This just released a couple of hours ago. While the reader can make up their own mind, my view is that it seems pretty weak, especially since his student researcher was also apparently terminated as I’m told her email address at Macquarie ceases to function.
Salby’s statement is here – Anthony
10 July 2013
Macquarie University does not normally comment on the circumstances under which employees leave the University. However, we feel in this instance it is necessary to do so in order to correct misinformation.
The decision to terminate Professor Murry Salby’s employment with Macquarie University had nothing to do with his views on climate change nor any other views. The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests.
Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.
The University took this matter very seriously as the education and welfare of students is a primary concern. The second reason for his termination involved breaches of University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.
The termination of his employment followed an extensive and detailed internal process, including two separate investigations undertaken by a committee chaired by a former Australian Industrial Relations Commissioner and including a union nominee.
Media Contact:
p: (02) 9850 1039 e: Joanna.wheatley@mq.edu.au
A copy of this release is available online at www.mq.edu.au/newsroom
===========================================================
The PDF I received from MS Wheatley is here: SalbyStatement_July2013
According to the PDF document properties, the statement appears to be authored by Golda Mitchell who can be seen here: http://marketing.mq.edu.au/media_and_communications/contact_the_media_and_communications_team/
Given the furor this has generated, it seems odd they’d leave this to the lowest person on the organizational ladder. -Anthony
Steve B says:
July 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm
“Yeah, Macquarie isn’t exactly up there with the best – cellar dwellers of universities would best describe it. It is however in a very nice area. You can lose yourself in the bush there.”
When my family came to Australia in the late 1950s, we lived in a tiny residence that the market-gardener Italians who owned the land had carved out of a hayshed. That land is now part of Macquarie University. There was a large chicken farm over the road, and we were surrounded by fields of lettuce and tomatoes, and fig trees.
It was much more productive in those days.
I fail to see how the university can claim that Salby was contractually obliged to undertake specific duties (eg teaching) when they claim the the contract was not registered and thus did not oblige them to supply the resources which originally lured him to the position in the first place.
Mark Bofill says: “Can you propose any credible scenario under this interpretation to explain the cancellation of the non-refundable ticket, under the assumption that what Prof. Salby says with respect to this cancellation is so? I’m at a loss to think of one, but possibly I lack the imagination and conviction regarding the University’s propriety that you may have.”
I’m struggling to see how Salby’s account makes sense here. He says (point 12) “Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged), had to be fulfilled at personal expense.” – so before he went the Uni had already withdrawn financial support from the trip. Further this had occurred (point 11) after the uni had blocked his salary “Macquarie then accused me of “misconduct”, cancelling my salary. It blocked access to my office, computer resources, even to personal equipment I had transferred from the US.” – so when had the Uni paid for this plane ticket? The story doesn’t add and no sane person would expect a Uni in that circumstance to be STILL paying for a flight on a trip it didn’t approve to a person whose salary they weren’t paying.
I can endorse those sentiments. The best local science institution in the 1960s was the Ian Clunies Ross Animal Research Laboratory of CSIRO (merino fleece perfection etc.) It’s been all downhill since then.
.
Salby had a contract with Maquarie as stated by both Salby and Maquarie, therefore Salby may have a claim under unfair dismissal law in Australia.
Australia also has FOI laws, so no reason why Salby cannot request information concerning his dismissal and that of
As can Evgenia Titova
? I tried to send a Email to Joanna Wheatley no luck has anybody have another address to stir them up
Salby’s talk in Hamburg – make it viral
I received a reply from Joanna (Wheatley?) enclosing the news release. In my email I asked if Titova had also been dismissed – no response. I’ve asked again if Titova has been dismissed and I’m waiting for a response.
If I don’t receive a response, I think we can assume Titova has been dismissed as well
So far, with have Prof. Salbys list of facts with his interpretation of his facts.
We do not have the Unis version of the facts with their interpretation of the facts.
“My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers
for other staff – junior staff.”
The instruction for the above to happen could be worded/interpreted in many different ways.
Could it be a miss-communication?
I have found over the years that people in opposing camps tend to have trouble understanding each other.
This effect appears to increase with the intelligence of the people involved.
With respect to the misconduct proceedings:
these are always (in the UK) conducted WITHOUT the accused party. The accused party is usually given leave (gardening leave in the UK) so that the team of managers inquiring into the alleged offence have unrestricted access to staff for witness interviews. The final part of the process (UK) is the final meeting when the accused meets the inquiry panel to hear the results of the inquiry, put their side, then the panel gives its decision. You can deliberately refuse to attend the final meeting but after 2 or 3 ‘re-invites’ the meeting would go ahead without you. I suspect if you traveled abroad, whilst the ‘process’ was running (one to two weeks max) without permission, then you probably would be found to have deliberately refused to attend the final meeting.
Dates and times of each communication would be extremely important in this case.
I do hope this is resolved satisfactorily soon.
steverichards1984 says: July 11, 2013 at 3:42 am
“these are always (in the UK) conducted WITHOUT the accused party”.
It’s different here. It looks like they convened a Misconduct Investigation Committee. Scroll down to 4.12.18. The later stages at least make lots of provision for the investigatee to be present and speak.
Before picking a position bunnies should remember that Salby has serious form as shown by his time at Colorado.
So not surprised. This is a very toxic mix. Herein this establishment lie some long and expert records of ‘doing knife jobs’ on rivals and colleagues in a number of, shall we say, ‘academic contexts’ and ‘international forums’ stretching back over many years. Many good bodies lying along the wayside, most with more cuts than a butchers shop.
Fact. There are those amongst us who are just so very well cut out to show us all how nasty the ‘human pecking order’ can get. They are usually politicians or academics. What is it about universities that attracts so many sociopaths to ‘high office’ therein?
BTW, little chuckles yet again watching Nick indulging his little ol’ penchant for knowing disingenuity.
MangoChutney says:
July 11, 2013 at 2:57 am
I received a reply from Joanna (Wheatley?) enclosing the news release. In my email I asked if Titova had also been dismissed – no response. I’ve asked again if Titova has been dismissed and I’m waiting for a response.
If I don’t receive a response, I think we can assume Titova has been dismissed as well
It’s not that simple with grad students, usually they’re paid from a research grant held by the advisor, once the advisor is gone you need to find another advisor with support. I had dealings with a similar situation over thirty years ago and the student was in limbo for about 6 months until we could arrange support for her. In the case of Macquarie the academic term recently ended and it is possible that the normal appointment period is for the academic terms?
some unsubstantiated conjecture
suppose someone wanted to get Murray Salby out of the way, and stop or hinder his work
from US Maquarie might seem a distant backwater
Murray has said many times there were long delays with the provision of resources
this also fits in with hindering idea.
The plan backfired
Murray Salby has also said many times that the delays provided him with time to think
and this is when he came up with the ideas he presented first at Sydney in 2011 and 2012
then in Hamburg 2013
Why act now?
a) it took people this long to realise what he was saying
b) the results presented in Hamburg were a significant advance on what had gone before
c) something else
In the 2013 Hamburg presentation I was struck by Murray Salby
obtaining 2 equations (for 2 different processes)
providing closed form solutions to each of these equations
the close agreement between graphs of observed data and these closed form solutions
In addition Monckton has said Murray Salby has 4 blockbuster papers in progress
It strikes me as bizarre for people to say Murray Salby has not done much in the last 5 years,
it seems to me he has done a great deal
can you suggest anyone who has done as much?
Yes. The simplest explanation I’ve been able to think of to explain all of the details is that Dr. Salby booked his flight using his University credit card without obtaining approval from one of the authorities specified in the travel policy document. The University took advantage of this opportunity to cancel his return or a leg of his return to prevent him from participating in whatever ways he had planned in the misconduct proceedings. Alternately, it is possible that Dr. Salby obtained approval that was subsequently withdrawn, although I find this supposition less plausible for various reasons.
You use the term ‘sane person’ and I’m not sure you’ve thought this through, do put yourself in Salby’s shoes for a moment. He had apparently made arrangements to present material. This is his professional reputation on the line, not some weekend getaway vacation. What would any sane person have done? I’D have tried my darndest to figure out how to present anyway.
That “take,” in context, is perfectly legitimate in American English, as in “take a job” or “take an assignment” or “take orders.” It is not even unclear, since the sentence is about his refusal to teach. If it meant “take” in the sense of a student’s taking the class, it should not be in the same sentence.
Mark Bofill: “The simplest explanation I’ve been able to think of to explain all of the details is that Dr. Salby booked his flight using his University credit card without obtaining approval from one of the authorities specified in the travel policy document.”
That fits the narrative but if he did use University funds to buy a ticket which wasn’t approved no further explanation is needed as to why the university would cancel the ticket. Of course they cancelled the ticket. I don’t think that scenario cast Murry Salby in a good light.
“What would any sane person have done? I’D have tried my darndest to figure out how to present anyway.”
Perhaps but you would also consider the consequences. In this case 1. using a plane ticket paid for by the Uni (apparently) for travel the Uni hadn’t approved and 2. take yourself abroad while the uni was engaged in misconduct proceedings. He may of quite rationally decided that the benefit outweighed the cost – but that doesn’t put him in much of a position to complain about the immediate consequences of his decisions. Note that this independent of the overall rights and wrongs of the issue – the uni may well have treated him badly prior to this and he may have some moral feeling of entitled to that plane ticket.
Imagine you were a confidante of Professor Salby and he had asked your advice prior. He really wants to go and present in Europe but he is currently (apparently) suspended without pay from the university. Would you advise that he should go? Perhaps. Would you advise that he use a plane ticket paid for by the uni for travel that the uni clearly hasn’t approved? Surely not.
Jeremy Shiers says: “The plan backfired Murray Salby has also said many times that the delays provided him with time to think and this is when he came up with the ideas he presented first at Sydney in 2011 and 2012 then in Hamburg 2013”
I don’t think that narrative helps Professor Salby – under that timeline Salby’s revelations occur as his relationship with the university (and possibly with his colleagues) is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. As the situation becomes worse his criticism of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis becomes more overt. People on the the three threads about the sacking are suggesting a causal link between his position and his sacking but your scenario would suggest that the causal link flows in a different direction: he was speaking out because of the workplace issues rather than vice-versa.
Nyq Only says:
July 11, 2013 at 12:20 pm
…
That fits the narrative but if he did use University funds to buy a ticket which wasn’t approved no further explanation is needed as to why the university would cancel the ticket. Of course they cancelled the ticket. I don’t think that scenario cast Murry Salby in a good light.
—————
🙂 I wasn’t trying to cast anybody in a certain light, just trying to get a feel for what’s plausible.
Nyq – Oh, I understand now. Looking back at what I asked, yes, my original question doesn’t make sense anymore. I’d had time to think it through is why.
“What is it about universities that attracts so many sociopaths to ‘high office’ therein?” [Steve Short at 5:04AM 7/11/13]
Ease of entry and subsequent lack of accountability.
********************************************
“Murray Salby has also said many times that the delays provided him with time to think
and this is when he came up with the ideas he presented first at Sydney in 2011 and 2012
then in Hamburg 2013.” [Jeremy Shiers at 5:48AM 7/11/13]
Thanks for your thoughtful post bringing us back to the essentials of the matter.
The words in bold above riveted my attention, jumping off the screen, shouting, “That’s how the only ones who escaped from the Jim Jones cult in Guyana got out alive.” In an attempt to make clear to those who from their blasé comments above apparently do not comprehend the significance of what has happened here, in 2013, I’d like to tell you the story (as best as I can recall it from a lecture I attended in 1983) of what happened to a few brave souls in November, 1979.
Like Murry Salby, James Brown [I’ve forgotten his real name] was a believer. He would not have followed the cult to the jungle of Guyana if he were not. He questioned why such a move was necessary, but, he went. Upon arriving at the compound in Guyana, the cult leaders demanded that he hand over his wallet? “Why do you need my wallet?” he said, frowning as he slowly handed it to them.
“And all your credit cards.” Brown stared. He really had no choice, so, he handed them over. Day after hot, steamy, day, the loudspeaker blared. Week after oppressive week, Jones’s voice endlessly shouted the propaganda by which he controlled his cowed followers. Brown grew to hate that voice. When they called for volunteers to widen the path through the jungle, he waved his hand. Anything to get away from that frenzied, maniacal, voice. It was hard work, their tools were crude, and Brown got mighty tired from his labor. But, out in that jungle, with only bird calls to break the silence, Brown started to think. And he realized that this camp in the jungle was not going to be a new beginning; it was going to be the end; and he was running out of time.
So, on an all-camp rest day, Brown got permission to go on a little picnic to his crew’s worksite in the jungle. He and the few people he was allowed to bring with him walked along through the jungle to the end of the newly cut way. His companions were cheerfully chatting, rejoicing in the unaccustomed free time. They were starting to unpack their picnic things when Brown said quietly but firmly, “No. Don’t unpack.” The sharpness of his voice made them all stop and look at him in silence. “We are not going back. Jones is going to kill us all. If not today, then tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then, soon. We’ll never have another chance like this again. We’re getting out.” Eyebrows raised, voices started to protest.
Brown had to used every ounce of his strength of persuasion to cajole, and plead, and literally push those people down the narrow jungle path, away from their certain death. They walked and walked and walked. They walked all night. And, thanks to a strong-minded man who “started to think,” they got out of the cult. They were among the only ones who made up the pitiful handful of those who got out alive.
The time for questioning Dr. Salby on the details is later. The time to help him is now.
MB: “I wasn’t trying to cast anybody in a certain light, just trying to get a feel for what’s plausible.”
Likewise – and it all depends on what the exact sequence of events was. On first reading an academic is in Europe presenting at a conference (which is what we expect academics to do) – turns up at the airport and finds his ticket has been cancelled by his employers and that he can’t get home to a disciplinary hearing. It is a story of an employer being nasty (and sadly nasty employers are not a rarity).
Read Salby’s account in more detail and he not only is already under investigation for misconduct but also the uni has declined support for his trip. In this story how the ticket came into being becomes a tad mysterious but its cancellation doesn’t.
The other thing I still don’t get is: “Included was technical support to convert several hundred thousand lines of computer code, comprising numerical models and analyses (the tools of my research), to enable those computer programs to operate in Australia.” I wonder what sort of conversion that would be? The only think that seems to make sense would be if the programs used non-metric units but even in the US it would be hard to imagine climate scientists working inches etc.
Those trying to escape from the Cult of Climatology need our HELP not our standing aloof, coolly conjecturing about the circumstances of their getting away.
For some of us Down Under who inhabit academic and scientific circles of relevance to Murray Salby’s dismissal i.e. Sydney, the speculation here is rather amusing. There are no prizes at all for guessing which senior academics at Macquarie have most probably carried-out this knife job on Murray and why. There have been many lead ins. To use horse racing jargon they have lots of ‘form’ so to speak in the age old craft of professional aggression. One such even spent time ‘managing’ part of a Federal Government institution and what a sociopathic disaster that turned out to be, with numerous staff fleeing in horror elsewhere (or getting counselling, or psychiatric help or just taking retirement) over quite a number of years! Needless to say that person was NOT dismissed (but should have been). Of course not! Sociopathic behaviour is usually tolerated in such environments either because the next person up the hierarchy is also a crazy egomaniac but more often just plain frightened. We have to abandon this naive myth that academia is somehow a gentle and civilized environment. Often a fowl yard, sometimes even a steaming jungle, with screams in the night and blood all over the foliage next morning, and the morning after that…. These people are invariably fearsome, may form cabals and have years of experience in the fine arts of institutional exploitation.
My advice to Murray is:
(1) Get the very best of LOCAL legal advice. If you can possibly sue Macquarie Uni for big damages then do so and sue them very, hard hard. After all, a number of respected American and British academics have got multimillion $ settlements out of Sydney Uni in recent years (after they ran afoul of a local sociopathic cabal in the staff). THEIR lawyers are the ones to consult!
(2) Then get the hell out back to North America or Europe or ….. anywhere its a normal working environment – and where you can truly relax on the beach with a lager etc. Sure, we have lots of cuddly animals down here. Its a very beautiful country, but it is also hokey and Antipodean and some of the local animals have very poisonous fangs. And the very nastiest are not out in the bush.
[snip off topic snark -mod]
If you could provide a few names, then Salby could track down their cases on the Internet, which might mention their lawyers, or give other helpful details.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/walker-launches-legal-proceedings-20111202-1obgk.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/academics-silence-stalls-university-of-sydney-lawsuit/story-e6frgcjx-1225993898375
http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/s1847798.htm