUT YOUR MANAGEMENT STYLE AND THIS IS HOW YOU WILL STRENGTHEN RELATIONSHIPS WITH EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS? THE AUSTRALIAN DENTAL COUNCIL IS BREATHING FIRE AND WHAT ABOUT THE LIES TOLD BY THE UNIVERSITY LAST TIME? GROWTH IS THE ONLY THING THAT YOU ARE LIKELY TO ACHIEVE - TO BRING IN MONEY. MUTUAL RESPECT DOES NOT EXIST WHEN YOU BULLY YOUR STAFF AND LIE TO COVER IT UP.
Workliad
The School acts in accordance with the University’s Enterprise Agreement (EA), when establishing workload allocation with staff. In accordance with Clause 5.4.4.2, the Faculty workload model is reviewed on an annual basis and a working party is established each year to undertake the review. The working party comprises of academic representatives from each school, including the ADS.
[THE DENTISTRY DEAN HANDPICKS THE ACADEMIC REPRESENTATIVE WHO WILL ACT IN HIS BEST INTEREST. STAFF HAD NO INPUT INTO CHOOSING THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT TO DICTATORSHIP.]
It is acknowledged that the partnership agreement with the SA Dental Service (SADS) has placed increasing pressure on the ADS with the commitment to teach in the clinical setting across a 48 week per year teaching period. The School is responsible for ensuring that such teaching commitments are met and will thus allocate workload to the appropriately qualified staff. Whilst this may result in an increased teaching load for some academic staff, again, I confirm that the workload allocation remains within the nominated band-widths for each academic profile.
[BLATANT LIE. DO YOU KNOW RICHARD LOGAN WAS THE SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVE IN THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 30 YEAR PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT THAT YOU DISLIKE SO MUCH?]
Claims of Bullying/Harassment/Workplace Safety
The survey results reference claims of bullying and harassment within the School. However, I confirm that the University has not received any formal complaints of bullying or harassment from the Adelaide Dental School since the appointment of the current Dean. It is acknowledged that over the years, informal concerns have arisen and the Faculty has worked closely with the staff members involved and such matters have been resolved. I am not aware of any ongoing matters.
I note that during our meetings it was confirmed that, while there are no formal claims of bullying and harassment, some staff felt ‘undervalued’ and had ‘lost trust’ in the leadership of the School. I remain committed to implementing a culture of integrity and provide a safe working environment for staff and so I reaffirm the importance of reporting any claims of bullying or harassment via the University complaint pathways. The Faculty stands ready to investigate such claims and will do so upon receipt of specific incidents. However, in the absence of specific incidents or particulars, the University is limited in its ability to address general statements.
Should staff wish to raise concerns of bullying and harassment but do not wish to do so under the University’s complaints pathways, I reaffirm an alternative option that was offered during our initial meeting being the University utilise an independent integrity pathway. This meaning, the Faculty will engage an external provider with whom staff could approach directly in order to raise any concerns or claims of bullying and/or harassment. I remain committed to addressing claims of bullying and harassment I would value discussing this option with you in greater detail should staff deem this to be a useful mechanism to progress their personal concerns.
In committing to provide a safe workplace, I also assert the importance of staff, student and patient safety in a clinical setting. The ADS has an established Safety Learning System in place to record, monitor and remedy any actual or potential incidents that occur in clinics. The Safety Learning System is also accessible to SA Health employees in order to record incidents, near miss, review reported incidents and create reports. Incidents involving students, supervisors or their patients are sent to the 4th/5th year coordinator for review and to comment on any required actions. These reports are presented to the School Executive team on a monthly basis.
A report is also compiled by 4th/5th year coordinator in order to identify any trends either in the programme or the clinic that the School may need to address as a whole, and the data is utilised to follow-up with each student and/or supervisor involved in case.
I confirm that there have been no significant incidents however ongoing improvements can be made in providing feedback to staff on the follow up actions that are implemented. Should staff have any concerns regarding the manner in which the School or SA Health report on incident management, again I encourage them to come forward with specific concerns and particulars.
[LOOK AT THE SURVEY DATA. HAVE THE 78% STAFF WHO HAD EXPERIENCED OR WITNESSED BULLYING GONE CRAZY? ARE THEY LYING? WHY WOULD THEY LIE? OR IS IT YOU WHO IS LYING AND GASLIGHTING THE UNION? OR IS IT YOUR WAY OF SORTING THIS MESS WITH MINIMAL EFFORT, AKA WORKING SMART?
[WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS? IS SHE COMING BACK TO DENTISTRY?]
Kile also wrote - The Dean is committed to delivering on the initiatives proposed in the School framework once the consultation period has been completed, and I will provide ongoing support to ensure its successful implementation.
In closing, I trust the above response demonstrates the Faculty and the ADS is committed to moving forward with key strategies to further manage and deliver high quality education and research. I appreciate that strategies outlined in this response will take time to implement and will require the leadership of the Faculty and School and the commitment of staff to contribute to its success. I will continue to monitor the progress of these matters and will continue to update you as developments occur.
[RUNNING A PROPAGANDA, EH??? AGAIN GO BACK TO THE NTEU SURVEY DATA AND THINK WHY SO MANY PEOPLE ARE RESPONDING NEGATIVELY TOWARDS LOGAN'S AND YOUR LEADERSHIP? IT IS WRONG IF YOU THINK STAFF HAVE GONE MAD. MORE THAN 80% HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN YOUR AND LOGAN'S LEADERSHIP. IN ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION, YOU AND LOGAN WOULD EITHER HAVE HAD TO RESIGN OR WOULD HAVE BEEN SACKED BY NOW.]
"It's all pretty sinister"'
This is what happens at Adelaide Uni. Whether in Dentistry or Education this is the practice. Despite 305 comments here, ICAC Reports, NTEU interventions and representations nothing has happened. Oh wait the University did make a feel good video. As someone noted above unless there is a Royal Commission nothing will change. The chief perpetrators simply go about business as usual.
Some of the findings, including anecdotal comments, make for uncomfortable and challenging reading. It is important to note that these are survey results which do not have the rigour of being tested further by ICAC. Nevertheless, of particular concern to me are references to bullying and harassment, and a general dissatisfaction with the reporting process, including a perceived lack of protection for those who report issues internally. There are also concerns raised about academic standards.
As mentioned in my previous message to all staff, inappropriate conduct of the kind outlined in these survey findings is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, whether in a university, another workplace, or the wider community.
Identifying problems is a necessary step toward implementing solutions. These findings present an opportunity for us to ensure we understand where improvements to our culture, behaviours and processes are most needed. We can do better.
I am firmly committed to improving the integrity and accountability of the University. Work is already underway to review our policies and procedures and this will continue into 2021. For example, almost 75% of staff who responded to the survey have indicated they would wish to maintain their anonymity when making internal reports of integrity matters. We are already considering an integrity reporting framework that would enable staff to do this.
Once the University returns from its close down in the New Year, we will be considering the totality of the findings more thoroughly. I will update you as this progresses.
[SO THEY ARE ANECDOTAL COMMENTS, HEY? IT IS MAKING A CHALLENGING READING BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT LIKE THE WAY YOU HAVE KEPT DISMISSING THEM, HEY? ANYONE READING PREVIOUS 300+ COMMENTS CAN WORK OUT WHO THE REAL PROBLEM IS. THAT IS YOU. YOU ARE ONE OF THE BIGGEST CAUSES OF INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE AND YOU DISMISS STAFF COMMENTS IN THE ICAC REPORT AS ANECDOTAL? YOUR STAFF WROTE THOSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN DISMISSING THEIR PLEAS AND SERIOUS COMPLAINTS AND THEY HAVE VERY FEW AVENUES LEFT NOW. YOUR COMMENT IS HIGHLY HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. NO WONDER BULLIES, LIARS AND HARASSERS FLOURISH UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP, AND SADLY YOU ARE LEADING THE UNIVERSITY THROUGH CULTURAL CHANGE?? WHAT A JOKE.]
Can he prove that none of these complaints have been reported to and 'tested' further by ICAC? It would be very surprising if that were the case given the volume, intensity and seriousness of many complaints in the comments thread above. He should contact the Commissioner personally and ask her how many complaints have been made about UAd in the last few years, how many considered, how many dismissed, how many upheld (everyone knows about Rathjen at least). Brooks wasn't VC for most of that time and may not be aware of what went on before he took on the role. The Commissioner is herself new in the role and may not be across all of that detail from the Lander era. There should be no barrier to releasing these figures to the university community once known.
Has ICAC investigated any complaints in the unis apart from Rathjen's?
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=7E4
She was Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs from 11.3.1996 to 9.10.1997. Isn't that the period when John Howard started funding cuts to Australian universities? There was a demonstration against funding cuts on North Terrace and many academic staff showed solidarity for it.
"Funding cuts to universities - not a smart thinking, Mr Howard"
Of course not. That would be too financially responsible, as well as ensuring continuity of research performance. No, they will simply allow contracts to expire, irrespective of performance. While many tenured non-performers will be protected.
So stop giving the uni money and let them know why! Then again why would any right minded person want to give money given the current nepotism, corruption,bullying and favouritism that are the hall marks of at least two of the Schools mentioned repeatedly here and the management teams that lead those respective schools.
Get reality check, please.
Send health researchers to treat patients, the way the faculty leadership is failing.
From: Tupp Carmody
Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2019 11:30 AM
To: all.healthsciencesstaff@list.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: [All.healthsciencesstaff] Welcome to Professor Benjamin Kile
Email sent on behalf of Professor Mike Brooks
Dear Colleagues
As I am sure you are well aware, Professor Benjamin Kile commences today as Executive Dean of the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, having re-located to Adelaide from Monash University. Professor Kile brings with him tremendous experience in research, education and collaboration with teaching hospitals and allied health professionals.
As I informed you in June, this is an exciting time for the University as we provide a renewed focus on health and medical research with a number of world-class academic appointments, the establishment of an Industry Engagement Priority in Health and Biotech, closer relationships with the local hospital network, pursue major funding opportunities in the MRFF, etc.
I look forward very much to working closely with Professor Kile in this context of tremendous opportunity.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Professor Andrew Zannettino for his outstanding service to the University as Interim Executive Dean in the Faculty over the last six months. He has pursued important initiatives, engaged externally with distinction, and contributed strongly in senior management forums.
I am pleased to confirm that Andrew will continue to provide expertise in a new fractional appointment as Executive Director of Research Strategy with the Central Adelaide Local Health Network (CALHN), as well as maintaining a senior position within the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences.
I hope you will join me in welcoming Ben as our new Executive Dean, and in thanking Andrew for his valuable (and continuing) contribution.
Regards, Mike
--
Professor Mike Brooks FTSE FACS
Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
The University of Adelaide | Adelaide SA 5005
Readers should save copies of the blog content - this is history of the Adelaide Uni being written. The history will not go away and future generations will remember the wrongdoers for institutional failure. They can redeem, apologize and improve the culture, but do not hold high hopes.
Universities are supposed to be centre of excellence and its managers are supposed to demonstrate behaviors that are consistent with role models for integrity and honesty. At least the public expects that. The opposite is true now - being disrespectful, defiance, ungrateful, greedy, bullying, lying, cheating. Education and dentistry managers have been rewarded for demonstrating these very shameful behaviors.
If you do not want to do it, why organize it in the first place? Because you have to tick it off your list?
When you represent the school in professional events, you sit in a corner and hardly talk to anyone. This looks very bad but you do not see it.
Poor report card for a dean at multiple levels but he keeps his boss, Ben Kile, happy.
Mike Brooks managed, or mismanaged to be technically correct, the Executive Deans for a long time. People would have read late Emeritus Professor Grant Townsend's letter to Mike Brooks about the dire situation of the school then. What did Mike do? He let the school slide down in the hands of Alastair Burt and Natalia Hubczenko (with the support of HR). This period also witnessed increased staff bullying and postgraduate student abuse (by Gue). They brought Richard Logan (aka Burt's lapdog) who gave Burt free access to bully the school staff; he became so unpopular with the alumni that the uni did not renew his contract. Burt left to Newcastle (UK) with tail between his legs. Then came the Interim Executive Dean, Andrew Zannittino who saw Burt as his role model. Mic drop. The next on line is Ben Kile, current Executive Dean. Terrible Hubczenko's days were over with Kile's appointment, so she had to leave the university only to be appointed in South Australian Health.
Does anyone remember Hubczenko at the dentistry school forum towards the beginning of Professional Services Reform (PSR) claiming that their system would be better than any other system the school had had? Turns out to be a blatant lie, Natalia. And you can simply go to a different organization. Problem solved without having to take responsibility for your wrong actions. You will fit in just well in SA Health - last year's ICAC report has published a damning report about the bullying culture in that organization.
Back to Mike Brooks. You have done lots of bad things in management. Letting go of Lindsay Richards, supporting the bully Burt and then bringing in bully Logan are some of the worst things that you have done. You are truly leaving a terrible legacy of your leadership in senior management over a span of 2 decades. And you are continuing with your bad management style by protecting Logan through Ben Kile and other middle managers.
1) Corruption or inappropriate conduct in research/scholarly practice by academic or teaching staff, including grant or research funding
* Flinders - 8.6%
* Uni SA - 13.9%
* Adelaide - 15.0%
2) Inappropriate use of grant or research funding
* Flinders - 7.5
* Uni SA - 9.2
* Adelaide - 12.6
3) Corruption or inappropriate conduct in partnerships and connections with industry, the private sector and/or the not for profit sector
* Uni SA , 5.5
* Flinders - 5.8
* Adelaide - 9.6
This was mainly under Brooks's tenure as Deputy Vice Chancellor of Research at Adelaide.
You could argue that it's only to be expected thad you'd see more dishonest research conduct in a wealthier 'research intensive' uni. But is it really? Financial misconduct in general isn't dramatically different between the unis (Financial misconduct, theft, fraud - Flinders 4.8%, Uni SA 6.2%, Adelaide 7.4%) (Bribery/inappropriate acceptance of gifts - Uni SA 1.2%, Adelaide 1.5%, Flinders 1.7%) so it doesn't automatically follow that the more money there is floating around the more opportunities there are for staff to behave dishonestly. There is something going on at Adelaide that is SPECIFICALLY to do with the research culture. The research integrity office must have been kept busy over the last few years. Have they investigated many cases and have any researchers been found guilty of research misconduct?
Bullying and harassment (whole sample) - similar among 3 universities
Adelaide 62.7%
Flinders 62.5%
Uni SA 64.4%
Conflict of interest - Adelaide is a winner
Adelaide 17.8%
Flinders 14.9%
Uni SA 12.7%
Inappropriate pressure or influence in promotion of fixed term or continuing staff - Adelaide is a winner again
Adelaide 32.8%
Flinders 27.5%
Uni SA 34.2%
Nepotism - similar among 3 universities
Adelaide 37.0%
Flinders 38.7%
Uni SA 37.7%
Overall winner is Adelaide.
Q3. Has excessive workload or staffing shortage compromised the health and safety for you or your colleagues (i.e. increased the risk of work-related injury or illness including work-related stress)?
Yes 91.89% 34
No 8.11% 3
N/A 0.00% 0
Q6. Have you experienced or witnessed workplace bullying?[According to the Fair Work Act s.789FD(1), Workplace Bullying occurs “when an individual or group of individuals repeatedly behaves unreasonably t and intimidating conduct, belittling or humiliating comments, victimisation, spreading malicious rumours, practical jokes or initiation, exclusion from work-related events, and unreasonable work expectations.”
Yes 78.38% 29
No 18.92% 7
N/A 2.70% 1
A whooping 78.38% for bullying experience in dentistry. The ICAC report said the problems were worse in some areas than others. There you go, the NTEU report gets external validation. Still, Richard Logan is burying his head in the sand, and continuing to bully staff, while Ben Kile says nothing is wrong.
It takes a lot to blatantly lie like that. How did they become such liars?
Q8. Are you confident that the School senior management team have the personal attributes and leadership skills that the role require?
Yes 16.22% 6
No 81.08% 30
N/A 2.70% 1
Q9. Are you confident that the Faculty senior management team have the personal attributes and leadership skills that the role require?
Yes 8.11% 3
No 83.78% 31
N/A 8.11% 3
More than 80% of staff said they did not have confidence in these managers. But the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor find no problems. Shameful!
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/commission-general/bullying-know-your-rights-violence-harassment-and-bullying-fact-sheet
Bullying is an abuse of your human rights. It is a serious problem with serious mental and physical impacts. Bullying can affect you at home, school, work, in your social life and in your ability to feel happy, healthy and secure.
Your right to be free from mental, emotional and physical violence. Bullying is a form of violence. You have a right to be in a supportive environment (be that at school, work or online) that is respectful, safe and free from violence.
Your right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Bullying can cause physical injuries, depression and other health issues.
Your right to survival and development. Bullying can have serious impact on your physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development
Your right to participate and have your voice heard. Bullying can make you feel unsafe and prevent you from expressing your feelings and opinions at school, home, work, and with your friends. You have the right to express your views, to have your concerns taken seriously and to participate in decisions that directly affect you.
Your boss has a responsibility to provide a safe work environment where there is no violence, harassment and bullying. This protects your right to work.
South Australia
SafeWork SA can provide advice and help if you are experiencing workplace bullying. Call 1300 365 255
https://www.safework.sa.gov.au/show_page.jsp?id=5082
The problem is there is a damning ICAC report about SafeWorkSA - bullying was a problem there too.
https://icac.sa.gov.au/evaluation/safework-sa
https://icac.sa.gov.au/media-release/evaluation-of-safework-sa-report-tabled
Now, who is supposed to regulate bullying in South Australia?
You are dealing with very cunning managers in the universities.
https://www.safework.sa.gov.au/workers/health-and-wellbeing/bullying-and-inappropriate-behaviours
Any investigation from external bodies will unearth institutional abuses.
https://www.safework.sa.gov.au/workers/health-and-wellbeing/bullying-and-inappropriate-
It is not bullying when you carry out, in an appropriate manner, reasonable management actions such as:
performance management processes
disciplinary action for misconduct
informing a worker about unsatisfactory work performance or inappropriate work behaviour
asking a worker to perform reasonable duties in keeping with their job
maintaining reasonable workplace goals and standards.
However, if these actions are not conducted in a reasonable manner, they could still be considered bullying behaviour.
You should make reasonable attempts to resolve the matter internally through an informal or formal process (where available) before referring to external agencies for assistance. Refer to page 28 of the employer’s guide for a flowchart on responding to workplace bullying.
Looking at some of the comments, is there evidence of actions conducted in an unreasonable manner? You can be the judge.
Inappropriate pressure or influence in promotion of fixed term or continuing staff - Adelaide AND UNISA ARE BETTER PERFORMERS
Adelaide 32.8%
Flinders 27.5%
Uni SA 34.2%
This makes South Australia bullying capital of academia.
Past record is the best predictor of future performance, isn't it? University leopards do not change their spots.
The dentistry dean's team used to say, "Just stand in a corner" when students are treating real patients for 3 hours and all will be fine (even if you do not feel confident about supervising the specialist discipline in Bachelor of Dental Surgery. Is Richard Logan lying to say this did not happen?
Put yourself in the shoes of students and patients receiving care under Logan's clinical supervision.....
A little while ago I made a plea for help with my legal defense fund in the Kurin v. Balter case. The response was, how should I put it, a bit underwhelming! Please remember that by investigating cases of misconduct in academia, which I now do for free, I have opened myself up to lawsuits, and indeed I am now being sued unjustly for $10 million by an American archaeologist.
We are now moving into an expensive phase of the lawsuit, with depositions, court reporters, etc., and I need to raise more funds to pay for that. My lawyers are giving their time pro bono, and I have a great team, but I do have to pay the additional expenses out of my pocket.
So, if everyone using this forum could chip in even $5 or $10 it would make a huge difference, with huge thanks. Please go to the GoFundMe site for instructions:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/freedom-of-the-press-defense-fund-kurin-v-balter
Once you do donate, you will receive regular updates on the case.
Thanks! Michael
In July 2019 a blog was published by a man called Michael Balter in which he made an
allegation of previous sexual harassment on the part of the Vice-Chancellor “going back to
his earlier days as a professor”.
The Chancellor took advice in relation to the blog from the same solicitor from whom he had
taken advice in April/May 2019 and was advised that he should ask the Vice-Chancellor a
question which included:
“I seek your response to the claims made in the blog that you have a history of
engaging in sexual harassment, I also ask you to come back and let me know if
there is anything else that I or the University should be made aware of in relation to
your past conduct.”
I heard the decision was made last week.
Logan, the bully, and Kile, the bully protector, will laugh all the way back to the university in 2021.
Is Logan lying to fit his story again? Did he play a major role in firing Gue (what he claims?) or did he actually fail to protect students under his care for years (past students and staff claim)?? Logan has been caught lying many times in the past but the university managers think that is totally fine.
The dentistry supreme leader, "Dean and Head of School (aka "Chairman") cannot handle the truth and cannot tolerate any comments that other senior staff make about his incompetent ways
The mastermind's plan: Get a few years out of each staff until they get disillusioned. Then replace then with fresh ones (some from outside/ interstate) and get a few years out of them. Continue the cycle. The disillusioned ones will give up and many will leave. Start with more fresh staff and continue the bullying cycle.
If you are a new staff in dentistry school, you will become a pawn for Logan. Some of you will be bullied to do the dirty work for him. In 2 to 5 years, you will become disillusioned yourself and will be replaced by new staff ready to enter the bully cycle.
https://icac.sa.gov.au/system/files/Troubling_Ambiguity_Governance_in_SA_Health.pdf
page 16
BULLYING AND HARASSMENT
A significant cultural problem is demonstrated in that 51% of SA Health respondents reported encountering bullying and harassment. In addition, 78% of SA Health respondents rated SA Health as vulnerable to bullying and harassment.
The statistics arising out of the survey are not inconsistent with the information I have obtained during the exercise of my functions.
The reports that the OPI have received and assessed and the investigations I have conducted or overseen, indicate that bullying and harassment is a very significant issue within SA Health.
Instances of bullying and harassment are themselves misconduct and cannot be tolerated. The harmful effect of such conduct on the health, wellbeing and morale of victims is well known.
However, I suspect that bullying and harassment is also harming SA Health and its employees in a cultural sense because SA Health employees who are being bullied and harassed or fear being bullied or harassed, are less likely to report conduct in accordance with their statutory obligations. Those employees are less likely to assist in or participate in an investigation of that type of conduct, which will substantially interfere with SA Health’s ability to appropriately address that conduct and the harm it is causing.
Bullying and harassment will be more likely to occur where the person suspected of engaging in such behaviour has managerial or similar informal authority or power over others because of his or her profession or status within the organisation. I have seen evidence of just such dynamics at work.
During one of my investigations a manager was alleged to have engaged in improper conduct and was removed from the workplace. A number of witnesses from that workplace who were able to give relevant evidence about the alleged conduct only became willing to cooperate with the investigation after the manager had been removed.
Percentage of staff who encountered bullying and harassment
South Australian Health = 51.4%
South Australian Public Administration = 41.0%
University of Adelaide = 62.7%
Flinders University = 62.5%
University of South Australia = 64.4%
When you thought nothing will be as bad as SA Health with bullying and harassment after reading the ICAC report in 2019, the universities have outperformed them in 2020. How can this be allowed to happen?
The problem with "excessive workload or staffing shortage" compromising "the health and safety for you or your colleagues (i.e. increased the risk of work-related injury or illness including work-related stress)" is universal (91.9% responded agreed with this).
The % of dentistry respondents who had experienced or witnessed workplace bullying was 78.4%). This is the worst bullying data of all.
Yet, Ben Kile, the Executive Dean of Health Sciences says there is no problem and is protecting the bully (aka dentistry dean).
Welcome to Adelaide Dentistry School and and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide.
A total of 81.8% of staff said they had no confidence in the senior school management (Richard Logan and Lesley Steele) and even more staff (83.8%) had no confidence in faculty senior management (Ben Kile, Natalia Hubczenko and Joann Spry).
What has changed since the NTEU carried out the survey in April 2020? Lesley Steele has been seconded to lead school management in another area (Allied Health) and Natalia Hubczenko resigned to take up a job in the Northern Adelaide Local Health Network (SA Health). Joann Spry has taken up Natalia's position of Faculty Executive Director.
Bullying, misconduct, maladministration and cover ups are still rife.
Institutional abuse and failure .... Expect 2021 to be as bad as 2020, if not worse.
How many organizations do you know of where <10% of staff have confidence in the senior management? Ben Kile from the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences has a lot to answer for. Richard Logan is not far off at just above 15%.
May be the managers cannot handle the truth. That is why they keep saying there is no problem (as bullying and harassing are normal behaviors for them).
And the Chancellor said there will be a culture of respect in the university. Are you serious? Really???
A minority 35.1% agreed there was no compromise to patient safety and care, but the majority (56.8%) stated otherwise (agreed to compromise in patient safety and care) (non-applicable respondents = 8.11%).
These staff teach in clinic and supervise students who provide patient care across various public dental clinics.
Staff who did not have the expertise in a specialist discipline were told to supervise students by standing in a corner (while students did their work).
An analogy of lack of expertise in specialist discipline is like asking a general medical practitioner to supervise undergraduate medical students in obstetrics.
So bullying and harassment have not only affected university staff but has had put the community at risk? Logan and Kile, please explain.
We are concerned for those junior students coming through as it appears things will get worse as some really good staff have recently left.
We dont know why the Univerity, The ADA or the Australian Dental Council do not investigate the problems here. Students have complained over the last few years, with no improvement.
[Note: Casual salary means tutoring budget to cover the essential cost of paying external tutors to teach in labs and clinics]
From: xxxx
Sent: Thursday, 19 December 2013 2:47 PM
To: Leena Neeskens; xxxx
Subject: Casual Teaching Budget for 2014
Dear colleagues
Late last week, the School Manager and I met with the Faculty Finance team,
comprising Natalia Hubczenko, the Faculty Executive manager, Jodie Matson and
Phillipa Tilburgs.
At that meeting, we were informed that the School would be required to make a
saving of $1.381m for 2014 as part of the University’s 5 year financial plan and also
to address the financial position of the entire faculty. The required savings from
various expenditure areas of the School include:
· Vacancy management: Savings required $376,498
(This includes delaying appointments to later in the year and making
appointments at lower levels).
· Leave management: savings required $330,000
(This is on top of the 4 weeks of annual leave which full-time staff (pro rata
equivalent for part-time staff) are required to take each year. A review of
leave taken and booked as at 29 November has indicated that a number of
staff have not taken their required leave days this year).
· Teaching and research: savings required $190,000
(This relates mostly to savings attached to procurement of goods and services –
including services provided by SADS towards teaching).
· Admin: Savings required $185,000
(This relates to reduction in expenditure relating to printing, travel and
entertainment and others).
· Casual salary: savings required $300,000.
As you know, actual casual teaching salary expenditure for 2013 is $1.5m. A
required saving of $300,000 would reduce the casual salary budget to $1.2m.
Calculation of all the requests recently submitted by Year and stream coordinators
indicated that the School would require a budget of $1.7m to meet these requests.
It is very certain that the Faculty will not provide the School with this level of
funding (ie $1.7m).
At the last Group leaders meeting, the Exec Dean indicated that the School could
employ casual tutors up to $1.5m IF the School is able to identify $300,000 worth
of savings from another area. The Group leaders proposed that the School
consider setting this saving requirement of $300,000 against leave management.
The School Manager has undertaken calculation of possible leave management
scenarios. As leave management has already been identified by the Faculty (see
dot point above) where they expect to see a saving of $330,000 – the additional
saving of $300,000 (previously set against casual teaching) will mean that the
School will be required to achieve $630,000 in leave liability reduction. This will
mean that staff will be required to take all the leave that they have not used this
year and any excess AL and/or LSL leave. I will be writing separately to the Group
leaders about managing this process. Staff should discuss this with their Group
Leaders.
Action required:
As the School can only spend up to $1.5m on casual teaching salaries, year and
stream coordinators are asked to review their requirements for casual teaching
support so that the total of the revised budget (based on revised requests) can be
reduced from $1.7m to $1.5m. I have instructed the Academic Support Services
team not to generate any casual contracts until the revised collective budget for
casual teaching support does not exceed $1.5m.
I will be writing to the Group Leaders shortly about the implementation of the
alternative strategy (based on leave management) to achieve the required level of
savings ($300,000).
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards
Johann
Professon Johann de Vries
Dean
School of Dentistry
The University of Adelaide
From: academicstaff.dental-bounces@list.adelaide.edu.au [academicstaff.dentalbounces@
list.adelaide.edu.au] on behalf of xxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014 3:54 PM
To: academicstaff.dental@list.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: [Academicstaff.dental] Casual Teaching Budget for 2014
Dear colleagues
I refer to my email to Year Coordinators dated 19 December (please see email
below).
With the academic year for 2014 commencing, I wish to remind staff to review
their earlier requests for casual teaching support. As indicated in my previous
email, staff requests submitted in late 2013 for casual teaching support for 2014
indicated that the School would require a casual teaching budget of $1.7m.
For 2014, the School has only been allocated $1.2m for its casual teaching budget.
Expenditure on casual teaching support by 27 December 2013 was $1.5m.
At the December meeting , Group Leaders indicated that staff would find it very
difficult to reduce their casual teaching support any lower than $1.5m. As indicated
in my email of 19 December 2013, the Exec Dean, who was at that meeting,
indicated that the School could employ casual tutors up to $1.5m if the School is
able to identify $300,000 worth of savings from another area. The Group Leaders
agreed to further reduce the School’s leave liability by another $300,000 (in
addition to expected saving of $330,000 in this area).
Could you please review your requests for casual teaching support to match 2013
levels for your course. Please contact Academic Support Services Team if you
require assistance in revising casual teaching support requests. Please forward
revised requests to the Academic Support Services Team by 30 January 2014. The
School will not be able to commence generating contracts until the Academic
Support Services Team has received all requests and they do not exceed $1.5 m in
total .
Professon Johann de Vries
Dean
School of Dentistry
The University of Adelaide
From: Grant Townsend
To: xxxx
Xxxx
Subject: RE: Casual Teaching Budget for 2014
Date: Thursday, 16 January 2014 6:23:55 PM
Dear xxxx
I had a quick chat to xxxx before leaving work and thought about this while peddling coolly home.
This may seem obvious but I don't think we're getting the message across.
Our current programs have been accredited by the ADC. If their content or quality is affected, the ADC must be notified so they can determine whether accreditation should continue or not. If staff believe that further cuts will have this effect, then the ADC must be informed. I'd be interested to see whether any mention of this issue of casual tutors and others have been included in previous annual reports to the ADC (I would ask to see these). Anyway, this would be a justification for continuing as previously until the money 'runs out'. eg semester 2a.
The University would then need to contact the ADC and ask it to make a decision. If more money is found then the accredited program could continue - if not, we would lose our accreditation.
Cheers
Grant
From: xxxx
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014 4:49 PM
To: xxxx
Cc: xxxx
Subject: Re: Casual Teaching Budget for 2014
Dear xxxx,
I agree with you, please do not be upset about sending emails.
Let is try and get together tomorrow as many as we can.
Regards
Xxxx
On 16 Jan 2014, at 16:41, ,xxxx> wrote:
Dear
I am sorry for sending more emails. I am very upset about this situation.
xxxx--- is it possible to send all relevant co-ordinators an updated spreadsheet
showing the lastest estimates for tutor costs across the board (BDS and BOH and PG
etc) as of 15 Jan 2014 and what the final costs we each spent in all areas at end of
2013?
xxxx and colleagues - I can't see how we can achieve this reduction without meeting. The meeting should be just academic co-ordinators and academic staff who this affects. I strongly feel we need to discuss this situation so we do what is fair and just for our students and us as academics. Some staff may have some ideas.
If the estimates were $1.7 in Dec 2013 and we have to reach a target of $1.5 - this is $200,000 for all of us to collectively achieve. But are the current estimates $1.7M? The numbers are confusing me.
Chopping a few tutors here of there is not going to solve the problem. Also we don't
have staff contracts that run for whole yr and some staff may be terminated in April so we have to rely on casual paid tutors - where if their positions were full time for the whole yr then we would not need to pay casual tutors.
It seems to me we might as well stop teaching at end of sem 2A to achieve what is
being demanded of us.
We should also remove the cost of paying tutors to attend the tutor induction session at start of the year that has been estimated at approx $25,000. We did not pay them last yr and given this situation I would rather we use the money to pay tutors to actually teach and to pay for catering for the tutor induction session and for
moderation meetings that was removed.
xxxx
A whole of course contents have been dropped because the coordinators have had to cut the budget.
Some reasons for budget cut are faculty executive dean's financial mismanagement. One was back in 2013/2014 when Justin Beilby mismanaged bequest to fund staff salary against the funding conditions, creating a $10 million budget deficit. Well, dentistry had to contribute to the budget shortfall through no fall of its own, didn't it?
A more recent one was failure by Alistair Burt to plan an animal house, which again caused a massive budget deficit (>$10 million dollars). Dentistry had to fork out budget savings, didn't it?
Who suffered? Coordinators and students.
The story is the same every year. The endless budget squeeze and bullying management style have made life not worthwhile for so many school staff, who ultimately left after being disillusioned about academia or after developing health issues from work stress.
Someone should request the university's and school's paperwork under freedom of speech. The evidence is all there.
1) The casual budget is now well less than $1.5 million
2) Student numbers have increased dramatically in the last 4 years
3) Less academic staff are employed directly by the uni
Clearly indicates the stress in staffing numbers and little wonder there is a decline in quality. What is managements answer?,,, there is no problem here.
From: Richard Logan
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2020 9:12 AM
To: allstaff.dental@list.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: [Allstaff.dental] Final update for 2020!
Hi everyone
This will be my last update for what has been a year like no other!
This week has been a chance to reflect on what we have all actually achieved this year. On Saturday and Sunday I attended the Declaration Ceremonies for the BDS and BOH final year students. It was so good to see that, despite this year’s challenges, 70 BDS and 25 BOH students successfully completed the year and the majority were able to attend their respective ceremonies which were organised by the ADA SA Branch and ADOHTA and the DHAA. As I indicated in my speech at the BOH ceremony, thinking back to March this year when clinics were cancelled, at that time I wasn’t feeling that optimistic with regard to how this year would pan out! The fact that these ceremonies were organised by our professional bodies was a great welcome to the dental profession for these students.
The success of the BDS and BOH final year students was only the tip of the iceberg though – the majority of the students in the other years successfully completed the year, another group of honours students completed their programs and a new group of dental specialists in prosthodontics, orthodontics, special needs, endodontics and paediatric dentistry are joining the profession, not to mention a number of HDR students who also completed their degrees this year. Whilst the success of the students is in part reflective of their resilience and ability to rise to the challenges of studying and working in this unusual year, it was also a result of the dedication and ingenuity of the staff in the school in terms of developing new and innovative ways to deliver our programs to ensure that students now meet the ADC and Dental Board competencies for newly graduated dentists, oral health therapists and specialists. At the same time, research in the school has continued, grant applications have been submitted and won and papers have been published. I’m incredibly proud of the fact that we have managed to make 2020 a successful year despite all the challenges that we have had to deal with.
As you all know, 2020 also saw the departure of various academic staff either due to the early retirement scheme, the voluntary separation scheme or people just wanting to retire. Whilst this has been sad and often required some additional thought to how we continue to run things effectively in the school, it has also meant that we have been able to see some new faces who have made their own impact on learning and teaching. The fact that we’re welcoming even more new staff to the school in 2021 means that we can be optimistic about the year ahead. On the note of people leaving, I should highlight that today was xxxx’s last day with the school in the xxxx – xxxx has made a significant contribution to the school over many, many years – fortunately he will be continuing to be part of the school as a titleholder in the new year – I would like to wish him all the best in his retirement.
I would like to thank you all for your support this year and I hope that you are all able to enjoy a well-earned break over the next few weeks.
All the very best to you and your families for the holiday season and look forward to 2021 – which will hopefully be less “unprecedented” and require minimal “pivoting”.
All the best
Richard
--
RICHARD LOGAN
Dean and Head of School
Professor, Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Adelaide Dental School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, SA, AUSTRALIA, 5005
T: +61 8 8313 3066| E: richard.logan@adelaide.edu.au
https://researchers.adelaide.edu.au/profile/richard.logan
CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
1. Someone who tried to close the BOH program unsuccessfully, and bullied so many BOH staff, goes to give a speech to the graduating BOH class. (Just look at previous comments about how Logan and Steele tried to close the program and "coaxed" others to write a damning report about the program)
2. The "new and innovative ways to deliver our programs"? What is so innovative about it when the quality is sliding downhill very quickly? You mean innovative = financial cuts + bully staff and get them to deliver the program for cheaper price? Do not worry about the declining program. If you say it is innovative, that is all that matters.
3. A successful year when the ADC put conditions on clinical programs and lifted when the previous VC, Rathjen, lied to them about the school's bullying culture? Are they are doing the site visit in 2021?
4. You are sad to see so many staff leave when you are the reason why most of them took the difficult decision to leave the work they love?
Integrity is one of the most important things in a leader. People have told you this before. Until you get some integrity back, no one will believe a thing you say.
On 14 Feb 2018, at 11:42, Kieran McCarron wrote:
Hello everyone,
It was good to see a lot of you at the meeting yesterday.
The meeting agreed on several important points:
1. The response to our initial letter from the HoS [Head of School] regarding the over allocation of workloads was unsatisfactory, and does not provide any solutions to the problems at hand.
2. Academic in the Dental School were allocated more than 1725 hours of work each in 2017 which is not in accord with the Enterprise Agreement
3. In the 2018 round of PDRs everyone will be asserting their right to receive a maximum workload allocation on 1725 hours. It is not the responsibility of individual dentistry academics to make up for systemic resource problems by doing extra unpaid work. This is unsustainable and merely masks the problem of under-resourcing from the Faculty.
4. The NTEU will write a letter to the Executive Dean notifying him that staff will not be accepting workload allocations above the prescribed maximum in the EB.
Another issue that was discussed was the issue of the very poor office environment in the new building. This is a serious issue and the Adelaide Branch of the NTEU is working on broader ways to bring this to the attention of the staff and the University.
We will forward the letter sent to the Executive to Dean Dental School members.
Please keep in mind that those of you who are not NTEU members will not be entitled to individual or industrial assistance if this becomes necessary, I would encourage you to join now: https://www.nteu.org.au/join
Please feel free to get in touch at any time,
Kieran and Cheryl
Kieran McCarron
Branch Organiser
Ph: 08 8227 2384 Fax: 08 8227 0997 | Email: kmccarron@nteu.org.au
15 Paxtons Walk, Palais Apartments, 281 North Tce, Adelaide 5000, SA
Burt gave "an absolute and unconditional guarantee" that the faculty would cover the cost of the Centre from its Rural Health budget. In 2017, Burt forced the school to cover $900,000.
Dentistry loses again. The past dentistry dean put resistance against Burt's actions but Richard Logan step up for the dean's role and let Burt fulfil his wish.
If anyone remembers the notorious Professional Services Reform (PSR), Richard Logan stayed quiet. He never raised any questions to the faculty managers. Why? Because his ambition was to become dean of dentistry at any cost. Even if it meant the school had to lose $900,000 and more money in later years, who cares? He still gets to keep the dean's title and become the faculty's lapdog.
Staff have raised those issues about falling standards but the staff in those disciplines do not listen, and the dean does not do anything about it. The dean is denial that the quality is falling. His principle of "working smart" means you take the shortest way to get there even if it is not sound morally. With such low standards, you are better off talking to a wall.
All students should know the conditions at the school. They should know that they are taught by staff who get bullied and treated poorly. University sometimes listens to students (but be careful not to be labeled as 'troublemakers'), but staff are seen as a liability. We know of your concerns but are helpless to do anything.
The ADC has limited power but they will do a site visit this year. Whether the university will handpick staff and students to speak to the ADC needs to be seen. The management does not want troublemakers to speak to the team. Even when the ADC raised some serious issues, the university lied to them. The university (most likely Rathjen) told them last year that there was no problem.
The student body has the option of raising the matters directly with ADC https://www.adc.org.au/. The best case scenario is that they will put conditions on the clinical programs and give the university a fixed period of time to fix things, after which the conditions will be lifted.
There is no magic bullet to fix the school/ university culture that is rotten to the core. If you care too much about the school, you will end up in a very, very bad place (with mental and physical health problems). Late Emeritus Professor Townsend never recovered from the disappointment and stress from uni ... he sadly passed away only 2 years after he retired. He truly cared about the school and did not think highly of Richard Logan.
---
3 January at 16:47 ·
Is anyone in the same pickle as me?
I applied for a Masters (of Teaching) to start January this year. I finished my bachelor at the end of 2020 and haven't been given an offer yet because SATAC is "awaiting results", asked the faculty of arts and they said they're just waiting for my last subject of the bachelor's to be added to my transcript. But it's getting closer to having to start and worried I'll have to wait another semester before starting
--------
Lol adelaide uni took months to look at my application
Have you put in a selection for flinders and unisa too?
The Adelaide graduate centre is not replying to emails until 10th Jan
May be linked?
They are on leave
I spent a few weeks waiting too with the "awaiting results" note, as I only just completed undergrad at the end of 2020.
Once my final semester was updated onto my transcript, I received an offer in the next round. This was because I was ineligible to get offers for my Masters without SATAC confirming I had completed the required number of classes to be a graduate - and in-turn be considered for postgrad study
Your transcript should hopefully update soon, and as soon as that happens, SATAC can put you forward for consideration
wont get anything til 11th the earliest, staff are on leave
Literally me, still waiting for offer to he accepted 🤷♀️ Have to wait til 11 Jan when the uni repoen
Same thing happened to me, I actually just directly called my faculty and also emailed my professor to release my grade early. The last time I called faculty, they help me to put my last course result onto my transcript on the same day. And i requested the transcript straight after and got it. So maybe you should try calling around? It will be more effective. But then the staffs are on the leave so not sure how that going to work 🥺 All the best tho!
Oh no
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=AAWEB_WRE170_a_FBK&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adelaidenow.com.au%2Feducation%2Ftertiary%2Ficac-reports-on-flinders-and-unisa-reveal-bullying-and-harassment%2Fnews-story%2F3ca62e8d4c2c2710562af47b59f65e2f&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium
Don't forget! https://indaily.co/324168
Shame
How many are starting to feel that some of Adelaide senior managers behave like Trump?
Justin Beilby - $10 million [misused bequest funds]
Alastair Burt - > $10 million [animal house bungle]
The dental school's unfortunate fate is that it is a poor cousin in the faculty of health sciences. Dentistry gets treated badly but has to fork out for financial mismanagement by the faculty.
Did we say $900,000 budget deficit for dentistry when Alastair Burt broke his promise about supporting the Riverland clinic from faculty's rural budget?
The fate could have been different if Richard Logan had shown some integrity and not let Alastair Burt carry out a coup on his predecessor. Logan was prepared to do anything to get the dean's title. He is also prepared to do anything right or wrong (lying and bullying) to keep his job as dean. How on earth >80% staff say they have no confidence on Logan, who still prospers under Benjamin Kile? Kile is more unpopular than Logan, according to the data. What sort of world we live in where the bully and its protector prosper?
All the jobs that were lost because of financial mismanagement, and all the jobs that were frozen because of financial mismanagement, affect the quality of teaching. Students complain they pay huge fees but get poor quality education. Why?? Financial mismanagement is one answer. Another one is greed by the central university that takes 55% cut of the school's income for 'strategic projects'. This means building new buildings for other faculties and schools. Who cares about dentistry? They almost got obliterated in the new AHMS building. Now they have a section that looks like a large hall with 3 partitions. Each staff has a table and a filing cabinet. That is the treatment they deserve - the faculty would agree.
Alastair Burt's right hand people were Andrew Zanittino and Natalia Hubczenko. They are working for the South Australian Health (Zanittino has a split position with SA Health and university - a nice one).
Burt has gone back to Newcastle in the UK. Beilby is working in Torrens University, Victoria Square, Adelaide.
How can you teach properly when you are bullied, overworked and pressured into doing things out of your expertise (clinic tutoring)? If students go inside the dentistry school office, they will only see a few unhappy staff working. Most staff try to avoid the school office because of the negative vibe. It is a depressing place to be in. Why? The dean and faculty management have made it a toxic workplace. Has it changed since the NTEU (union) survey was conducted in April 2020? There is no evidence to suggest it has improved.
Who suffers? Staff, of course. Whoever can make an alternative arrangement or retire early will do so. Some are just counting few years that are left before they can retire.
Who else suffers? Students get poor quality teaching and patients get poor quality care.
Get rid of all the high-performing research staff. Few retired early. Those who have retired do not want to do anything with the school that is going downhill very fast.
Get rid of rising stars who are capable of doing research.
Force staff to do teaching (>100% of time allocated by the Enterprise Agreement). Who cares about research? Casual clinical teaching is the "school's priority". Just say in paper that the school wants to be the top in research.
Deny overworked staff any promotion because they have poor research record.
Hire new staff that have low or no track record in research. Look at the latest appointments at Level B (lecturer), Level C (senior lecturer), Level D (associate professor) and Level E (professor).
It is only a matter or time before the international ranking systems capture Adelaide dentistry school's plummeting ranking. Publications from the last 5 years (from those who have retired or left) are still propping up the school's ranking but will not happen for much longer. When the data comes out, the readers can decide who was single-handedly responsible for it.
https://twitter.com/cici18480257/status/1346594726649200647
Cici, grad. of SBU dental, SUNY' corruption pit. @cici18480257
One reader on @mbalter' blog shared that Michael started revolution at Uni. of Adelaide. He made academia safer by believing traumatized students when they reached out to him, asking tough questions and demanding answers, transparency and accountability from the administrations.
9:39 AM · Jan 6, 2021
M. Balter is being sued for his #MeToo reporting @mbalter Replying to @cici18480257
Being in the US, I didn’t have to fear Australia’s draconian defamation laws as much as the folks actually there. That allowed my blog to be a platform for reporting on investigations and a forum for colleagues who wanted to discuss problems in the system with security.
9:49 AM · Jan 6, 2021
Womxndraught @WomanDraft Replying to @mbalter and @cici18480257
I know they are grateful that you report on their behalf. Victims of institutional abuse should not have to fear retaliation for speaking their truth.
9:59 AM · Jan 6, 2021·
https://twitter.com/mbalter/status/1340651582740951041
M. Balter is being sued for his #MeToo reporting
@mbalter
Want to keep up on what's going on in Australian science, medicine, and #dentistry, especially at @UniofAdelaide? Especially the culture of #bullying and disrespect for colleagues? Follow the comments on this blog post: https://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-truth-at-last-or-at-least-some-of.html
12:03 AM · Dec 21, 2020
Cici, grad. of SBU dental, SUNY' corruption pit.
@cici18480257
Replying to @mbalter and @UniofAdelaide
If you can lie so easily to external investigators of dental school, then those investigators are in on the cover up.
12:14 AM · Dec 21, 2020
Deepti Gurdasani
@dgurdasani1
This just gets worse and worse... it's amazing the lengths universities will go to to protect bullies in leadership.
@imperialcollege
- this is absolutely shameful, and a huge let down to victims, students & staff.
Visit these websites too:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/18/bullying-scandal-university-blames-clerical-error-for-changes-to-hr-policy
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/14/imperial-college-london-executives-admit-they-bullied-colleagues-alice-gast
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/07/imperial-college-accused-of-cover-up-over-claims-of-bullying-by-president
Staff made complaints - Adelaide staff have made many complaints that have been swept under the carpet by senior managers including HR.
A Labour MP got involved. It is time for a state on federal Australian MP to get involved as a tribute to original university founders and public service.
Jane McNeill QC investigated the claims and the senior Imperial managers apologized. When Adelaide managers carry out external independent investigation, they assign it to a private firm paid by Adelaide. What should really happen is an external body, headed by QC or Human Rights leader, should be involved in the investigation. All the lies will come out into the open.
Recent graduates, alumni and the community who care about the university can lobby for external investigations. Investigate the complaints made in these 380 or so comments. If anyone wants original documents, they can be provided through Balter.
It isn't only the Adelaide Dental School we need to be worrying about in regards to cover ups. Senior people have even more senior friends outside the university covering their backsides. Some people are able to live virtually consequence-free. It isn't even an Adelaide University problem anymore, it's a South Australian corruption problem.
University of Adelaide and the Union
@UniofAdelaide @AdelUniUnion @NTEUNational @NTEUSA
South Australian Politicians
Steven Marshall, MP (Premier of South Australia and Member for Dunstan); Susan Close MP (Deputy Leader of the Opposition); John Gardner MP (SA Liberal MP for Morialta and Minister for Education); Peter Malinauskas (SA Labor Leader and Member for Croydon); Rachel Sanderson MP (Adelaide MP - State Member for Adelaide, Minister); Stephen Wade (Minister for Health and Wellbeing); Chris Picton MP (SA Shadow Minister for Health and Wellbeing)
@marshall_steven @susan_close @JohnGardnerMP @PMalinauskasMP @AdelaideMP @StephenWadeMLC @PictonChris
Federal Politicians
Julia Gillard (27th (Past) Prime Minister of Australia & Patron of University of Adelaide); Greg Hunt (Minister for Health and Aged Care + Federal Member for Flinders); Alan Tudge (Federal Member for Aston, Minister for Education and Youth); Mr Steve Georganas MP (Federal Labor Member for Adelaide); Chris Bowen (Shadow Minister for Health Member for McMahon); Tanya Plibersek (Shadow Minister for Education + Training, Member for Sydney)
@JuliaGillard @GregHuntMP @AlanTudgeMP @stevegeorganas @Bowenchris @tanya_plibersek
Professional organizations – AMA Media (Australian Medical Association); AMA President; Australian Dental Association; AMA(SA); Dental Hygienists Association of Australia; and Australian Health Professional Regulation Agency; Matthew Brown (Deputy Chief Executive of the Group of Eight (Go8)); John Ross (Asia Pacific editor, Times Higher Education); Universities Aust. (Universities Australia is the peak body representing Australia's universities)
@ama_media @amapresident @amasamembers @ADASouthAus @JackGaff @ADANews @SAHealth @DHAANews @Ahpra @AUS_Dental @ADAVB @adavbceo @drmrbrown @JohnRoss49 @uniaus
Media – the Advertiser; ABC; InDaily (Adelaide's online daily newspaper)
@theTiser @abcadelaide @abcnews @indaily
Adelaide staff, organizations and stakeholders
Anton Middelberg (Deputy Vice Chancellor and Vice President (Research) at The University of Adelaide); Benjamin Kile (Executive Dean, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences); Mark Chilvers (Chair, Australian Dental Directors | Executive Director, SA Dental), The Adelaide Medical Students' Society; Adelaide Uni Union;
@Antonpjm @KileBenjamin @Mark_Chilvers @YourAMSS @AdelUniUnion
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/adj.12816
An Exploratory Study of Perfectionism, Professional Factors and Psychological Wellbeing of Dentistry Academics
Hugo Teixeira, Ratilal Lalloo , Jane L. Evans, Janet Fuss, Nancy A. Pachana, Adam Nović, Nicola W. Burton
Conclusion: This exploratory study demonstrated poor wellbeing among dentistry academics, particularly in those teaching undergraduate students for more than six hours/week.
You would have seen some earlier comments about how Richard Logan pushed dentistry staff to do excessive teaching in direct contravention of the Enterprise Agreement. Direct teaching of 10 hours per week is a luxury. He is still getting some to teach 24 to 32 weeks of teaching per week (24 if you allow 3 hours of clinic per session and 32 if you allow 4 hours per session; 3 hours is grossly minimal and 4 is more realistic as sometimes it goes above 4).
Adelaide staff need little or no preparation time and coordination time and they can work like his slaves. It is perfectly fine if coordinators work from home and work at odd hours (midnight or early hours of the morning on a regular basis because of excessive workload). Still force them to take on more jobs.
Only if there was an independent investigation by a QC, will Logan and Kile still try to lie? Peter Rathjen tried lying to the ICAC commissioner and look what happened.
@UniofAdelaide @AdelUniUnion @NTEUNational @NTEUSA
@marshall_steven @susan_close @JohnGardnerMP @PMalinauskasMP @AdelaideMP @StephenWadeMLC @PictonChris
@JuliaGillard @GregHuntMP @AlanTudgeMP @stevegeorganas @Bowenchris @tanya_plibersek
@ama_media @amapresident @amasamembers @ADASouthAus @JackGaff @ADANews @SAHealth @DHAANews @Ahpra @AUS_Dental @ADAVB @adavbceo @drmrbrown @JohnRoss49 @uniaus
@theTiser @abcadelaide @abcnews @indaily
@Antonpjm @KileBenjamin @Mark_Chilvers @YourAMSS @AdelUniUnion
Right now the key people in Education are laughing their heads off having toughened it out while changing nothing.
Nothing - nothing at all - will ever be resolved, and most importantly nobody will be held publicly accountable for the deplorable state of some parts of Adelaide Uni, when investigations/reviews are conducted by locals. We have a severe lack of independence in Adelaide. So many wheels within wheels. Even the previous and current "Independent" Commissioner Against Corruption are closely associated with the university, and could in no way be expected to be completely impartial. Lander even began his legal career in the same legal firm that the university uses (it had a different name back then but it's the same firm). We need people from outside to cut through the small-town BS like a knife.
Shaw recently appointed Lori Hocking as Executive Director Education Transformation.
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/dase/division-leadership/education-transformation
This is despite findings from the Tasmanian Integrity Commission in 2017 indicating that Hocking's integrity is questionable. A snippet from the Integrity Commission's investigation into her time as deputy chief executive at TasTAFE:
"On the basis of evidence obtained by the Commission, Mr Conway and Ms Hocking:
- had conflicts of interest arising from their association, through VETNetwork Australia, with Person J;
- failed to appropriately manage their conflicts of interest in relation to the procurement of consultancy services from Business A; and
- directly procured the consultancy services of Business A, without testing the market to determine the availability of other service providers."
"It is open to conclude that Mr Conway and Ms Hocking:
- attempted to misrepresent the circumstances in which the procurement of the consultancy services of Business A were procured."
"On the basis of evidence obtained by the Commission, Ms Hocking:
- had a conflict of interest in relation to her association, through VETNetwork Australia, with Person K;
- unfairly advantaged Person K in the selection process for the position of Position A while responsible for establishing the recruitment process.
- as chair of the relevant selection panel, unfairly advantaged Person M in the EOI process for the position of Position B.
- as chair of the relevant selection panel, unfairly advantaged Person N in the EOI process for the position of Position B."
Full report here:
https://www.integrity.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/472919/Integrity-Commission_Report-2-of-2017_Investigation_into_alleged_conflict_of_interest_of_senior_TasTAFE_officers.pdf
Media coverage on the matter:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-02/tastafe-audit-transparency-questioned-by-education-union/9005612
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/extafe-sa-boss-quits-tastafe-as-damning-report-reveals-his-lavish-pay-rises-to-adelaide-friend/news-story/1e691d742d5b20845a67dcd6e50778ee
Has Adelaide University engaged Hocking's education consultancy recently?
https://www.positiveshiftconsulting.com.au/
Is University management aware of Hocking's questionable integrity, or do they know and simply not care?