Acting SCA dean as fixer for Prof Garton, may not assert any moral postures in this dispute as per this correspondence sent this afternoon:
From: SRC Legal Service <solicitor…
Date: Friday, 7 October 2016 4:44 pm
Subject: comment/complaint from SRC Legal principal solicitor – FW: Today’s protest
Dear Acting Dean
I write on behalf of the 130+ students who have provided us with written authority in relation to negotiations on the future of SCA.
I have a complaint on their behalf, responding to your broadcast email below inviting complaints about the recent protest.
It is about your shameless hypocrisy regarding Usyd misconduct, and indeed dishonesty, in its dealings with the future of SCA.
In my view you are tainted by that agenda, perhaps irredeemably by your self-serving trawling for “confidential” complaints in a context where students righteously protest the “killing” of their art school at Rozelle as a direct consequence of unlawful financial decision-making contrary to the Australian Consumer Law.
I say financial decisions in breach of the ACL because despite the double talk PR to date, Usyd have taken critical financial decision to prevent the financial viability of the SCA at Rozelle thus compromising any realistic capacity to deliver the education offering promised at law:
– Sabotaged the record first referencing via UAC in late 2015;
– Sabotage in 2015 of the work up of the highly popular BV Communication degree;
– Diverted the future fund for SCA out of the sale of the Old Law School building;
– Imposed an internal accounting device of $9M in a black box model that punishes higher proportionate space use, regardless of actual operating expenses, that we say does not bear probity of a public financial accounting forensic audit.
– Ruthless cancellation of the BVA first year intake of 2017 which is the financial foundation of a viable SCA Rozelle school via
— C’th HECS supported students,
—as well as full fee paying international students.
My concern is outlined here: [2 facebook posts as appeared on SCAR earlier today]
#1 Principal Solicitor
Oh boy the hypocrisy – acting dean Margaret Harris (on a 6 month
SMH article – Nick Greiner letter reveals Sydney University was offered subsidy to run art school…….maladministration of an arrogant central management at Usyd.
Further based on this:
#2 Principal Solicitor uploaded a file.
Extreme risk of closure of the specialist arts based library at SCA Rozelle?:…….
Refer NTEU letter 1/8/16 – NTEU – Notification of an Industrial Dispute under Clause 380 of The University of Sydney Enterprise Agreement 2014 – 2017
In my view, you in your role as acting dean – on a mere 6 months retainer – have a lot of explaining to do before civil society and the legal authorities: It is most curious that you raise the issue of “misconduct” while literally ICAC and the NCAT consumer tribunal, and other regulatory bodies, are assessing a complaint regarding the diversion of $46M intended to sustain SCA so it may deliver its educational offering.
It seems Usyd management have their own accounting for scandalous maladministration and/or misconduct.
Please let me know if you disagree. And if so on what basis?
Certainly the above misconduct and dishonesty goes a very long way to outline a basis for leniency for any alleged misconduct of protesting students (which is not admitted).
Thomas McLoughlin | Solicitor Practitioner Director [SRC Legal Service]