 |
| 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
But the tv footage of the now chancellor hardly inspires confidence that anything will change
Plus will Rathjens fall allow the corruption and cronyism rampant in The School of Education and sanctioned by the Dean plus the toxic culture in Dentistry to remain and continue?
http://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2020/05/peter-rathjen-serial-sexual-predator.html
Donate for Michael Balter's Go Fund Me: Freedom of the Press Defense Fund Kurin v. Balter
https://au.gofundme.com/f/freedom-of-the-press-defense-fund-kurin-v-balter
Michael has been sued for $10 million for reporting the truth against an UCSB academic's serious misconduct - retaliating against students who reported sexual assault from her husband.
So far, $8, 187 has been raised of $20,000 goal. Please support Michael and help to keep integrity in academia.
White woman here.
I had a consensual relationship with a professor in my department when I was an undergraduate student. I met him at a departmental function. I was an older student, about 30. He was about 40. He wasn't teaching me any classes, and based on his area of specialization, wasn't going to. We genuinely liked each other and had a lot in common. He was black, from a West African country.
After a few months of dating (about two), he started to engage in physically abusive behavior that I wasn't comfortable with. I ended the relationship.
After that, he rallied other professors in the department against me. I was in my in my last year of an undergraduate degree, but the experience heavily influenced my decision to leave for a different university to do graduate studies. I still hear from people in that department who make uninvited offhanded remarks, as if I had engaged in the relationship to gain some academic advantage. I never talk about it, because I know people would never believe me, or would say that I had somehow invited the physical abuse.
David Drummond at Google had a pattern of sexually harassing women. There are actually many well known cases in Silicon Valley of non-white men harassing women, some of them white women.
Black men certainly do have less power than white men in my field, but that does not mean that there are no cases of harassment of women by black men.
In my experience, black men tend to be somewhat more perceptive and empathetic about harassment of women than white men, but not always.
This was a saddening discovery for me, and one that I do not mention here lightly. I'm going to the trouble to recount this because I think that we always need to be aware that institutional power can be abused by any person. I always check myself, and remind myself to be aware of the power I do have, and not misuse it.
Former Adelaide uni VC engaged in ‘entirely inappropriate’ sexual conduct, lied to chancellor: ICAC
By: Dallas Bastian in News, Top Stories August 28, 2020 0
Former vice-chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen engaged in “entirely inappropriate” conduct at a work function and treated two women employed by the University of Adelaide with “egregious disrespect”, an investigation has found.
The former head of the university stepped down from his position in July, the day after first giving evidence to the South Australian Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC).
Delivering a statement rather than a report to avoid further harm to the two women involved, commissioner Bruce Lander said Rathjen kissed one of the women and repeatedly touched her bottom while they were at a hotel.
Rathjen also hugged a second woman while they were at the hotel “and in doing so deliberately placed both of his hands around her waist” and placed one hand on her waist at the top of her bottom.
All of the behaviour – which Lander described as sexual in nature and advertised by Rathjen to the women as sexual – was “unwanted and unwelcome”.
Lander said: “It was all the worse having regard to his position within the University and the two women’s relative positions in the University.”
Rathjen gave evidence contrary to the accounts of the women but Lander rejected his take on the encounters.
Chancellor Kevin Scarce – who resigned in April, one day after being told by the deputy chancellor that he would be stood down if he did not resign – met with Rathjen in May 2019 to put the allegations to him, which he did not deny.
Still, the commissioner found that Rathjen lied to Scarce on three occasions and lied to Lander himself during his investigation. “I have found that he has lied when it suited him to do so," the commissioner said.
One such lie was in response to an email from the chancellor in which he asked Rathjen for a response to claims made in a July 2019 blog by Michael Balter about previous sexual harassment on the part of the vice-chancellor “going back to his earlier days as a professor”. Rathjen told Scarce that there was nothing the Chancellor needed to know in relation to his past conduct.
part 2
Lander found that Rathjen’s actions put him in breach of his contract of employment. “In my opinion his conduct, having regard to the serious power imbalance between him and the victims, amounted to serious misconduct for the purposes of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 (ICAC Act).”
He added that apart from the vice-chancellor, none of the university’s public officers including the chancellor engaged in misconduct or maladministration.
Deputy chancellor Catherine Branson – who during the ICAC investigation attested to her own possible error of judgement surrounding conversations with Rathjen about her desire to become chancellor that were had at the same March meeting in which she discussed the first woman’s allegations – apologised for the former vice-chancellor's conduct on behalf of the university.
"The university is deeply sorry, as I am deeply sorry, that while employed at our university they were treated in a wholly inappropriate way by our former vice-chancellor," she said on Wednesday.
"The matter should have been handled differently.”
During the investigation, Branson said she was in some doubt about whether the university would be able in 2020 to dismiss Rathjen and "was conscious of the fact that the chancellor was committed to retaining the vice-chancellor to guide the University through COVID-19".
On Wednesday, Branson said any small pockets of inappropriate conduct "must be weeded out".
Professor Rufus Black, vice-chancellor of the University of Tasmania – for which Rathjen is the immediate past vice-chancellor – alerted staff of the ICAC findings.
Black said his university's own investigation into Rathjen’s behaviour to date has determined that there was no known evidence of sexual harassment or sexual assault during his tenure there but invited staff or students to share experiences related to Rathjen’s time as vice-chancellor.
“Today I want to assure you that there is no tolerance at our University for sexual harassment or sexual assault,” he said. “If there are unreported, undetected issues in Tasmania, we are ready to support anyone with experiences they want to share, knowing how difficult it can be to come forward.”
Another of Rathjen’s former employers, the University of Melbourne, found through an external review that he committed serious sexual misconduct in the mid-2000s, the ABC reported.
The university received a formal complaint from a former student in May alleging Rathjen had committed serious sexual misconduct against her while he was the dean of science between 2006 and 2008.
Universities Australia chair Professor Deborah Terry said she wanted to send a strong message to the sector, which was: “Sexual assault and sexual harassment are not acceptable. Not on our campuses, and not in Australian society.”
Terry added: “On behalf of our sector, I want to recognise the strength of the women involved and the trauma that they have experienced.
“To all victims and survivors I say this: we support you and believe you. Violence against women is never okay, and everyone has a right to be safe.”
These events underscores that there is significant dissatisfaction with University staff over the toxicity and mismanagement of the workplace. The University leadership should fall on their swords rather than issuing "policy guidelines" which do nothing to protect the job security of the multitudes of staff that are on continual short-term contracts who are subject to the whims and toxicity of upper management. There are no unfair dismissal laws to protect them; there is nothing stopping the University from declining to renew their contracts if they raise concerns.
https://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2020/05/peter-rathjen-serial-sexual-predator.html
What did the university do about Sam Gue's abuse for years in dentistry?? What did the current dean, Richard Logan, know for years (and left the students to fend for themselves against the abuser) and is now lying about it now? You cannot get away by lying and saying "I did not know". Someone should investigate him and bring the truth out. If someone like Lander investigates him, he will be caught out for lying. If university managers investigate him, he will be "protected". You know the system!
The Trust's financial report from 2018 says that SNAP is an 'early stage' privately held technology venture (established 2009) to which it is difficult to ascribe an accurate value, and the value of ARI's investment in SNAP is therefore valued at $1.
SNAP uses CCTV monitoring software developed at the University of Adelaide's Centre for Visual Technologies (ACVT), where Mike Brooks was formerly Research Leader in Video Surveillance. Was he involved directly or indirectly in developing SNAP, and does that affect the Trust's decision to retain shares in this company while divesting its other intersts? "The Trust will retain this asset until such time as a trade sale occurs in relation to the entity or an offer is received from another shareholder."
"maybe we should consider striking in a bid to force change"
August 28, 2020 at 8:40 PM
An excellent idea. No staff should have to take a pay cut or loss of conditions, in these difficult times.
It's reasonable to agree to a pay freeze -- untill the economy recovers.
It would be helpful if people could, identify some areas where university funds could be redirected into supporting staff.
Recouping some of the income and payouts that went to bullies and enablers, is obvious. However, there maybe other projects or programs that could be cut.
We can demand:
No paycuts or loss of conditions for staff. We will accept a pay freeze.
An independent review of the University council's governance, leading up to and during Rathjen's term as VC, must be conducted
Individuals who had reasonable knowledge of Rathjen's behaviour must resign, or be fired.
Limited job losses may be necessary.
We could also have a peaceful sit-in, to help raise awareness.
One of the areas is TV and radio advertisement. Wonder how much money they pay Channel 7 and other media.
How much do they waste on external consultants on futile exercises and ("multimillion dollar") makeover "tearing down historic fences, adding new gardens..." [Advertiser, Nov 10, 2019]?
Mike Brooks should be forced to get payment back from Rathjen. So much incompetence...
Brooks also mismanaged Cooper and ended up making a payout.
Cut back VC's salary.
Someone should send these messages to NTEU National Office and South Australian Branch.
Mike Brooks wrote,"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."
Just give us some details about how the last 40 or so bullying complaints have been decided in favour of defendants like Cooper. Is this really treating people with respect and fairness?
Why did Brooks did nothing about Professor Grant Townsend's letter about the dire situation in the dental school? He told you the school was declining into mediocrity, and you let it go downhill. Working conditions are very bad there. The current dean has bullied many staff and grossly mismanaged the school. He did nothing about Sam Gue's abuse for years. THIS HAS ALL HAPPENED UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING. The dean gets around by lying and pretends he does not know about anything. AND YOU ARE STILL LETTING THAT HAPPEN.
Stop preaching what you cannot practice.
Bonython Hall
Public · Hosted by University of Adelaide Women's Collective
These are our demands:
- Commitment from the University to sit down with Student representatives to ensure the trauma caused by Rathjen, as subject of the recent ICAC investigation, is handled in a just and transparent manner.
- The Women’s Collective and Pro Choice Club to be affiliated to the AUU.
- A review determining whether the conduct of the former Vice-Chancellor affected his dealings with student representatives in a perverse or bias way, particularly in reference to tackling sexual assault and harassment.
- The option for graduates who feel uncomfortable with the former VC’s name on their degrees to receive a new one without it.
Important note: WoCo takes the health of everyone on campus very seriously. If you are attending the protest please maintain social distancing (1.5 metres) and if you are feeling ill please stay home.
Some comment posted by students and recent graduates on 'Overheard at the University of Adelaide' facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/107281302622867
"Anyone else stuck with the predator's name [Rathjen] on their cert? Would love if the uni provided something like this to fix it"
[On the image of their parchment, Rathjen's signature had been crossed out and replaced with "Someone who isn't a piece of garbage".]
There are many other comments saying how the students have found this sage "disgusting". Other comments are:
Pervy Pete
I wanna see when all his enablers in the university administrations also get ICACed, is that to much to ask?
Who enabled his appointment? It's disgusting. I remember reading about this last year- the information was publicly accessible- but people in power never believe survivors for their own selfish reasons.
[Answer to the above: "Chancellor and HR"]
"ffs... bloody Adelaide uni"
"This is shameful behaviour from UoA. Honestly what were they thinking?!"
"I'm so disappointed"
"Correct me if I’m wrong, but how is it fair that he receives a HUGE payout when he has acted in such a despicable manner?"
"disgusted"
"This is what happens when unis are treated like companies. Damn it Pervy Pete."
"Adelaide uni is the same as JB HiFi that makes perfect sense"
Arts faculty giving out participation awards "Certificate of Success" signed by Jenny Shaw for demonstrating "academic perseverance in light of the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic" attracted these comments:
"Super proud to receive a certificate without a name nor student ID.... are you?"
"Put it on a placard", "Definitely going on the resume", and "That'll only demean the frame."
"Merge error" = we totally forgot to include your names until everyone mentioned it.
[The first lot of certificates emailed out did not have student names.]
"They can't even send a piece of paper without screwing it up"
Moreover Branson and her "Rump" need to be investigated and sacked. Timeline -
11th April 2019 Rathjen does his groping
April/May 2019 Ms A makes formal complaint. At this point UoA is deemed to be aware.
8th August Rathjen receives report on the investigation of him at Melb Uni
Late 2019 By this time Pervy Pete has lied three times to Chancellor Scarce - about rumours of previous behaviour, about Melb Uni and about a sexual relationship at Adelaide.
23rd March 2020 Adelaide University's Convenors' Committee (Branson's coup supporters) accepts Ms A's compensation claim.
6 April 2020 Nearly 12 months after Rathjen's "egregious behaviour", Council agrees to pay compensation.
AT THIS POINT NO ONE ON COUNCIL CAN DENY "OFFICIAL" KNOWLEDGE.
7th May 2020 ICAC Landers statement that investigation has commenced.
Nothing changed. Rathjen still on full pay, no disciplinary action. They must think when compensation is paid, it's over and jothing happened!!!!
This is Branson and the entire council PROTECTING SEXUAL PREDATORS AND HIDING IT FROM THE UNIVERSITY AND ICAC!!
20th July 2020 Rathjen resigns with his payout.
26th August 2020 ICAC Statement of investigation findings released. Branson says the payout "entirely appropriate"!!!!
Branson and entire council cannot be allowed to get away with this!!
Those in the authority are hoping that things will quieten down and be forgotten.
For too long university authorities have adopted totalitarian governance style and put staff in the dark. Too long they have fooled people and got away with it. This must change and change should start from the top.
https://au.gofundme.com/f/freedom-of-the-press-defense-fund-kurin-v-balter
"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."
Unfortunately, no one in Adelaide has had the guts to question the senior management in this way.
http://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2020/05/peter-rathjen-serial-sexual-predator.html
Comment 1: As former DVC Research, and now acting VC, Mike Brooks has been overseer of the likes of Cooper, etc., and was worked closely with Rathjen. Cooper and others aside, what did/does he know about Rathjen? I'm sure a lot. If so, he is as culpable, during and after the fact for doing nothing.
Comment 2: Adelaide - what and when did Richard Logan and Cindy Molloy know about bullying and sexual harassment by Sam Gue? Deleted emails in university server will answer some pertinent questions. Logan is a Dental Board member (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and AHPRA is investigation Gue? Logan and Gue co-supervised students and co-authored many papers. No.
https://twitter.com/mbalter/status/1265449719523938304
https://twitter.com/mbalter/status/1266120537518100481
https://twitter.com/mbalter/status/1277230431033794560
http://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2018/12/sexual-abusers-i-have-known.html
Comment 3: .. People who knew Sam Gue as a student are surprised that things did not end badly for him back in the mid-1980s. Since then, as he has moved into more senior positions, there have been lots of examples of female postgraduate students who have been treated very badly and withdrawn for the clinical training program that he has run. When others have offered to support them to pursue some sort of justice, they have insisted on the matter not being pursued out of fear for their reputations and careers. Added to this, the prevailing culture in clinical training programs has commonly been very inappropriate...
Comment 4: ...Nobody seems to know what happened to that complaint [in the dental school], but there is a story circulating that somebody did overhear a private discussion between university HR staff in which one person, referring to this case, seemed pleased with the fact that the University had recently successfully “defended” its 40th consecutive code of conduct complaint. That alone is evidence of the sort of culture that pervades the organisation.
Comment 5: The Uni settled with Alan Cooper a few weeks ago, prior to the hearing, I believe. [How much was paid because of Mike Brooks' failure to manage properly?]
Comment 6: The dentistry school is still riding on the world class status created by researchers like Mark Bartold and other prominent scientists who have now retired or left. There are very few in the dentistry school who can even do any research. Check in 5 years - the facade will have completely collapsed. Check if Richard Logan will go down in history as the school's worst ever dean protected by Ben Kile.
Comment 7: I have direct experience as a senior academic under Burt - he destroyed the culture of my School via the PSR and it will never recover. The Head of our school was powerless to withstand his bullying and predation. Good riddance. As to the current situation - we're doomed.
Comment 8: The majority of the dentistry staff share the sentiment of Anonymous from July 23, 2020 at 6.44 AM. Burt destroyed the dentistry school and other schools in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. He pushed aside internationally renown researcher Mark Bartold and Grant Townsend. He brought in an incompetent dean who has got rid of more capable academics. Look at the research leadership in the school now.
Comment 9: What? Branson on the panel and chair of audit, compliance and risk? Holy faeces, it will be business as usual!
Comment 10: So the new Chancellor was on the appointment panel, council member with responsibilities that include advising on risk. Seems to me they have no intention of cleaning up house but, instead, maintain secrecy and protect each other. What a farce.
Comment 11: Richard Logan, the current Dentistry Dean, is affiliated with:
1. Systematic bullying of many many dentistry staff
2. Political coup of previous dean who tried to stand up for the school
3. Unsuccessful attempt to close down Bachelor of Oral Health program - did a lot of collateral damage to a whole lot of people & misled the whole school in doing this ("BOH staff were not qualified enough to teach in BDS (Dental Surgery) program" - just check other dental schools)
4. Failing to protect pediatric postgraduate students from bullying and harassment over years - What and when did he really know?? What are the lies and cover ups?
Abuses are still happening under Ben Kile's watch. Kile says Richard has his complete support. The sage continues.
Comment 12: The failed BOH review should be publicized. The reason (lack of workforce demand) to shut down the program was a sham; they just wanted more money. The school makes +++$$ from international dentistry students than BOH students. People have the right to know what shocking documents and dodgy data were used as evidence. Not to talk about serious conflict of interest - the dean should have known! The botched attempt destroyed some people's careers. Staff are still treated poorly. Yet, Ben Kile says the dean is doing a great job.
Comment 13: The private school influence running the University - look to Education.
Appointments from private schools. Bentley, ex Catholic Schools, a former colleague of the Head. A problematic time at Uni SA but appointed in place of the current position holder disliked by Head. White appointed level D direct from St Peters. Thrice denied appointment previously and denied salaried appointments to the University of Melbourne. Never held academic appointments, publications for the Research Excellence Submission 2 publications (less than demanded from others), unable to be on the higher degree supervision register as principal supervisor, no grants from the premier funding bodies. Appointment queried, reply White ‘showed promise’. Strange essential appointment criteria. More qualified not interviewed, denied promotion. White misleads as to his salary to increase the university one. White’s colleague, Barbieri, appointed without any advertisement.
Comment 14: The School Advisory Board is private school focused. One member the former Head of St Peters College and friend of White and Barbieri. The Dean of Arts child and the Faculty Manager’s go to St Peters College. The former Principal of St Peters College is close friends with the Head of the School. Highly opinionated, retired, operated in the most privileged and rarefied education circle.
The Arts Dean noted the university would not be responding to Balter’s Blog.
Comment 15: Now White to amass publications places his name on publications authored by higher degree students. Shaw, reappointed McCallum as Head and gave her sabbatical leave. This occurred after White and Bentley nominated McCallum for low status educational awards and Telstar Business Woman of the Year and lobbied for her. With respect to study leave other more deserving members of staff were denied this.
Comment 16: Government ministers lose their jobs when caught lying and misleading public but university senior managers get away with just about anything. Some people's careers have been built on web of lies and cover ups. And they continue to prosper and protect each other.
Comment 17: Mention is made above to the mandating of Apple Ipads under Barbieri in the School of Education. What needs noting is that Barbieri’s St Peters College was once a pc computer school. Only Art and CAD led the push to Apple. The Head of IT left the school after being undermined. Is it the case that the then Headmaster (now on the Education School Board?) led the push for Apple and did/does his brother work for Apple or an Apple Supplier? And what is Barbieri’s relationship with Compnow. https://www.compnow.com.au/case_study/where-pedagogy-meets-technology-at-st-peters-college-adelaide/
Comment 18: Seems this sage advice has been forgotten as now in the School of Education, aided and abetted by the bullies in Learning Enhancement and Engagement, there is one way only. Ipads and the play way and certainly nothing as rigorous as examinations. The Dean of Arts having forbidden any exams in a recent Faculty Board Meeting. Let us hope medicine, dentistry and engineering still examine students or else we will all end up paying the price in pain, death and destruction.
Comment 19: One can only hope that endless budget squeeze, bullying and maladministration have not infiltrated into medicine, dentistry or engineering. Hope the administrators have not put the public at risk.
Comment 20: Peter Hoj is trying to come back through the revolving door? This is terrible news. Just look at 60 minutes about a week ago.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/07/60-minutes-destroys-uqs-reputation/
Comment 21: A lot of discussion pieces about Professor Alastair Burt here, particularly around the PSR. It's important to note the puppet strings that were pulled tightly by Natalia Hubzcenko and Alex Sabharwal during this time. The Faculty culture was crippled when they were employed. Middle Management bullies at their finest.
Comment 22: Many people brought by Burt are still in powerful positions in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. Just look at Richard Logan. Lesley Steel pulled strings on him and he followed her instructions blindly. His incompetence is also evident in his handling of Gue's abuse on postgraduate students. Did Logan know some dark secrets before 2019? What about 2018, 2017 or earlier?? The devil is in the detail - just track down emails in the university server. Time will tell what will happen with Logan and people who are protecting him. Well, Ben Kile fully supports Logan knowing that he could be covering up for those dark secrets.
Comment 23: Ben Kile, as the Executive Dean of Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, has continued to cut funding from the dental school prior to Covid-19. No reasons provided - just tell the school that your budget is lower than last year. He does not know, or bother to know about how dental teaching clinics should be run where students treat patients. He does not care about patient care or putting the public at risk. He fully support Richard Logan, the Dean and Head of School of Dentistry, who blindly follows the directions from his superiors so that he can keep this job. Everything comes down to KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)! Now that Rathjen is gone, Mike Brooks has failed to act on all the wrongdoings. Well, he has been supporting Alan Cooper and many Executive Deans who were bullies so what can you expect from him? These will go down as DARK, SHOCKING moments in the history of the Adelaide Dentistry School.
Comment 24: Many can still recall how the Faculty of Health Sciences misused about $10 million bequest funds in the medical school some years ago. This very serious matter was dealt in secrecy. The senior management forced the Executive Dean at the time to resign but they recovered the funds partly by cutting other school's budget. Dental school's budget was cut severely to make up for the medical school's stuff up. This all happened when Mike Brooks was Deputy Vice Chancellor & Vice President (Research). When government bodies make such mistakes, heads roll with ministers. At the university, Mike Brooks got promoted. The buck always stops with people below Mike Brooks.
Someone should open this investigation. The public deserves to know how the university mismanaged their bequest and what did they do to recover the funds.
Comment 25: Very much agree about the Alan Cooper payout. He got (how much?) and his victims didn't even receive an apology. Nobody has accepted responsibility for that entire situation.
Comment 26: @ At the Adelaide Dental School Staff Forum held on Tuesday 26th May, 2020 - a rare event - Benjamin Kile (Richard Logan's supervisor) said he fully supported Logan. Logan is invincible......
The Adelaide Dental School Staff Forum, was a rare chance for all members of staff to share their ideas and concerns with the senior staff and receive reassurance regarding the future of the dentistry school.
Instead, it turned into a support rally for Richard Logan, where Ben Kile had to chest-thump for him. Logan is not 'invincible', he is a weak leader, not only because he is a lapdog to the Executive Dean but because his incompetent decisions have degraded conditions, standards and the reputation of the Dental School.
Ben Kile will learn that no one is 'invincible', especially when he realises, he is himself, only a spear-carrier for Mike Brooks.
Comment 27: Rathjen's payout is rumoured to be ~2 years salary. That's close to $1.7M!! That payout plus the settlement over Cooper could have saved many jobs at UoA. The staff are taking pay cuts now and paying for this crap as well as the covid downturn. Surely Branson, Brooks and the rest of their cronies cannot last!! It's Putinesque!
Comment 28: Did Inga Davis get a payout too?
Comment 29: Probably. One by one, pay off the problems and, before you know it, nothing ever happened. Except many people losing jobs, being forced out because of the bullying and toxic culture, careers ruined and ongoing mental anguish. Psychopaths don't care or empathise. Monro was like that. Wonder what mess she left at uni of SA before going to defence?
Comment 30: Joy Rathjen's appointment as Science Directer at BHI, is very odd because she is far less experienced than the other directors and her academic background is in stem cell research and zoology.
The Basil Hetzel Institute has two Science Directors, Joy Rathjen and Mike Roberts and is headed by the Director of Research, Guy Maddern.
Comment 31: This Inga Davis. Was she appointed via an advertised position, shortlisting and interview process, or just appointed?
Comment 32: Agree that the remaining people from the hiring committee should be fired. The committee members were:
Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN (Rtd), Previous Chancellor
Professor Ian Young AO, ANU
Professor John Williams, Chair, Academic Board
The Hon Catherine Branson QC, Chair, Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee
Ms Christine Locher, Chair, People and Culture Committee
Mr David Hill, Member, University Council
The current chancellor, who was the Deputy Chancellor earlier in the year, did some not so nice things according to the ICAC report. She was also in the hiring committee as the Chair of the Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee. How did she become Deputy Chancellor from there? Definitely looks bad on the current chancellor - comes up as a power hungry person.
The ICAC report states:
In the meantime the Convenors’ Committee formed what Ms Branson (Deputy Chancellor) said was the Rump, which she chaired and consisted only of four members.
The Rump decided that the Chancellor should be advised there would be a risk that if he did not resign a motion would be put to Council for him to be stood down during the investigation.
The Deputy Chancellor requested that the Chancellor meet with her at her home on 26 April 2020.
At that meeting the Chancellor was advised that for the good of the University and for his own good he ought to consider resigning. Otherwise a recommendation would be made to the
Council that he be stood down.
The Deputy Chancellor also advised him that she wished to become Chancellor.
The Chancellor was given a fait accompli. If he did not resign he would be stood down. That
would have been extraordinarily embarrassing for him.
On 27 April 2020 the Chancellor resigned. On 30 April 2020 the Deputy Chancellor met with
the Vice-Chancellor and told him that I was investigating his conduct and that a resolution
would be taken to Council to stand him down. He took leave.
I do not think that the Chancellor should have been put in the position in which he was put.
I do not think my investigation could have embarrassed him or the University such that he
needed to resign. However, he elected to put the University’s interests above his own by
resigning.
On 4 May 2020, without further explanation it was announced that the Chancellor had
resigned and on 5 May 2020 it was announced that the Vice-Chancellor had taken an
indefinite period of leave.
Comment 33: Rathjen's problem is only the tip of the iceberg. With a pathological liar as VC, other senior managers have learnt to thrive by lying as well. They get by using their favorite quotes, "I did not know" and "I cannot remember". Culture will only improve when there is serious punishment for pathological liars (as stated in many many earlier comments) and HR staff (who fail to fulfil their duty of care).
Comment 34: Precisely. Had a contact yesterday from a colleague in tears. 3 years of bullying by an oafish and opinionated male. Nothing has happened- the union says keep a log and of course this absolves them from doing SFA. Shaw and MacCallum do nothing. Zilch, Nothing. Staff are all fearful and are terrified to do anything. Not only does this bully target female staff but now students especially overseas one. What does it take before the University actually does anything. Perhaps the university should read the recent judgement of J. Elkaim of August 7 and see what not doing anything cost one ANU affiliated institution. Then perhaps they may act. Should not be too hard given Shaw is a lawyer and other staff have legal family connections.
This blog deserves great credit for pursuing these issues. The ICAC announcement makes clear that Adelaide were willing to bury the sexual assault allegations. And now we get the smug "We did nothing wrong" from the new Chancellor. More shame heaped on inglory. The new Chancellor colludes with the sexual assaulter to stab the old Chancellor in the back to claim the post. The committee that appointed a lying sexual predator recieve promotions to higher positions as rewards for their cowardly silence. If they had any morality at all the entire senior management would apologise publicly for their role in this sordid affair, and stand aside to allow a fresh and unsullied leadership to emerge - if that is possible in such a tainted institution.
"As many have demanded Rathjen SHOULD BE STRIPPED OF HIS ORDER OF AUSTRALIA!! So far he's received no punishment. He was not sacked in disgrace, he resigned and got a bonus!! He doesn't need the money but he does need his AO. It's a ticket to a number of opportunities for him."
If anyone from the UoA Student Union Womens' Collective is reading this blog, what a great campaign that would be, brings Canberra into the issue and put all those other VC's with AO's on notice!
Things certainly won't "quieten down" as McCallum suggests!
Who authorized Rathjen's payment? Mike Brooks would have had a major role in it. IT IS NOT MIKE BROOKS' MONEY, IT IS PUBLIC MONEY that was misused. For this reason, BROOKS SHOULD BE SACKED.
Branson was comfortable partnering with the sexual abuser to become Chancellor, according to the ICAC statement. For this, BRANSON SHOULD BE SACKED.
The entire council should be sacked.
Even after Rathjen is gone, the Adelaide university culture is still rotten to the core.
Once these top level positions are cleaned up of the rot, someone do something about the abuses in the Education School and Dental School.
The UoA Student Union Womens' Collective should show some leadership as their Melbourne counterparts have done. Trusting Branson reflects poorly on you.
I know you are upset and distressed about the conduct of the former Vice-Chancellor. I know that you seriously question the way in which the University handled the allegations against him and the processes that led to his appointment and the making of a payment to him on his resignation. I know that these things have raised important questions about our culture and our University.
Some of these matters have been investigated by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) and he has issued a statement. The Commissioner’s full report has not been provided to the University’s Council or to our senior managers. I hope that you will understand that for this reason there remain quite severe limits on what I can say about matters investigated by the ICAC. Nonetheless I would like to be able to speak with you about the things that trouble you to the extent I am permitted.
As I outlined in my email to you following the release of the statement made by the ICAC last week, the University accepts and will adopt all of the recommendations made by ICAC to improve our processes. We are already applying what we have learned to ensure that the University becomes a stronger, safer and more respectful place to work and study.
As you know, the University Council has resolved to commission an appropriately qualified and experienced person to conduct an independent review of our processes and our checks and balances in relation to the accountability of our most senior leadership. The process for appointing that person is underway. The review will be open and transparent. Council is committed to having staff and students contribute to the review and to the formulation of its recommendations.
The Council has also begun the process to appoint a new Vice-Chancellor and it is my intention to seek input from staff. I will be able to tell you more about this by Wednesday.
I will hold an online Staff Forum on Wednesday 9 September at 10.00-11.00am. This will provide an opportunity for me to speak to you and for you to ask questions of me and a small number of other Council members. You may submit questions to vcfeedback@adelaide.edu.au in the lead up to the forum, and I encourage you to register to attend.
Please register here: https://adelaide.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_TlT9rsmgQfaXR8tQnYqY8Q
Kind regards,
Cathy.
Who will they appoint as an independent person? Will they really be independent or will they just serve the interest of Branson and her team? The university has lied so much in the past people just do not think they will change overnight. If they really want to bring some change, they should consult grassroot employees. They are not doing it, are they? And they will not do it. Do not expect much from those who have a had track record.
So the questions have to be emailed before the forum? This is how they have always operated. They simply do not cover questions that they do not like being asked.
If Branson and Brooks have any decency, they should resign for their roles in institutional failure and not pass the buck to someone else.
Seriously, emails from Branson and Brooks disgust many these days.
The report was redacted to protect the victims from further embarrassment but was that the only reason?
Unless she brings external, independent watchdog that has the power to investigate senior managers, it ain't gonna get better. AND SHE WILL NOT DO THAT.
Surely, Branson would have read Balter's reports and comments in the blog. If she had integrity, she will investigate these claims. WILL SHE? REALLY??
The university's name is mud in other Australian states and internationally. Jobseekers are no longer keen to come to Adelaide unless they are desperate. Adelaide staff and students deserve better.
The larger cultural problem remains though, and it's down to the whole university community to change than from within, as well as the SA government to legislate a university governance structure that doesn't invite autocratic managers.
We don't need an ICAC survey to know where the problems lie.
You can evaluate the university's current priorities for yourself. Follow the link below, and go and read the University Statutes. See how much space is dedicated in statutes to managing staff misconduct as opposed to student misconduct. Read the University's bylaws and see how much the university management cares about protecting people versus protecting the University's lawns, trees and shrubs.
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/governance/legislation/
If staff and students find that these documents do not reflect the values of the university community, organise! Collaborate to draft up documents that you think better reflect how you would like to see the university being run. Don't wait to be asked or invited because you won't be. Those in secure jobs need to lead from the front and provide cover for casual/contract staff and students. Maybe someone experienced and close to retirement would like to volunteer their leadership skills.
One way is to ask someone trustworthy and not so vulnerable as contract staff to collate and submit questions. They submit them and, also email them directly to the "Rathjen Rewarder", cc'd to the entire department/school. That email begins with
"I've been asked by a large number of staff, to send a collection of questions to be answered at the online staff forum. These questions have come through me as all staff have lost all trust and confidence in the University's senior management, and feel vulnerable in this present situation of frozen contracts, pay reduction and imminent job losses, and wish to remain anonymous, etc."
Every staff member will see that the questions have been asked and the Rathjen Rewarder cannot deny having received them. Save the questions and send to Balter's Blog, The Australian, The Advertiser, and any other news outley or blog you can think of ahead of the forum.
I hope your questions include When are you resigning and getting a payout?
Some Deans are very good - kudos to them - but there are many incompetent ones. There have been many cases where good deans have been removed and lapdogs have been kept to show loyalty to people higher up. The incompetent ones get around by bullying subordinates with the power and protection given to them by their superiors. Look at other comments for examples.
Thanks to the aristocratic and authoritarian system set up by past senior leaders, who have in reality failed the institution. Some of them are still in high places.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/sexual-complaint-against-professor-investigated-by-university/12601766
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Questions need to be put to Branson via the forum. The trick is in how you do it.
One way is to ask someone trustworthy and not so vulnerable as contract staff to collate and submit questions. They submit them and, also email them directly to the "Rathjen Rewarder", cc'd to the entire department/school. That email begins with
"I've been asked by a large number of staff, to send a collection of questions to be answered at the online staff forum. These questions have come through me as all staff have lost all trust and confidence in the University's senior management, and feel vulnerable in this present situation of frozen contracts, pay reduction and imminent job losses, and wish to remain anonymous, etc."
Every staff member will see that the questions have been asked and the Rathjen Rewarder cannot deny having received them. Save the questions and send to Balter's Blog, The Australian, The Advertiser, and any other news outley or blog you can think of ahead of the forum.
I hope your questions include When are you resigning and getting a payout?
September 5, 2020 at 11:29 PM
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/sexual-complaint-against-professor-investigated-by-university/12601766
her email in the article is eliseworthington@protonmail.com
Anyway, here's some questions for Branson, and generally.
Why has Rathjen not been disciplined by UoA?
Why was he rewarded for resigning?
On what grounds was there a payout at all, as he resigned/terminated his contract?
Why have they not made efforts to get back the offensive payout?
Why was he not sacked for both behaviour and bringing the university into disrepute?
Why has UoA not asked Canberra to have Rathjen's AO revoked?
Will they not endorse a call for for his AO to be revoked?
Why, in all the emails to staff are senior managers avoiding saying or implying that Rathjen did something wrong?
Why are they avoiding honestly bringing in an external person and panel for a review?
Why are university finances decision prodesses secret?
Why are there no (other than elected) people with tertiary education experience on council?
Why are HR processes opaque, full of conflict of interest and inconsistent?
When will you and council resign?
The appointment panel, of which Branson was a member, was contacted in writing by several people, warning them about the fact that Peter Rathjen was predator. Did the panel investigate this? What about the so called appropriate "head hunters?" On this alone they need to all go!
I work closely with Tanya Monro for many years and would never describe her as a psychopath or not having empathy. I always found her words and actions to be fair and considered, much more so than some of the men she dealt with. There was and still is a lot of dead wood at UofA with no-one having the guts to move them on so that younger academics can be given a go with continuity instead of short term contracts. I wonder if that comment is from some dead wood at UniSA who had finally been dealt with!
are each important and need to be addressed if we are to rebuild even a faint whiff of the once prized and now decimated ‘reputation’ of UoA.
I’d like to pose some questions to the forum re the outstanding disregard for quality of student education too. Students (and their hopes and dreams) are essentially fodder for the corporate greed on full display here. They are herded through in great number with neglectful carelessness.
Standards are down in student work, and because we’re forced to treat students as customers who are always right, standards are down. Class sizes are so obscenely huge it is impossible to give students any personalised attention or guidance.
If the essential function of a university is to provide a quality education, UoA is a disgrace. If, on the other hand, the primary function of the university is to support a corporate structure which rewards the psychopathic (and frankly often obtuse, always tone deaf) ‘executive’, and bullies and overworks academics to breaking point, UoA is a disgrace.
We know they’re lying but we’re scared to speak out.. and now that I think about how they float about on their entitled airs of superiority, North Korea isn’t that far off!
[Alluniversity] Update: Response by Council to ICAC report and reminder about the Staff Forum
Dear colleagues
The University of Adelaide is an iconic asset for our state and has played a critical role for South Australia for nearly 150 years. The University community and indeed all South Australians are entitled to know how the University is responding to the events that led to the recent Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) investigation and the departure of the former Vice-Chancellor.
As you know, the University fully cooperated with all aspects of the ICAC inquiry, which began when the former Chancellor, Rear Admiral the Hon. Kevin Scarce AC CSC, reported the matter directly to the Commissioner, after the matter was brought to the attention of a committee of Council in 2020.
The improper conduct by the former Vice-Chancellor occurred in April 2019, as the ICAC’s statement has outlined. The University’s Council and its own internal lawyers were not aware of the allegations against the former Vice-Chancellor until almost a year after the incident had occurred.
It is regrettable that the Report was not able to be released in full but had the ICAC done so, the identity of the victims would have been inevitably disclosed because of the level of detail provided in the Report. The University sought amendments and redactions to the Report, if it were to be published in full, solely to protect the innocent parties’ identities.
Payment to the former Vice-Chancellor
There has been commentary about the payment made to the former Vice-Chancellor upon his resignation. On 2 July 2020 the former Vice-Chancellor resigned under the terms of his employment contract on grounds of ill-health. In accordance with his contact, he was paid $238,600 in lieu of a reduced notice period, and $87,800 in statutory leave entitlements.
At the time of the former Vice-Chancellor’s resignation, he was on paid leave, pending the outcome of the ICAC investigation, which was being conducted in private and was ongoing. The course and outcome of the investigation was not then known to the University.
In deciding to make this payment, the Council had regard to a number of factors. One was that the former Vice-Chancellor’s lawyers provided the University with a substantial specialist medical report that supported the claim of ill-health.
Another factor was the way in which the allegations against the former Vice-Chancellor had been handled by the former Chancellor more than a year before. The former Chancellor, acting on legal advice, told him that his conduct as outlined in those allegations did not warrant dismissal. The former Vice-Chancellor had denied any further misconduct. The secrecy provisions surrounding the ICAC inquiry meant that the University was unaware that evidence of additional misconduct by the former Vice-Chancellor had in fact been found.
Kind regards,
Chancellor and the University Council
Staff Forum
Working in an environment when your workplace is under scrutiny and subject to criticism is never easy. We know that our staff care deeply about our University and its reputation. This week’s Staff Forum will provide you with the opportunity to hear from the Chancellor and other members of Council in regard to this matter and to ask us your questions. If you haven’t already done so you can register here: https://adelaide.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_TlT9rsmgQfaXR8tQnYqY8Q.
Kind regards,
Chancellor and the University Council
I heard Adelaide Uni advertisement multiple times on radio (FM 102.3) this morning. I felt very uncomfortable.
The ICAC statement on Rathjen makes it clear that senior managers confronted him after reading the allegations of misconduct against him on Balter's Blog. As managers clearly view the blog as a credible source, did they also confront Alan Cooper with allegations of grant fraud as published on Balter's Blog?
If so, what was the outcome and why is it not public? If not, why didn't managers consider the fraud allegations worthy of investigation?
Does the Chancellor accept that, just like with bullying and sexual harassment, the university has a conflict of interest when investigating its own staff for research misconduct? Would she welcome an external review of the fraud allegations, and if independently substantiated, would she promise to repay the grant money, plus compensation to whoever missed out in the relevant grant round?
The chancellor should confirm no other payment was made to Rathjen.
It is not clear what dismissal notice period the University is applying in Rathjen's case. [2] indicates the period should be 3 weeks (2 weeks for length of employment + 1 week for age). Because his guilt was already established independently from the ICAC report (the University, after all, had accepted the compensation claim for sexual harassment in April), his "special leave" in May and June should be drawn down from his accumulated Annual leave,.
The University should have begun the process of dismissing him and paying out his leave entitlements which extends only as far as 3 weeks + accumulated annual leave from April, not from the beginning of July after he spent 2 months being paid to do nothing while waiting for a report he already knew was damning.
[1] https://indaily.com.au/news/2020/08/28/uni-kept-vc-in-job-despite-agreement-on-harassment-compo-claim/[2] https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/notice-and-final-pay/dismissal-how-much-notice
As Anonymous Sept 7, 10:21 says, dismissal should have been decided at the council meeting where they agreed to compensate Ms A. Immediate suspension of contract or leave without pay until disciplinary action implemented.
They cannot hide behind internal communications issues as, by definition of their responsibility and duty of care, if HR knew they, as the highest (though opaquely appointed with no relevant tertiary experience) leadership body,
are responsible. That's what leadership means. Your system broke down, your responsibility. Put the University's interests ahead of your own and step down, as Scarce did.
Now benefactors and sponsors are nervous https://www.fiveaa.com.au/david-and-will-2/adelaide-uni-could-take-a-big-financial-hit-over-peter-rathjen-scandal-says-david-penberthy/
If they won't do it because it's right, then do it for the money!!
https://matildaduncan.net/stories/2019/sept/university-adelaide-by-the-numbers-assault
says, "One University of Adelaide staff member resigned after an external investigator was appointed by the University to investigate the allegations of sexual harassment made against them. Another staff member was provided with a letter of allegations made against them and had their position terminated by the Vice Chancellor Peter Rathjen."
Rathjen apparently expected different standards to apply to him, it seems.
By all accounts he was a competent and well-regarded Head of School whose “crime” was that he did not always agree with his Executive Dean, Alastair Burt. Little is known of how this was handled but we do know that his contract was suddenly terminated with no real explanation to the School or the wider community that it serves.
Apparently, he lodged a “code of conduct” complaint about Burt’s treatment of him over the years that he was Dean. This was dismissed. From what we heard at the time he appealed on the grounds that the original process lacked transparency and natural justice. There are no details available about the subsequent appeal, for which Rathjen was responsible, the appeal was dismissed and Burt’s behaviour was found to be acceptable.
Professor Richards subsequently left the University, presumably disillusioned and disappointed by an institution that, according to recent LinkedIn messages, he served for 38 years. He now holds senior positions with one of the national regulatory bodies and an international research group. Interestingly the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences refused his application for Emeritus status when he departed, presumably as “payback” for the complaints that he had made about their former Executive Dean.
The outcome of all of this is that bad behaviour appears to have been accepted, a good staff member has moved on, and from what we see on this site, the Dental School is now consumed by allegations of bullying, harassment and mismanagement.
Not to forget What the ICAC report wrote about the current Chancellor is not flash either.
The hiring committee members for Rathjen were:
Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN (Rtd), Previous Chancellor
Professor Ian Young AO, ANU
Professor John Williams, Chair, Academic Board
The Hon Catherine Branson QC, Chair, Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee
Ms Christine Locher, Chair, People and Culture Committee
Mr David Hill, Member, University Council
Branson and Hill have moved up to become Chancellor and Deputy Chancellor. Locher will be in the committee that will appoint the new VC. None of them think they are responsible for rotten culture and bullying in the university but they say they are committed to improve the culture.
The majority of dentistry staff view this as a very poor treatment of a leader who stood up for the school at a time when the Faculty and Central was taking away pretty much all of the school's autonomy. The dental profession/community has rallied behind Richard's Emeritus Professor application. A prominent dental professional met with the Executive Dean, none other than Ben Kile, to support Richard's application but Kile chose to turn a blind eye. Is this what Branson calls treating others with respect?
Ben Kile, Executive Dean, and Richard Logan, Dean, are the ones whose "bad behaviour appears to have been accepted" and we see "the Dental School [being] now consumed by allegations of bullying, harassment and mismanagement." Logan has bullied many many staff under Kile's watch. Sexual harassment by Gue happened under Logan's watch and says he knew nothing before late 2019. This is a blatant lie and he is doing it under Kile's watch. At the school forum some months ago, Kile was blowing Logan's trumpet and rewarding him for his bad behavior. Looks like both are bad managers and leaders behaving badly at the expense of health and welfare of staff for personal gains.
Rathjen has prior form in terms of honesty (or lack of honesty) about payouts. He was sacked as Chief Scientific Officer of Bresagen back in the 2000s. He would cant to anyone who would listen (and that was a lot of people) that he never got a cent out of the company. Everyone knew that was nonsense, including of course, the people who owned the company. For a start, Rathjen had a very substantial share holding.
"MEDIA RELEASE BY PROFESSOR PETER RATHJEN AO"
No humble pie there.
Also highly notable is the lack of contrition, or ownership of his behaviour, in these releases...and the continued lies (i.e., statements not consistent with the ICAC Commissioner's findings). Here are some examples:
In a statement, Professor Rathjen apologised to the women, but argued there was "no need for this investigation", which he described as "procedurally inadequate".
"I deeply regret the distress and embarrassment that I caused two female staff members after a university function in Sydney in April 2019," he said. "I also deeply regret the fact that, through no fault of their own, they became embroiled in a very public inquiry which they did not seek and did not wish to participate in.
"I apologise to both of them." But he said Mr Lander's finding of "serious misconduct" was "disproportionate to the conduct found".
"Mr Lander has rejected evidence and submissions which did not suit his narrative and drawn unwarranted inferences from those which did," Professor Rathjen said.
Referring to the university function, Professor Rathjen said the university "knew about, investigated and dealt with the matter in May 2019".
"When the then-chancellor, Kevin Scarce, put the allegations to me at that time, I immediately admitted them. I acknowledged a serious error of judgement," he said.
He said the university's senior leadership had not believed what occurred after the work function constituted "serious misconduct", and continued to express confidence in him.
This sort of dissembling and manipulation of the truth is consistent with the outright lies told by Rathjen that the Commissioner exposed. The (predatory) leopard does not change its spots.
Note that Branson often said, "in the best interests of the University." This has far reaching implications that staff at the University endure daily. It means that if telling the truth, or doing the right thing leads to poor reputation, a worse outcome, then it is "in the best interests of the University" that the matter is buried in secret by intimidation or payouts. In *this case*, the flip was "in the best interests of the University" that the payouts were publicised in an attempt to thwart funding cancellations, but otherwise would have remained secret. However ...
These blog entries do not emphasise that the VC before Rathjen, Prof Bebbington, WAS ALSO FIRED and yet there was no discussion in the media about his unexplained departure, no truthful reasons provided by the uni, and payout details were hidden - it was intentionally buried. It would be "in the best interest of the university" if it were not exposed as no good would come of it. Incredibly, the *same* "management" team that appointed Bebbington also appointed Rathjen, and are about to appoint a THIRD VC! What is the saying, "fool me once, fool me twice, ..." We have read and heard the games of plausible deniability (I looked the other way so I didn't know, or, I did not have an official report put under my nose even though numerous people knew of the problems but were intimidated from doing anything about it), buck-passing that management intentionally used by hiring external lawyers that provided incorrect advice, taking inordinate amount of time, and blaming each other. There are at least 3 lawyers in play here: QC Branson, an EXPERT lawyer, Williams, and Human Resource boss Elysia Ryan, all masters at playing the game of law to achieve the desired outcome "in the best interests of the University". Where does the buck stop and where is the accountability? If the university were a corporate entity, then people would be demanding that the board, senior executives, and head of HR be replaced. Yet, we are witnessing the same players about to hire a third VC! Unbelievable. Why would anyone believe that matters will be different in the future? Because the university is going to write ANOTHER policy? Hire another external group? There is a fundamental cultural problem at the highest ranks that needs to be a) exposed ; b) flushed.
https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.18.027431 ;
https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.17.013102 ;
https://doi.org/10.1021/bp0502781 ;
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.08.019 ;
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19990220)62:4<455::AID-BIT8>3.0.CO;2-2
made deals with an external company Sillana that now occupy lab space in engineering and do not pay commercial rates, organised to buy a French autonomous farming tractor when no researcher needed it, no one wanted, there was no place to put it, and no funds for its maintenance or operation, or staff salaries. He permitted the hiring of numerous admin staff when they were not needed, created numerous admin roles for academics, created financial turmoil then cut funding to schools to fill the financial holes in the faculty, and then he was promoted by Rathjen to DVCR!
Who else did Rathjen promote, appoint, or create new positions ? The horrendous culture from the executive is a cancer that has metastasized. All Rathjen's antics should be reviewed.
An academic WHS Safety representative who was concerned by poor WHS admin staff and their actions, surveyed academics then raised the concerns with the WHS management, was then given a FORMAL written warning for raising concerns! What a great way to instill a safety culture: shoot the messenger and deny problems; straight out the executive management handbook.
Staff are forced by heads of schools to do significant additional work, grossly contravening the Enterprise Agreement, but are too scared to raise concerns. Workload models that are intentionally inadequate, accepting grants that specify 0.25 FTE but only allocating 0.05 FTE, staff allocated work hours exceeding limits, or staff forced to take leave but then not reducing work allocation; or the preferred method is to juggle numbers to below the max limit, force signatures of acceptance, and THEN assign additional work and never update workload models or redistribute work. Is this intimidation, bullying, or intentional incompetence? It is certainly not honest or fair... but there is grievance process, right? And there is no intimidation, bullying or retribution at this university because there is policy for that, right?
Vetting of background knowledge of international students has been removed from schools and now external recruitment companies that are provided recruiting bonuses offer students placements without knowledge checks. Accepting students below the IELTS English language requirements, then running an internal course that passes them, without retaking the IELTs test. Not looking too hard is "in the best interests of the University", because it leads to another international student enrollment. This has led to L&T problems with inadequately prepared international students, who write poor SELT scores, but the money is coming in and that is all that matters. We saw on ABC 4-Corners what happened at Murdoch University (but also happens here) when an academic raised concerns about English standards or required knowledge of international students, or complaints from domestic students that the ill-prepared international students dominate the time of lecturers and tutors so that domestic students don't get adequate time, and so withdrew from classes.
International students who are taught by academics from the same country are given High Distinction grades, whereas moderators give fail grades as students' work is unacceptable; or usually there is no moderation and are just given High Distinction. Heads of Schools overturn grades of international students from fail to pass grades, "in the best interests of the University".
Staff being forced by heads of schools to teach courses that they know nothing about, or allocating graduates to prepare and deliver courses contravening AQF rules, and ignoring staff concerns.
There are numerous examples of serious intellectual property theft from "agents of state actors", that have been covered up "in the best interests of the University" .
An academic that has one of the highest citation rates in the country, also has the highest self-citation rate and is involved in a citation cartel. Whilst not strictly illegal, it is against the research conduct code, has been reported numerous times, but "in the best interest of the university" nothing is done because it leads to high scores in University rankings.
Academics will be nodding and know there is so much more like this going on.
The aristocratic leadership under Mike Brooks is still heavily advertising Adelaide in the media. Is it how you wanna waste money, or even advertise your battered and bruised reputation, when staff are facing pay cuts and job cuts? Frankly, those advertisements are disgusting.
It is time to name and shame those poor administrators - those apart from the ones in dentistry, education and higher management. People are forced to do this because people from the top are protecting them in a self-regulating system with no consequences for doing the wrong thing.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I personally do not see the point here or am I missing something.
1. Why does the uni management need someone, a third party to look into this matter? Is the uni management useless f**k heads.
2. Why ICAC not taking any action against the management who could not do their own job? In that case I am totally eligible for VC role.
3. Why is everyone not giving out the names of the culprits? you are anonymous on the blog or use a home laptop or use you phone. (It’s smarter than you are that’s why we call it hem smart phones). Please write down you experience and the name dickheads (don’t Think of me as sexist but both male and female bosses can be cause of problems at work place). At least you will be helping others.
4. How come no body from other departments speaking out??? Come on people.
5. The whole idea of open discussion is not just to blame the culprit whose crime are out there, but to encourage people to talk and learn from others experience.
September 9, 2020 at 6:01 AM
https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/politics/26248-banerji-case-sends-warning-shot-for-employees-use-of-social-media
Again, the university knew about it, therefore Branson and the council knew about it. Especially as it "dealt" with it. Then it dealt with it again a year later by rewarding the sleaze!
TAKE HIS AO AWAY! Never deserved it in the first place.
It's both fun and disturbing to look at supposed stars and find they have average self-citation rates that bow the mind. There are a significant number of them with a lot of ARC funding. Especially some who've had Federation/Laureate Fellowships. It's so easy to check. Scopus has a self-cite removal function. But it's the targeted self cites that are amazing! Look at the massive hump just at the H index and watch it drop by 10 points when you remove them.
Branson's and the Council's denial of knowledge regarding improper or criminal conduct are implausible. Staff, students, investors and the public, are all angry with Branson and Council members. Continued public pressure may assist in the release of the full ICAC report, which will be in the interest of the vast majority of South Australians.
People should not be afraid to comment anonymously about their employer, especially if they have reasonable suspicion that their employer has engaged in crimes.
Absolutely terrible to see the university's reputation being thrashed in the last 15 years but much worse in the last 5 years. Mike Brooks was there when it started declining and is still leading from the front. And there is a big network of incompetent senior managers, who lead by bullying and gaslighting victims and by protecting each other.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
This incident was quietly outed because they had no choice. This news needs larger traction in the media. But there is vitriol in other academic/cultural spaces that no one calls out because the suspect threatens and bullies victims, and people buy into it, or are in fear of their future that they go along with it because let's admit it, there's a lot of nepotism in hiring practices. Upper management don't see it because the suspect is "one of them", and those of a lower title are deemed not worth listening to. I'm a victim, I've seen other victims get bullied out when they don't go with the program. HR is only there to protect the interest of the employer, they don't care about the employee. That's why so many don't go to HR, why bother. Don't need that blemish following your career, as unfair as it is.
September 12, 2020 at 1:41 PM
"People should not be afraid to comment anonymously about their employer, especially if they have reasonable suspicion that their employer has engaged in crimes."
It is so scary to speak out when you know that those who have engaged in or turned a blind eye to crimes are protected at the highest levels and are unlikely to be held accountable. The ICAC survey earlier this year was everyone's opportunity to comment anonymously about their employer and have their concerns investigated. And yet, if people fully trusted the ICAC processes to get to the truth about Adelaide university and publish it openly, there would be no need for so many people to turn to commenting anonymously on this blog, would there? I think we all know in our bones how this city works. The new commissioner needs to know that we are all watching closely, and concealing anything behind the 'public interest' excuse will not wash.
"A female friend of disgraced university chief Peter Rathjen was appointed to a top post at the University of Tasmania after serving on an earlier selection panel for the same job.
In early 2016, Monique Skidmore, then deputy vice-chancellor (international) at the University of Queensland, sat as an external member of a selection panel to fill the equivalent position at UTAS, where Professor Rathjen was then vice-chancellor.
However, the panel did not recommend anyone for the post of DVC global and Professor Skidmore instead filled the role following a second selection process by a partly altered panel. Concerns about the manner of the appointment were more raised with UTAS, prompting an internal review in June and July this year that found it “met the processes and standards of the time”.
Multiple sources say that at the time of Professor Skidmore’s appointment, she and Professor Rathjen had been friends and had served together for years as directors of the International Education Association of Australia. In late August this year, a South Australian ICAC report found Professor Rathjen, when later serving as University of Adelaide V-C, groped and kissed two female staff, lied about a sexual affair with another staff member, and lied repeatedly about past claims of sexual harassment.
A UTAS spokesman confirmed an investigation into Professor Skidmore’s appointment had been held. He said an external agency was appointed in February 2016 to undertake recruitment for the position of DVC global. “Monique Skidmore, then DVC international at the University of Queensland, was an external, expert member of the selection panel,” he said. “In May (2016), a short-listing process was completed and initial interviews were held. No suitable candidates were found.
“In June (2016), the selection panel was advised that Monique Skidmore wished to be considered as an applicant. The selection panel agreed that she would be invited to submit an application and that the selection panel would be reconstituted to ensure a fair, transparent and robust process.
“The 12-person selection panel, six of whom were new members of the panel, met in late June (2016) and interviewed three applicants. Monique Skidmore was appointed.” There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Professor Skidmore. Professor Rathjen did not respond to requests for comment. Professor Skidmore said Professor Rathjen asked her to join the selection panel. “All members of the panel wished not to appoint anyone,” she said. “I didn’t find that particularly unusual. At the end of the process the chancellor (Michael Field) asked me if I would be interested in the role. At the end of the process the chancellor offered me the position and council’s relevant subcommittee signed off on an offer.”
Article 1. Thou shalt not sexually assault your underlings ...
perhaps?
I mean, look at their track records. Joy Rathjen has an H of 23 (~3000 citations) while Mike Roberts has an H of 84 (27 000 citatikns)!!! Even the director, Guy Maddern hax an H of 80 (~24000 citations).
Smacks of an engineered position to me.
2011 – 2014: Senior Research Fellow, Menzies Institute of Medical Research, University of Tasmania
2014 – 2017: Senior Research Fellow, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania.
So 6-7 years in a research intensive position and her citation rate started dropping a year in (2012). Even using Google data looks like 18 papers in the last 9-10 years, majority co-authored with the sleaze and two of the papers aren't science-based. How is she an A/Prof?
https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=6603751092
If anyone thinks this person does not deserve A/Prof, think again. There are other researchers, some as Research Deans, who have worse record, so it is about equity, right? Of course, having a VC's backup helps. If people think it is nepotism, they are a jealous bunch who will always whinge.
So never forget it pays to be private!
“ A wit remarked that at Adelaide Uni there were two types of promotions - reward and merit and most were in the former category.”
I know 3 male staff that were promoted to Professor at Uni Adelaide in recent years that had: no journal conference book patent publications, had never taught undergraduate students, had never supervised PhD students, had never obtained any research funding. One of them does not have a PhD! They are all doing senior admin positions now, and were promoted by Rathjen / Brooks.
This is the complete opposite of the requirements listed in the Professors as leaders document released by Rathjen and Brooks that professors should be internationally recognized experts in their field.
How did it happen? Simple. Mates.
It saddens me to see academics killing themselves teaching, supervising, doing great research, fighting to get research grants, getting national recognition awards, working weekends ,60-70hrs / week, only to be turned down each promotion round, and watch in disbelief as others with zero track record get promoted.
Ah, the funny handshakes brigade... Lots begins to make sense.
If what has been said about the Dental School is correct, it sounds like the former Dean, Professor Richards, was a trusted and highly regarded mentor and leader. Maybe he could be enticed back from wherever he is. Perhaps with a few more years of service he might even qualify for emeritus status on his second retirement, something he appears to have been denied as payback for his criticism of the discredited former Executive Dean, Alastair Burt!
And that incompetent dean is leading the dental school into a big decline. Arguably the worst dean in the school's history. And Kile is protecting this guy - he is siding with the bully and incompetent leader who protected the harasser.
"There is a "Golden Key" group which is a bit like a US fraternity, but it is harmless. Just something that top students are nominated for by their School."
There's Golden Key, but then there are actual Freemasons. The Freemasons Foundation actually has a research centre for men's health based at Adelaide University, so there is a material connection. If you follow the link you can see just how well connected the people are who are involved with the board. Includes the SA Governor, those with connections to the police and the judiciary. Are any of them Masons themselves? Are any members of the University's executive management team?
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/freemasons-foundation-centre-for-mens-health/about-us/board-of-patrons#previous-patrons
The recurring theme of St Peter's also has a very strong Freemasonry vibe, by the way. The school's online portal is even called 'Keystone', one of Freemasonry's most powerful symbols. So that _could_ help explain why the old boys' network is so abiding and powerful, why some people seem to walk into plum jobs, or maybe have their bad behaviour overlooked. Surely doesn't explain everything, but it deserves some serious attention and investigation. Wouldn't it be awful, for example, if some of the university's high-ups enjoyed institutional protection that extended beyond the four walls of the university?
1, Selection criteria already decided (by whom ?).
2. Staff asked to "rank" the pre-determined selection criteria - this is the consultation part in case you missed it.
3. Staff have no say over who is short-listed or who is appointed.
4. Process justified by the appointment of some private recruiting firm as if that justifies the process. Pathetic, especially coming from a former judge who should know better.
This is the kind of garbage they just keep getting away with. Staff demand a vote on who is going to be our leader.
It is as clear as day that Branson made a deal with Sleazy Pete. The timing was so perfect. Back me in ousting Scarce and support me for Chancellor, and I'll see that your exit is rewarded.
Staff will be "consulted" but just for the show but decisions are usually made prior to consultation anyway. That is what they did with Professional Staff Review (PSR). Do not trust anything they say.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-29/university-of-adelaide-peter-rathjen-travel-expenses-revealed/12712572
Wonder what went on during those trips? Didn't Inga Davis go with him on one?
It might be worth looking into anyone appointed by Peter Rathjen and possible Quid pro quo deals.
This is an email (in wide circulation among staff and students now) sent by one of those staff to the Executive Dean, Health and Medical Sciences. It fell into deaf ears.
PART 1
From: XXXX
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January 2020 10:09 PM
To: Benjamin Kile
Subject: Staff feedback- dental school
Dear Professor Kile,
Welcome to Adelaide. I joined the dental school in XXX, following XXX years of clinical dental practice. …. The call to return to the dental school as an academic was a chance not to be passed up, and I had an interview with XXX. I was offered a one year contract initially at 0.8FTE, and subsequent years have been contracted positions at varying FTE / roles (depending on the fiscal position of the school). It never bothered me that a tenured position was not forthcoming, I was just very happy to be given the opportunity to give back to this university and school. The financial hit of performing part time private practice (in addition to university duties) was also a sacrifice I was willing to make.
My formative years as an academic was molded many great mentors XXX. It was an expectation that an academic should pursue both teaching and research excellence… Among my highlights of teaching is that I consistently achieved higher rankings than the school, faculty and uni averages in SELTS feedback. This was achieved by proper planning and execution of interactive, engaging and up-to-date teaching methods. I worked to ensure my teaching content was always in line with what is happening in the clinical world, and believed that lectures should be much more than just 'talking to slides'. I took onboard student feedback and also observed many colleagues to improve my style of presentation, and it has been a very enjoyable journey of self- improvement.
...
My research journey has given me the opportunity to work with some amazing academics. 2018 marked the start of an amazing run, demonstrating that all the hard work put in the previous years were bearing fruit. Notable examples include National collaborations XXX [and] International collaboration XXX. … Honours student XXX was also awarded the XXX [Prize]. … At the end 2019, XXX and I regrouped and also started mapping plans for XXX. All this has been put in place despite the heavy workload of teaching placed by the dental school on staff with clinical qualifications…. Recently however, the dean insisted that I teach additional clinical sessions despite my assertions that other teaching prep, Honours supervision and research work (grant writing etc) was required during this period of the year. I agreed to do one extra session (XXX), but was then instructed to do another later this month (XXX). When I enquired whether any more extra sessions would be needed during the year, a non-committal answer that such situations may arise again was given. Despite my workload model demonstrating 77.5% of the allocated hours were teaching related [Enterprise Agreement allocates no more than 60% time for teaching for general academic staff], the Dean questioned my data entry - suggesting the numbers were inflated due to my need for preparation time in clinical supervision. This despite explaining the need for such preparation time as a necessity for early year dental students due to the nature of the clinical tasks required (especially with direct patient contact) and that the workload model had been independently reviewed by other senior colleagues, who agreed that it was a fair reflection of the teaching work that I do. The Dean also did not consider the amount of research trackrecord and research plans that I included in the workload model as an important factor in our discussion.
All the correspondence with the dean is included below, but to summarise- it was clear to me that that school/ the dean did not value my teaching and research output, and that clinical staff were expected to fill 'gaps' in teaching to satisfy the short term goals of the school. Sadly, after years of doing one extra session after another and putting my health under much strain, I decided to resign from the university (XXX). Due to the extent of problems faced in the school, I have included the email trail of my correspondence with the Dean. Perhaps the last email would highlight multiple issues faced by staff (enterprise agreement/ workload / staff well being). These issues are perpetuated by the lack of oversight, appalling management style by the dean and school manager and absence of direction and vision for the school.
Hence, why do I write this email, if I have decided to leave? The fundamental reasons are:
1) I hope the remaining staff, who do not have an option to leave, will be respected and given the opportunity to work in a better environment. I am very concerned about the well being of many of my colleagues who are dissatisfied and dis-enchanted by the current work environment.
2) The school's battered reputation in teaching and research can be re-established. I am very aware of the poor perception the dental industry has on the school's teaching standards as I am still active in clinical private practice. As for research, the school must allow prominent (and budding researchers) the time to push beyond their comfort zones (by expanding research capabilities/ tackling new frontiers) and take steps to make such plans come true.
3) It is my fervent hope that the faculty/ school is encourage young aspiring academic by providing tenured positions and opportunity for growth / development; rather than seeing us as disposable commodities for short term gains. This will demonstrate succession planning and continued success for the university on the whole.
…
From: XXX
Sent: Friday, 17 January 2020 2:06 PM
To: Richard Logan [Dean of Adelaide Dental School]
Dear Richard,
Thanks for accepting my resignation.
Also, as a friend and colleague, I would like to provide some suggestion on how the school
may move forward in a productive manner in the years to come.
1) Effective and transparent communication BEFORE any decision is taken.
Decisions such as changing teaching allocation/ consulting BOH program that impact staff workload, moral and well-being must be done in a tactful and considerate manner. The current culture of management has been to the tone of 'this is an executive decision, and staff are expected to adjust working patterns, and teaching approaches to suit.'
While change is sometimes necessary, an alternative manner would be to bring staff on board from the start (before decisions are made), explaining the pressures that the school is under and seek a collaborative manner to move forward. This way, staff can provide feedback and work TOGETHER to generate a mutually desirable outcome. Many staff (including myself) have always stepped up to do extra sessions, take on extra responsibility etc, while ignoring the negative health impacts that this has had on us. The current 'strong hand' tactics used currently are draconian in nature, and borders on being disrespectful and bullying.
2) Respect the enterprise agreement and workload model.
The EA clearly states the head of school can direct staff, BUT, any changes in workload must be agreed upon- clauses. This is not being followed or adhered by when you allocate extra sessions and expect staff to adhere to such directives at short notice. Additionally, when asked to provide clarification on whether additional sessions are required - a non-committal response that more sessions are likely, but can't be confirmed does not bode well for planning and creates unnecessary uncertainty. The workload model serves as a discussion tool, but when the workload clearly shows disproportionate hours to ones role statement- as a Dean, it is best not to trivialise the need for preparation time. Remember, your staff are on the ground, and we know what it takes to cater for the needs of students ( dependant on year level etc). For example, while clinics are scheduled for 3 hours (on PAPER)- it is often that staff/ tutors spend in excess of 4 hours with early year students to review all cases before patients arrive, carrying out supervision on actual dental treatment on patients, provide adequate feedback and also ensure detailed clinical notes are entered. It only takes one slip up for severe repercussions to impact the patient, student, school and university. This is further complicated if staff are in clinic in the morning, followed by the next teaching session being help at the North Terrace campus. On Wednesdays for example, I tutor in AHMS - complete notes and student feedback-- often having 10 minute lunch OR missing lunch altogether, take the tram, and commence teaching at the dental simulation clinic. And the cycle repeats with staying back to give feedback to students who are trying to master the intricacies of manual dexterity. These are issues that other staff and I have raised with you before verbally, so perhaps it is important to balance your views of the workload model to what is actually happening on the ground.
3) Clarity and Equity
The current trend of picking and choosing staff to do extra sessions without consideration of what their roles are will erode goodwill. Staff with previously defined role statements- i.e. 40: 40: 20 academics as stated in their contracts, are suddenly advised they are clinical academics- what does this role even mean? Is there a clear mission statement for staff to consider if their expertise and interest match these changed definitions of their role?
… I not only coordinated the session, but also actually tutored a group of students. There were sessions whereby designated XXX (tutors) were late- and I stepped in to supervise 48 students at one go. This is not an exaggeration and you are welcome to speak to my colleagues XXX to appreciate the gravity of such a situation. Personally, I think a coordinator should have the option of oversight, but why is it that some are given this privilege, while others are not? Why do I mention this? Because there are many staff members to continuously step up (silently by the way), but their efforts are not valued when the time comes to negotiating their workload.
4) Management of staff well being
The current trajectory of the school in terms of staff expectation has led to low staff morale, with many feeling dis-enchanted and demoralised. In such an environment, productivity suffers, and staff mental and physical well-being become compromised. While I am humbled to be blessed with the option of leaving, so many staff members feel entrapped and their voices are muffled by your management approach. One of my greatest mentors, XXX always believed in the greatest resource- human relationship; so, please don't alienate those who should really be rallying around you.
5) Last, but not least- What do YOU stand for?
I remember you expressing your desire to take this dental school to the Top 10 in the world; on reflection- how are we travelling? In the current state of short term fixes - i.e. plugging holes in teaching with overworked staff for fiscal management demonstrates lack of sound big picture thinking, and quite frankly, questionable leadership. You are the leader of this school, if so, fight for what is right for the school. And if faculty places pressure on you, if you have followed the strategies outlined above- staff will stand by you and support the tough decisions that need to be taken.
Over the preceding few years, our teaching standards are taking a beating with constant chops and changes to tutor ratios … and quite frankly, time wastage on petty arguments associated with the workload model. In fact, the school has taken its eye of a key element that had set us apart from other university - innovative and engaging teaching methods. … And I know what was required to make this happen- time, space and mental space- what staff are not afforded in current time. I am just passing on the foundations of teaching excellence that were passed on to me by outstanding educators such as XXX. Our research output/ reputation must be re-established. Staff with research acumen- irrespective of whether they are in an academic/ clinical role must be encouraged to expand their horizons. … all-rounded academic is not created in a year or two, working with academics in this uni, nationally and abroad, it has taken me years and many after hour visits to the uni to establish systems in place for XXX - leading to A* journal publications… But in order for the school to take on the XXX of research in a national level, … the school MUST hit the re-set button and strive to re-establish itself in the forefront of dental and translatory research. Narrow vision and the use of political catch phrases such as 'the needs of the school' to fill teaching spots will keep us in the realms of mediocrity (or regression!)….
I leave my message here, please don't take this as a personal attack- it is not my intention. Rather a colleague who will speak directly and honestly to you.
Most sincerely,
XXX
From: Richard Logan
Sent: Wednesday, 15 January 2020 9:05 AM
To:
Cc: Jo-Ann Spry
Subject: Re: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear XXX
As indicated previously, there may be the requirement for you to be involved in additional
clinical teaching sessions during the year depending on the school’s clinical teaching
requirements and staffing capacity. The impact of any additional sessions on your
workload and any expectations on other activities will be considered.
There will be an expectation this year and moving forward that across the school, clinically
qualified (and capable) academic staff will be required to step in to assist in clinical
supervision (for example if there are staff on leave) before casual staff will be utilized.
Regards
Richard
--
RICHARD M LOGAN BDS MDS PhD FFOP(RCPA) FICD FPFA
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
From: XXX
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 11:25 pm
To: Richard Logan
Subject: Re: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear Richard,
Based on my workload model, the extra teaching session that I completed on 8th Jan and the now requested session on the 30th of Jan clearly exceeds my required workload, and have and will impact on my scheduled preparations and plans. This is taking into account annual leave that was taken prior to these extra sessions imposed. Additionally, your earlier correspondence indicated that the 30th of Jan may not be the ONLY additional session for this year. Hence, in keeping with transparency, can you clearly indicate if any further teaching sessions will be required in accordance with the enterprise agreement and my academic role statement. I would like to know this before we proceed further with this discussion.
XXX
From: Richard Logan
Sent: Monday, 13 January 2020 8:34 AM
To: XXX
Cc: Jo-Ann Spry
Subject: Re: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear XXX,
Given the request at this point in time is for you to teach only on 30th January, I do believe
this aligns with your role as a XXX academic in accordance with the Enterprise
Agreement and in accordance with the University’s academic role statements. As the
request is only for one day and there are minimal other teaching commitments this time of
year, these clinical sessions would not have any significant impact on your overall
workload model and the request is therefore considered reasonable. In the meantime, I
reiterate that clinical teaching is the current priority for the School and your contribution is
essential.
Regards,
Richard
-
From: XXX
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 1:24 pm
To: Richard Logan
Subject: Re: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear Richard,
Can I please ask you to confirm that your suggestion for me to do additional teaching is in line with the enterprise agreement?
Please also allow me to clarify your concern about my workload model entry, specifically that 'preparatory time' is not needed for clinical activities. The 4-hour allocation for clinical activities is the actual time spent during each clinic/ sim clinic session. In BDS XX clinic, tutors need to arrive about 15 minutes early and, at the completion of the 3-hour session, they usually spend a significant amount of time often in excess of 45 minutes (or even an hour) completing student assessments, providing feedback and checking off notes in Titanium (which is a legal requirement). A “regular 3-hour sim clinic session” requires tutors to familiarise themselves with the lecture material and sim clinic activity, and student assessment and feedback usually run way over time after 3 hours. Therefore, I stand by my entry that I have made for clinic and sim clinic. I believe any compromise in this could translate into compromised patient care, increased dentolegal risk (e.g. from compromised record keeping) and compromised learning outcomes for students. I have consulted with experienced colleagues who agree with my time allocation in the workload model. They agree that the allocation reflects the nature of the teaching. If you have any doubt about the validity of my entries, perhaps you might wish to consult
BDSXX and BDSXX coordinators as well as the BDS Program Coordinator.
I look forward to your reply. Thank you.
XXX
From: Richard Logan
Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2020 12:31 PM
To: XXX
Cc: Jo-Ann Spry
Subject: Re: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear XXX
Yes I think that there is capacity within the allocated hours for you to do clinical teaching
on 30/1/20.
Richard
-
On 9 Jan 2020, at 11:59, XXX wrote:
Dear Richard,
Thanks for your email.
I am disappointed that you deem the workload model data as not being valid.
I stand by the required times (prep and teaching) that I need for each activity.
It is not possible to reduce this any more.
Do you think the additional hours you are suggesting is in line with the
enterprise agreement (proportionate to my role and contracted hours at 0.5
FTE)?
Thanks, XXX
From: Richard Logan
Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2020 11:14 AM
To: XXX
Cc: Jo-Ann Spry
Subject: Re: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear XXX
I’ve looked through the information you’ve provided and I do not think that the
assumptions made in the workload data as detailed are valid, particularly as an
experienced academic staff member. Advice from HR is that the workload model in
itself is a discussion tool. Specifically, the amount of preparation time for clinical
activities allowed for by the model is not necessary and accordingly there is
flexibility in your workload that allow you to provide additional clinical teaching to
ensure that the clinical teaching priorities of the school are fulfilled.
I note that you have had success from a research perspective since 2018, but as a
clinical academic your clinical expertise is required and clinical teaching is currently
a priority for the dental school.
Furthermore, from a team culture perspective, as a member of the dental school it
is reasonable to request your assistance in the clinics on the 30th January and I
stand by my request that you are involved in these additional sessions and others
that may occur during the year.
Thanks again for your understanding in this matter.
Richard
--
From: XXX
Date: Thursday, 9 January 2020 at 9:08 am
To: Richard Logan
Subject: RE: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear Richard,
Thanks for your email.
My 2020 workload model is attached and clearly shows more than enough
TEACHING hours for my 0.5 FTE proportionate to my 40: 40:20 academic
contracted position. Total hours for 0.5 FTE is 862.5hours; while my final results
clearly shows that I exceed this allocation. I have been very conservative with my
research data entry (no hours have been allocated for grant writing in this latest
working model); even so, the teaching hours are clearly sufficient on its own.
669/862.5 = 77.5% of total hours. I have also provided an excel spreadsheet
demonstrating how the direct teaching contact hours have been tabulated. In
addition, I did not include any additional teaching related assessment work that I
carried out last year (i.e. setting viva scenarios for BDS 5 to assist XXX) to ensure
the model reflects what has been agreed upon with fellow coordinators. Relevant
sections have been inserted in email body for quick reference.
Additionally, notable research output since 2018 include:
- National and international collaborations with prominent researchers XXX. We
successfully collaborated in 2 papers in the 2018, 2019. A*,IF 2.662 … … ranked 7th in the world for XXX, IF 5.89
It is a shame that the school is unwilling to appreciate nor acknowledge these
achievements. Over the years, I have consistently exceeded my hours and KPIs for both teaching and research in accordance to the workload model; despite detriment to my health and wellbeing. I am passionate about this school, and aim to uphold the
fundamentals of teaching and research excellence for years to come. I would hope
that you will reconsider your position on the matter of additional teaching sessions.
Sincerely XXX
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Logan
Sent: Tuesday, 7 January 2020 9:56 AM
To: XXX
Cc: XXX
Subject: Re: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear
Thanks for your response. Unfortunately given the pressures on the school at
present with regard to staffing and also the partnership requirements, this is not
negotiable and you will be required to tutor on the 30th January. This is only one
additional day of tutoring at the end of the month so should not significantly impact
on your other work you have outlined. I also expect that there will be other
instances during the year in which you could be requested to assist with additional
sessions if required as this is a priority for the school.
I appreciate your understanding.
Thanks again
Richard
--
__________
From: Richard Logan
Sent: Monday, 6 January 2020 11:47:19 AM
To: XXX
Cc: XXX
Subject: Re: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear XXX
I would appreciate it if you could reconsider this. This request is only for one day
and you don’t have any other teaching commitments at that time of the year.
Many thanks
Richard
--
From: XXX
Date: Saturday, 4 January 2020 at 12:27 am
To: XXX
Subject: Re: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear Rain,
I regret to inform I will be unable to assist with this request due to existing
workload.
All the best.
Regards, XXX
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Friday, 3 January 2020 12:18 PM
To: XXX
Cc: Richard Logan
Subject: Tutor Cover - Thursday 30th Jan - BDS5 ADH
Dear XXX,
We are finalising the additional teaching sessions for BDS5 2020 and we would
like to request that you assist with a full day of tutoring on Thursday the 30th Jan
the ADH.
Kind regards,
XXX
Program Administrator
Adelaide Dental School | Faculty of Health & Medical Sciences
The Dean and Head of School of Adelaide Dental School used the same tactic to force people into overworking at the cost of their health and well-being all the while blatantly dismissing any suggestion of breaching the Enterprise Agreement (https://www.adelaide.edu.au/hr/enterprise-agreement). Most staff are overworked and underpaid, but this time he was pushing people beyond their capacity. In his emails, he kept writing to staff that they “had the capacity” to do additional work even when they said they could not do it for health reasons. The Human Resources Manager stood by and “validates” the dean’s actions. All the while he was being “fully supported” by his supervisor, the Executive Dean of Faculty of Health Sciences.
Never trust Human Resources in Adelaide. If they meet with you, they will agree with you and give you support but they agree with the dean even more (no matter what he does).
Fairwork Australia defines unreasonable work demands as workplace bullying (https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee-entitlements/bullying-and-harassment). Many were treated that way. A recent survey showed nearly 80% of staff believe they had been either bullied or had witnessed bullying in the Adelaide Dental School. Still, the Human Resources or the Executive Dean say there is no problem.
WHO IS LYING? THE STAFF OR THE DEAN, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVE DEAN?
Does the Chancellor think Richard Logan and Ben Kile did not breach Enterprise Agreement? OR is it a simple case of OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND?
Come 2020 pre-Covid, the tight budget was further squeezed by the Executive Dean and Logan simply was going to implement it no matter what it was going to do to staff, teaching quality and patient care. Take this back to 2014. The problem had already begun in the hands of incompetent dean. Email attached:
From: Grant Townsend
Sent: Monday, 23 June 2014 7:49 AM
To: Neville Gully
Cc: XXX
Subject: FW: Budget Savings
Dear Neville
The timing, contents and lack of consultation related to Kaye’s email have caused considerable distress to staff. Could you please organise an urgent meeting with staff to discuss the ramifications (I’m assuming that Kaye is now on leave).
Cheers
Grant
-------------------------------
From: Kaye Roberts-Thomson
Sent: Friday, 20 June 2014 4:25 PM
To: XXX
Subject: Budget savings
Colleagues
We have all been attempting to manage our required budget savings as best we can. However, we still have a long way to go.
So I have had to make the decision that there will be no casual contracts for non-clinical areas in Semester 2. I have confirmed this with the Executive Dean.
I know that this will mean either changes in our approach or other major changes and would ask that all staff offer to assist those staff coordinating these programs wherever possible.
Staff who are able to assist in tutoring an extra non-clinical session please email Adam Townsend so that we have a list of people willing to help. I am sorry it has come to this. At this stage we will be able to maintain our clinical sessions but even this may need to be reviewed if we do meet our targets.
Kind regards
Kaye
Prof Kaye Roberts-Thomson
Interim Dean
School of Dentistry
The University of Adelaide 5005
P:+ 61 8 83135409
E: kaye.robertsthomson@adelaide.edu.au
From: Grant Townsend
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014 12:46 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: clinical casual tutor requirements
Hi XXX
I’ve also suggested to Neville that we need to meet urgently.
He spoke to Kaye this morning and apparently ‘convinced’ her that her original plan relating to the ‘non-clinical’ tutors was not a goer. (Why didn’t she think a bit in the first place!)
Neville is now suggesting if we can trim both non-clinical and clinical a bit, it might be enough to persuade Justin to give the go-ahead to sign contracts for semester 2.
Try not to get too upset.
Grant
From: XXX
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014 11:44 AM
To: Grant Townsend; XXX
Cc:
Subject: FW: clinical casual tutor requirements
Importance: High
Dear all
I just sent this reply to email from Neville about tutor budget.
I don't think it's fair what they are doing and the approach they are using either. It seems we are just going around and around and spending a lot of wasted time and energy.
I don't know if we should bring things to a standstill or will this work against us given everything else that is happening in background?
Hence why I suggested a meeting be held??
thanks XXX
________________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014 11:36 AM
To: XXXCc: XXX
Subject: RE: clinical casual tutor requirements
Dear Neville
Can you clarify for us that we are now being asked to reduce cost of clinical tutors 5-10% across all 8x yr levels? What decision has been made about the other issue of no contracts for "non-clinical tutors" ? Staff submitted info as requested re, hours. How can this be done equitable if we all go off as individuals doing what each of us perceive we can do or can't do?
Also asking other staff to fill in 'holes' or 'pull our weight' or 'do more' is not going to save us either.
Some things that could be checked is if we are paying casual staff to do marking, invigilation, any teaching in areas when we have staff in school that can, this would include not paying casual staff to cover staff when they are on leave or study leave.
From what I understand from the meeting on Monday the tutor budget is projected to be $100,000 over ? - so I can't see how we are going to save that amount without just stopping teaching for all of sem 2B across all yr levels to make it fair and equitable and bring things to a stand-still.
Personally, all our teaching in all learning activities clinic and so called 'non-clinic' form part of accredited curricula. It's not fair to have core components of the curriculum slashed because they are deemed 'non-clinical'.
For patient safety in sessions where students work on SADS patients we can't alter student:tutor ratio's and hence we can't alter group sizes.
Our tutors have no idea what is going on - some of them are due to recommence tutoring on 14 July. We risk some of our casual tutors quitting on us if we leave it to last minute to indicate if they have a contract or not. Then this makes school look incompetent.
I suggest we meet as a group again ASAP eg tomorrow and finally resolve what we can do for sem 2 teaching.
Regards XXX
________________________________________
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014 11:10 AM
To: XXX
Subject: clinical casual tutor requirements
Dear Coordinators,
The Academic Support Services Team will shortly be sending the clinical tutor requirements spreadsheets for review prior to the commencement of semester 2. The casual tutor budget is yet to be approved and contracts for semester 2 can only be generated after this occurs. Due to the current financial impositions on the School I would ask you to explore ways to reduce the casual tutor costs where possible. If all areas could be reduced by approximately 5-10% this would make a significant impact. Thanking you for your cooperation in these difficult times.
Regards,
Neville Gully
Acting Dean
From: XXX
Sent: Friday, 27 June 2014 2:13 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: clinical casual tutor requirements
Hi All,
I do agree with XXX about sticking to our guns – the more we comply the more we make unreasonable requests seem plausible and achievable. We’re putting our necks in the noose they’re handing us.
We have already tried our hardest to help out. XXX and XXX have spent ages working out ways to reduce tutors needs via group size etc. How much more can we do?
I am happy to take Grant’s position of cancelling classes as a last resort.
XXX
-------
From: XXX
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014 5:34 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: clinical casual tutor requirements
Dear all
This just shows that Kaye is capable of coming up with strange things, as we had expected. I do not think we should try to trim the clinical and non-clinical forms of tutoring any further without good reasons, as this exercise has already been conducted in previous years. I do not see any point in trying to persuade Justin. I believe we should stick to our guns!
Regards
XXX
Is there something sinister about the university getting greedier every year - kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
Who sets there targets? How do they decide it??
Then get rid of the dean who stands up for the school and appoint a puppet dean in a political coup. And let the HR help him carry out his job - intimidation or bullying
- just turn a blind eyeto it. When staff complain, fail to register their complaint and you have a squeaky clean record. No need to worry about being sued - they cannot afford and we have better lawyers anyway (we have Chancellor who is QC). Even if the do, they will get burnt and give up. If alumni complain as they have done now, ignore it.
THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN ONE SIMPLE THING - THE DENTAL SCHOOL DOES NOT BELONG TO RICHARD LOGAN OR BEN KILE OR PAST/FUTURE PETER RATHJEN. IT BELONGS TO THE COMMUNITY.
Email example from 2014:
From: Grant Townsend [to some staff in response to the Dean’s email below]
To: XXX
Thursday, 16 January 2014 6:23:55 PM
RE: Casual Teaching Budget for 2014
Dear XXX
… This may seem obvious but I don't think we're getting the message across.
Our current programs have been accredited by the ADC [Australian Dental Council]. 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: [The Dean’s office]
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014 3:54 PM
Subject: [Academicstaff.dental] Casual Teaching Budget for 2014
Dear colleagues
I refer to my email to Year Coordinators dated 19 December …. 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
P: 83135409
E: johann.devries@adelaide.edu.au
TO: Ms N Hubczenko
Executive Director
Faculty of Health Sciences
COPY: Prof Alastair Burt
Executive Dean
Faculty of Health Sciences
TOPIC: Significant unrecognised risks arising from the Professional Services Reform process
DATE: 27 March 2016
Dear Natalia
I have now had an opportunity to meet with the Managers of each of the teams that have been established as part of the Professional Services Reform (PSR) process.
This has been a generally positive experience with obvious advantages in some areas..
However, I have identified two very significant risks to the School's operations for which I have not been able to identify any School-based, risk mitigation strategies. As Head of School it is my responsibility to advise you of significant risks and to contribute to possible solutions. With this in mind I have suggested possible strategies that might be considered as part of the implementation of the PSR changes.
The identified areas are:
Research Support
There are two significant risks in this area. Both relate to the School's historical approach to funding a small number of core School resources around which innovative, externally-funded projects can be based. This is not an approach which is easily changed at short notice and is more important than ever in the current environment where external funding is constrained and maintaining core infrastructure and services is important as we "re-imagine" how we fund our research and maintain our ERA 5 standing. The areas involved are:
• Thonard Laboratory (risk rated: high probability, high impact)
………….
• Craniofacial Biology Research Group (risk rated: high probability, high impact)
…………
Program Support (risk rated: almost certain, impact catastrophic)
This is an area of grave concern. There is a view in the broader Faculty that our School has provided too much support for staff and students. While it is true that we have invested heavily in this area as a matter of both necessity and priority, it is also true that the PSR process has taken both the staff and the financial resources that the School had invested with an initial undertaking that support levels would be maintained.
The facts of the matter are that, unlike the clinical placements in the medicine and nursing programs, where the host organisations (SA Health and others) employ a large proportion of the staff, arrange the day-to-day activities of students and support the placement supervisors, the School of Dentistry is entirely responsible for all of the operational arrangements for our programs and for employing and supporting all of our teaching staff. Because all 210 of our casual staff and the 35 SA Health employees involved in teaching are directly or indirectly our employees, we are responsible for every aspect of their recruitment, orientation, rostering etc. This translates to a very significant workload that requires a deep and broad understanding of the University HR system, the SA Health operations in which our students work, the School's operations, and the School's educational requirements.
All of this occurs within an overall context in which the School delivers internationally recognised, integrated, largely problem-based curricula without the support of the equivalent of the Medical Learning and Teaching Unit which has coordinated teaching in the MBBS program. The School's professional staff make a significant contribution these activities.
Managing all of this is made more complex because:
• the major part of our clinical program is general practice-based …
• the day-to-day coordination of staff and students is complicated. The system for managing staff and student activities and dealing with un-anticipated absences, and any other necessary sort-term changes in teaching and clinical activities, has evolved and been continually refined over many years, so that the impact of unexpected events on patients and on learning is minimised. This has become more complex as we have dispersed our activities across the metropolitan and rural clinics…
• we have a legal commitment under our Dental Partnership Agreement (DPA) to "maintain effort" at 2013 levels so that none of our responsibilities for any aspect of our placement management can be transferred to the SA Dental Service until after 2045.
..
The catastrophic consequences of a poor outcome in this area include the impact on:
• reputation. This includes all of the metrics that measure performance, including: SELTs, where dental students have traditionally been very critical of inefficiently managed short-term changes in courses when this has occurred; QILT comparisons where student satisfaction is a key factor; and, international metrics such as the QS rankings where student input and the professions perceptions are important
• program delivery. In addition to the reputational damage, a failure to deliver on the key requirements of the DPA have very significant financial implication which could cost the University many $100K.…
• casual staff. The last attempt by the Faculty to "solve the Dental School's problems" involved a letter from the Executive Dean of the time to all casual staff suggesting that they follow the example of their medical colleagues and donate their time to University. This overlooked the fact that almost all of the medical staff were SA Health employees or private providers working in their practices and generating an income while supervising students. In comparison, the casual dental staff were almost all private providers forgoing their private income to work in the SA Health system for no reward. The outcome was that within a very short time the negative response of the profession coordinated by Australian Dental Association SA (ADASA) resulted in the School losing almost one-third of its casual staff. It has taken a decade of nurturing this group to recover to where we were in 2005. Already the Adelaide University Dental Students Society (AUDSS) and the ADASA, of which all students and most casual staff are members, are known to be planning a coordinated response to any perceived reduction in support for their student or graduate members.
• academic staff retention. There is a current national shortage of dental academic staff. In addition, salaries in the public sector are in many situations up to double that offered by the University and private incomes are between three and five time that of dental academics. Reducing the support for, and adding to the workload of academic staff would definitely not enhance the chances of retaining staff in the current environment.
• marketability of courses. Currently our BDS and DClinDent programs are the most expensive in the region, but are attractive, in part at least, because of the high levels of support that students have come to expect. Any risk in this area is compounded by the fact recent changes in registration requirements in some of our traditional markets will mean that Australian graduates will no longer qualify for automatic registration reducing the attractiveness of our degrees.
The PSR's shared services model places the provision of this critical support beyond the School's control. In addition, it seems unlikely at this stage that any robust plans for the transition these complex, time-critical task will be in place by the commencement of the new arrangements.
Mitigation: Because the current Adelaide Dental Hospital (operating at its current site until mid 2017) is not recognised as a "precinct" in the new system there is no obvious way to provide the required on-site support within the new system. Because of the way in which the PSR process has progressed, it seems unlikely that any of the existing School of Dentistry staff who have been providing the equivalent of precinct support will be involved in the future.
… For the School of Dentistry this will be more complex than for medicine and nursing because we have responsibility not only for the BDS, BOH and DClinDent academic programs but also for the clinical productivity of the ADH under the DPA.
Please understand that this feedback and the related suggestions are provided:
• within a context in which I understand and accept that the PSR process is an important part of the University's strategy for managing our current challenges
• after the deepest and broadest possible consideration of all of the possible strategies available to the School
• out of a deep sense of responsibility to advise you when the School faces serious, unmanageable risk
[Obviously the Faculty office did not like the resistance that Lindsay Richards put, so they decided to terminate his contract as the dean and brought in the puppet dean to take his place]
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.
Submission made by a staff/ specialist in the field:
[To] The Dean, Adelaide Dental School 30 July 2019
I was appointed as the Undergraduate Coordinator for Periodontics in 2009. Besides teaching
into the BDS program, I was also advised by the then Dean, to include BOH students.
Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to provide feedback regarding the BOH from
my experience as the only qualified Periodontist teaching into that program for the past ten
years and also comment on what is required for future planning of the BOH hygiene curriculum.
1. Bachelor of Oral Health
The hygiene component is poorly taught in the current BOH program. There is absolutely no
input from the academic Periodontist, at all. The specialist periodontal lectures are historically poorly attended by the BOH students. The periodontal component, including assessment, in BOH has never involved any input from the Periodontist (myself as the Discipline Coordinator).
BOH1 - the lectures are combined with BDS1 and are very poorly (or never) attended by the
students. When I ask the class, if the BOH students were present during the lectures, that was perceived as being “picked on” and duly reported as such to the BOH Year Coordinator, who then approached me, requesting, I not to say anything to the students.
BOH2 – similarly, BOH2 lectures are poorly (or never attended) in combined Perio lectures
with BDS2/3 and that I should not say anything to them as, they feel very fragile and
intimidated, if I was to ask them any questions in class. I approached some of the students to determine why they were not attending the scheduled Periodontal lectures (9.10am), and they informed me that they were told by their Coordinators that it was not compulsory to attend any of the Perio lectures given by the Periodontist, as they would be having their own Perio lectures. I fail to understand why the BOH students, when given the opportunity to attend Perio lectures, presented by a Periodontist chose not to do so. However, the lecture following mine (at 10.10am) is Public Health which has full attendance from the BOH2. I find their choice of priorities questionable especially when hygiene is a significant component of their course! I have mentioned this and sent emails to then co-ordinators (XXX and XXX) who were always defensive and provided a range of excuses. Eventually, I just ceased doing so, as they were clearly not interested in any association with the BDS Periodontal sessions, or myself, at all.
For many years, I have also assisted at Elizabeth Clinics, where the BOH2 students have clinics. The periodontal cases in Elizabeth are very aggressive, almost each and every patient presents with severe periodontal infection/exudate and, also a complex medical history. This is beyond BOH2 student’s scope of management. They had no idea how to take a medical history and students were taking multiple visits to treat patients (one student had actually called their patient 12 appointments, treating 2 teeth at a time!). I admired the patient who actually attended 12 times!
I have mentioned this to XXX twice in an email then, and until today, I have never ever
received a response! I had also mentioned then, it would be more suitable for BOH3 to go out and BOH2 to remain in ADH but like I mentioned, no response whatsoever!
I have also attended the BOH2 case presentations and they were very poorly presented. When
I gave my input, it was mentioned that this was too detailed and students would feel
overwhelmed with all the information and that was not how it was done in BOH.
BOH3 - have never attended lectures when they were in ADH, certainly not now! Because they
have never attended any lectures, they have no concept of Periodontics at all. For example,
when we were at Frome Road ADH, I was called by the Hygienist supervising a BOH3 student,
to consult a patient. The student was actually taking an impression for a retainer during their Orthodontic rotation (when the patient was actually in pain with profuse bleeding gums, halitosis and, all the signs/symptoms of NUG) and the student could not even diagnose that was NUG. I questioned her and she said she did not know what it was and asked her if she had attended any of my lectures in BOH2, and her answer was, she has never attended the dedicated periodontal lectures.
I don’t have extensive knowledge about the therapy component of the BOH but the hygiene, including the periodontal component is so poorly taught in the course. This is appalling given delivery at a University. I have been consulting and presenting case presentations (several sessions a year) at TAFE SA and, the vast difference is amazing. TAFE students are so knowledgeable, perhaps because they only concentrate on hygiene for 2 years but I cannot fault their teaching in this discipline. The reputation of TAFE SA program is held in high esteem and I can confirm that from my extensive association with local private practitioners they will always employ a graduate from TAFE over the BOH, anytime!
I have a colleague, who is a Dental Therapist at Whyalla and being involved in the past with BOH3 students at this clinic, she conveyed to me that the BOH students are completely hopeless, and if the tutors were to explain/advise or even correct them, these students inform their Coordinators and, these tutors were “told off” so much so, my colleague has refused to tutor them.
*Just to be quite clear, the BDS Perio lectures are very simplified and I see no reason the BOH can’t understand them when the Hygiene students at TAFE are able to do so!
2. Graduate Certificate.
This course, is a disgrace. The School and BOH staff have never consulted Professor XXX or myself, when this was first implemented. Instead, I was approached by another colleague who was giving some lectures to assist, which I declined. It requires a significant review, if graduates are able to manage restorative treatment for adults after BOH for a minimal time/extension, this is farcical. Why then, are we even, having the BDS program where the student has to spend 5 years!
The understanding of the dental therapists attending the Graduate Certificate course also show a lack of understanding of basic periodontal knowledge and teachings from Specialist Periodontists. Adult scope within the OHT is certainly not in the best interest of the dental public with such lack of knowledge and basic concepts or foundation. I certainly disapprove the adult scope within OHT as they would need to understand other disciplines (Endo, Rem Pros, Fixed Pros, OS, Complex Restorative and Pain Diagnosis) before actually treating an adult patient.
Future options and planning for BOH and Graduate Certificate.
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! There has always been school dentists and it’s a good idea to maintain dentists who are interested in treating children in public sector. The Dental School of Adelaide University has a good reputation and it’s best to leave it at that. Most International students have told me that Adelaide and Otago are the only 2 dental schools that most students would like to attend for dentistry, because of the 5year comprehensive dental curriculum and we should definitely maintain that!
This site might not be the best place for recording the history of funding for the Adelaide Dental School, but from recent posts it sounds like chronic underfunding is one of the reasons that successive Deans have been directed to implement morale-crushing, health-threatening cuts to staffing and increases in workload.
Former Dean, John McIntyre summarised very well the history of funding to the Dental School in an article in an Australian Dental Association publication. There are more details in Rogers, Townsend and Brown’s excellent “The Adelaide Dental School 1917-2017”. Putting this information together it seems like:
• Way back in 1964, when the now demolished Frome Road School was being built, dental student numbers were planned to increase from an average of about 5 per year to 50. At that stage the Dental Hospital was a “department” of the Royal Adelaide Hospital and almost all clinical teaching in medicine and dentistry was provided by hospital-paid staff. With the projected increase in the cost of dentistry, the University and the Hospital agreed that the health system would continue to fund medical teaching, but that the University would take over the costs of teaching the dental students.
• Importantly this fundamental change in the funding model was driven to a large extent by the significant difference between clinical teaching in medicine and dentistry. Medical (and more recently nursing) students generally join in normal clinical activities with the productivity of the teaching staff not altered significantly. The supervising staff continue to perform procedures, see their patients etc. with the students generally observing and perhaps contributing in a small way. In contrast, dental students in their senior years are the front-line service providers of irreversible dental procedures. They see their own patients and need supervision ratios that vary between 1:1 and 1:6 depending on the complexity of the procedure. The clinical teacher is taken away from their normal activities and dedicated to the supervision of the students. It is stressful work and expensive.
• These 1964 changes were funded by the University at a time when Dentistry was a stand-alone Faculty and negotiated directly with the central decision makers. The system seemed to work well, aided by the fact that the Federal funding model for higher education had a separate, significantly higher, funding “band” for dentistry and veterinary science, recognising the high cost of teaching in these areas
• In the mid-1980s the University implemented changes that included the merging of the Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry. The negotiations around these changes recognised that dentistry was expensive to teach and that this needed to be accommodated in any new scheme.
• The equitable distribution of funds began to become problematic when the number of funding bands was reduced, meaning that medicine, dentistry and veterinary science were all in the same band. This resulted in an increase in the Federal funding for medicine, but a decrease for dentistry. Ministers of education, Vice-Chancellors and others all insisted that this was a better system because the money would flow to the faculties who were best place to equitably distribute the funds. Until relatively recently, successive Directors/Executive Deans of the Division/Faculty of Health Science (Doug Hardy, Geoffrey Dahlenberg, Derek Frewin, and Justin Beilby) did their best to ensure that Faculty funds were allocated in a way that recognised that dental teaching was expensive. However, this has been an increasing challenge in Health Science, where generally the Executive Dean distributing the funding has also been the Dean of Medicine!
• By 2005 the perceived financial problems in the Dental School resulted in the Vice-Chancellor (James McWha) establishing a task force to benchmark the performance of the Dental School against comparable schools and recommend a way forward. At a time when the School’s budget was of the order of $12M, this group recommended that the Faculty develop an appropriate “cost-based” funding model rather than persist with its distribution of funding based on federal allocations. As an emergency measure the Executive Dean (Justin Beilby) was directed to provide and additional $750K and the Vice-Chancellor provided a matching amount (ie a total of 12.5% increase above the federal funding). This was to continue for three years while the, Faculty developed an appropriate funding model. In addition, across the University, schools generally used up to 30% of teaching-generated income to support research and the Vice-Chancellor directed that the new model should take this into account.
•From this stage, rather than improve, the situation deteriorated. By the end of that three-year period the Dean of Dentistry (Lindsay Richards) and James McWha had moved on from their roles and the changes never occurred. The Dental School survived by selling its curriculum to the University of Sharjah (for US$5M) and through its commercial activities, including a very successful CPD program and the clinical practice associated with the Colgate Australian Clinical Dental Research Centre (CACDRC).
• The situation further deteriorated when the University moved to a budget system that involved a “gross margin”. This is difficult for those of us outside the system to understand but it ilooks like an income tax system where the Central administration and the Faculty retain a proportion (the gross margin) of a School’s income. For Dentistry, over the period 2014-2019 this has apparently grown from somewhere in the low 30% range to over $55%. This is a massive increase in dollar-terms bearing in mind that the School’s income has grown significantly as low-income local undergraduate student places have been replaced by $80K per year international places, and is made worse by the fact that the modelling for the School under the Dental Partnership Agreement with SA Health was apparently based on a gross margin of around 35%.
• When implementing the Professional Services Reform, the Executive Dean at the time (Alastair Burt) was pressured to include a statement that as part of that process the Faculty would move away from a “formulaic” funding model and establish a budget process based on real costs, but this is yet to occur.
• Instead, in 2017 when it looked like things could not get worse, the Alastair Burt noticed from the School’s budget that its commercial activities (CPD and the CACDRC) were not making any significant income for the School. He ordered the closure of the CACDRC clinic and terminated the CPD program. What he had overlooked is that the School figures represented the performance of these programs after the Faculty had retained its 55% (ie $2M+) of the income and that the programs themselves were actually very profitable!
• It seems like all of this will continue until the Faculty moves to an equitable, cost-based funding model of the type that James McWha was insisting on back in 2007.
In the meantime from posts on this site it looks the staff will be subjected to the morale-crushing, health-threatening cuts to staffing and increases in workload that they have documented
If Chinese and other internationals read this think carefully before you come to Adelaide Ed School. Oh yes they will take your money and promise you the world. But if you don't drink the content free Apple Kool Aid and all its idiotic manifestations and the specious well being nonsense you have buckleys. And then even if you do imbibe these potions with relish Bentley and his co workers in Westphalen and co will be waiting to fail you down the track. Bentley even had one student and her mother in tears- no not Asian but Italian. And nothing happened. Not one thing. But precious as he he is quick to lodge complaints about his colleagues if he suffers any imagined slights. Being a Catholic School Head prepares you for much it seems.
https://theconversation.com/unis-are-run-like-corporations-but-their-leaders-are-less-accountable-heres-an-easy-way-to-fix-that-147194
Some good comments too, but the solution presented is knly part of one. External pressures will bring us full circle.
He is an outstanding leader, mentor and role model, but his second term as Dean was cut short when his vision for the School and his management style brought him into conflict with Alastair Burt.
Professor Richards is probably the best placed person to help the School emerge from its current challenges, but he is a very private person and doesn't seem comfortable talking about Burt's termination of his contract or any of the things that happened around that time. It is probably no surprise. I can recall talking with him at the ceremony that we held to mark the closure of of the old Frome Road Dental School where he gave an inspiring speech on the future of the School and then told me that 30 minutes prior to that Burt has sacked him with the only explanation being that University senior management contracts allowed him to do that "with no cause". Presumably this is just one example of the sorts of things he had to tolerate.
What is disappointing is that inspiring people with a great depth and breadth of experience are no longer available. It would be great to have them contributing. again but I suspect that they have been deeply scarred by their past experiences.
He is an outstanding leader, mentor and role model, but his second term as Dean was cut short when his vision for the School and his management style brought him into conflict with Alastair Burt.
Professor Richards is probably the best placed person to help the School emerge from its current challenges, but he is a very private person and doesn't seem comfortable talking about Burt's termination of his contract or any of the things that happened around that time. It is probably no surprise. I can recall talking with him at the ceremony that we held to mark the closure of of the old Frome Road Dental School where he gave an inspiring speech on the future of the School and then told me that 30 minutes prior to that Burt has sacked him with the only explanation being that University senior management contracts allowed him to do that "with no cause". Presumably this is just one example of the sorts of things he had to tolerate.
What is disappointing is that inspiring people with a great depth and breadth of experience are no longer available. It would be great to have them contributing. again but I suspect that they have been deeply scarred by their past experiences.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-08/university-of-adelaide-sexual-assault-and-harassment-reports/12743102
Now that the can of worms has been opened, these things will keep coming.......
University responds to ABC news [Part 1]
From: Vice-Chancellor
Sent: Friday, 9 October 2020 3:30 PM
To: allstaff_titlehol_vis_pgrs@list.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: [Alluniversity] Statistics on sexual assault and sexual harassment
Dear Colleagues
The University and its Council have been transparent on a wide range of matters with staff, students, and other stakeholders in the wake of the ICAC public statement about the former Vice-Chancellor. The University has committed to ongoing transparency on these matters.
In an online staff forum hosted by the Chancellor on 9 September 2020, she provided a figure of cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment which she later learnt was based on statistics that had been found to be inaccurate.
Once the Chancellor learned of the error, she asked that all staff who attended the forum be notified of the error and given the correct figures. Unfortunately, that was not done promptly following her request.
Today I am writing to all staff to ensure that the error made during the staff forum is clarified, and to assure you that the mistake during the forum was simply that. We are committed to being transparent with our community about such matters.
The Chancellor subsequently provided accurate figures to students at the online Student Forum on 23 September 2020, of reports of sexual assault or sexual harassment pertaining to staff and students made to the University in the period from 1 January 2018 to 9 September 2020. The full table of the figures is provided here:
[TABLE - Refer to https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-08/university-of-adelaide-sexual-assault-and-harassment-reports/12743102]
Of the student cases mentioned above, 18 of them were University related, meaning either on campus or involved in a University-related activity off campus, and 17 of them were not University related, meaning they occurred in circumstances and settings not controlled by the University (such as in bars, on public transport, or in private accommodation). The majority of reports involved allegations of sexual harassment.
The University of Adelaide has zero tolerance for sexual harassment and assault and we are determined to reduce its incidence and support those affected.
The University continues to regularly address and report on Safer Campus Community activity, including to Vice-Chancellor’s Executive (eight updates per year), and to every University Council meeting. An annual Student Behaviour and Conduct Report, with a particular focus on sexual assault and sexual harassment, is provided to Vice-Chancellor’s Executive, Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee, and University Council. At the Chancellor’s request, a new monthly report of all cases will now also be provided to Council and to the Interim Vice-Chancellor.
Following the recent Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) public statement about the University’s former Vice-Chancellor, the University has committed to adopting all recommendations made by the Commissioner. This includes reviews of policies, procedures and guidelines relating to sexual harassment and sexual assault, education programs for staff, and changes to record keeping. A Steering Committee has been established to lead this work, chaired by Professor Katrina Falkner, Executive Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences.
As part of our commitment to transparency, we will continue to update the University community on the progress of these important matters.
I strongly encourage any staff or students who have experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment to come forward and report it to complaints@adelaide.edu.au. You will have the University’s full support.
We are 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
Professor John Williams
Acting Vice-Chancellor
Professor John Williams
Acting Vice-Chancellor and President
The University of Adelaide | Adelaide SA 5005
08 8313 5201 | vice-chancellor@adelaide.edu.au
The Acting Vice Chancellor writes, "The University of Adelaide has zero tolerance for sexual harassment and assault and we are determined to reduce its incidence and support those affected." and then "We are 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."
Can they be really trusted?
If he is telling the truth, will he investigate what Richard Logan (dentistry school) knew about all of Sam Gue's abuses (bullying and sexual harassment) of students for years and failed to protect them? Logan co-supervised some of those who suffered with Gue, and he was also Gue's supervisor.
What about all the bullying data reported in a union survey (78%)? Ben Kile (Logan's supervisor) says there is no problem!
Just watch and weep - they will do nothing and will continue to protect each other.
https://twitter.com/cwmagee/status/1314525541387497472
Nielsen tweeted on 09 October 2020:
Just want to put this article in context: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-08/university-of-adelaide-sexual-assault-and-harassment-reports/12743102
31 Aug - I submitted an FOI requesting details of sexual harassment/assault
7 Sept - the FOI dept quoted nearly $1000 & 15 hours to compile the data
9 Sept - newly appointed Chancellor Cathy Branson told a staff meeting incidents of sexual harassment/assault were 'astonishingly low' and there had been about 5 in recent years
8 Oct - it's revealed there have been 52 reports of sexual harassment and assault since 2018
So:
On what information did Cathy base her comment?
And, when did the university compile the data about the 52 reports of sexual harassment/assault and then issue it to management?
UPDATE: An all-staff email today explained Cathy learned after the meeting that her statement was based on incorrect info but the record wasn't corrected promptly. Staff have been assured it was a mistake and that the uni's committed to being transparent and fostering safety.
Dear Colleagues,
You might have already heard along the grapevine that I tendered my resignation earlier this week. I feel my situation has come to a point where I have no confidence in what the future will hold and feel very much saddened that I have had to make this decision for my own sake, and it hasn’t come without much anguish. Sorry to sound selfish but in the end our responsibility is to ourselves and our families, the people who will truly care, and I think I am jaded having believed that we are all, from leadership down to those of us working at the grassroots, working for the good of the School, our curriculum and the students. It has been an emotional time for me as what I am giving up is my working relationships with all of you.
So I guess that is what hurts the most because in spite of the challenges and the system we have to work with, I care about the School and the students and have invested so much into it all. I have always said, if it were not for the people I work closely with, I would have got up and left sooner. I worry about BDS5 coordination and the students, not to mention the extra load that will fall on XXX particularly.
Thank you for the privilege of working with you and the support you have been to me in various ways. I wish you all the best for each of your future journeys and hope we can keep in touch. Feel free to talk to me more, just be prepared for a few tears to flow. Please don’t feel you have to respond to this email.
Warm regards XXXX
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article%3Fid%3D10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384?revisionLink=/plosbiology/article%3Fid%3D10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384%26rev%3D1
The authors provide their data spreadsheets for authors up to 2017. Take a look at Mergen Gayesh at Adelaide!!!!
Self-citation rate of over 50% (world median is only ~13%) and up to 2017, his h index is inflated by 44% from 19 to 34!!!
Is this the example to be set for researchers?
Clearly this behaviour helps rankings so out of sight out of mind. Needs to be a forum where this kind of gaming is publicly outed so institutions are forced to act.
Michael, do you know of a good, respected blog closer to this topic?
I think it's spelled "Ghayesh". I had a look at his web site and some of his WoS highly citeds.
The range from ~40% to 70% self cited (Scopus) so this guy is a gamer through and through.
Thanks for the link to the PLoS paper the spreadsheets are horrific. Freely downloadable at
https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/1#file-ad4249ac-f76f-4653-9e42-2dfebe5d9b01
Ghayesh is not alone at Adelaide. Ozbakkaloglu is a 47% self-citer and Whittington (SA Museum/Adelaide) at 37%. Both have inflated h indices. I note Tanya Monro at U. South Australia is their highest self-citer at ~26% & Flinders' is a Michael Bull at 41%.
Be business as usual post ICAC- well isn't it already?
A: Not very
Q: What can be done about it?
A: Parliamentary inquiry
The past Assistant Dean of Research had 65 documents with an h-index of 20.
The current Assistant Dean of Research of less than 1 year has 22 papers with an h-index of 6. Yes, six. May be they have no one better.
A prominent dentistry professor is leaving to University of Queensland. Is this a sign of research quality going downhill very quickly?
There are not many high-caliber researchers left in the school plagued with leadership problems.
The past Assistant Dean of Research had 65 documents with an h-index of 20.
The current Assistant Dean of Research of less than 1 year has 22 papers with an h-index of 6. Yes, six.
A prominent dentistry professor is leaving to University of Queensland. Is this a sign of research quality going downhill very quickly?
There are not many high-caliber researchers left in the school plagued with leadership problems.