Macquarie University responds to Murry Salby termination issue

This story becomes more intriguing by the day.
With reference to the credit card, in the UK, the provider of debt MU has a duty to limit the increase of a debt.
Lets say you rent a DVD from a store, it costs 2 per night, and you have it booked for 3 nights.
If you did not take it back until 6 months later, the rental shop would not be allowed to charge you 2 x 7 x 6 = 84, a UK judge ruled that the store had a duty to try ‘as early as possible’ to correct the situation and not wait for a big bill to mount up. The judge ruled the 84 unfair and substituted a lower fee.
In this case you have a rogue member of staff on unauthorised overseas travel buying air tickets, hotel bills, taxies etc. If the company took this person to court in the UK, the judge would say “Why did you not cancel the card to minimise the debt increase”.
I suspect Australia has a similar law.

Phil.
I would expect both parties to try painstakingly to adhere to statements and claims that are not obviously untrue (and could be proven so).
MacqUniv’s claims here are to ‘unapproved agent’ wrt to his ticket purchase. The other words about ‘expenditures’ are just blustering, no substantive accusations. Salby claims that his travel and arrangements where known, approved, and adjusted towards their requirements.
And I don’t expect you to accept anyone’s account. But encourage you to read what the actual accusations made actually do say .. (and what they don’t say)

Jona N:
The did not follow the rules on three occasions:
1)
his repeated refusal to teach, over a sustained period of time, in contravention of his contract of employment.
2)
The second reason was inappropriate use of University resources. Professor Salby travelled to Europe during a time when he was obliged to be at the University against DIRECT, WRITTEN INSTRUCTION.
3)
Furthermore he used a University credit card to pay for the flights through an unapproved agency. This is AGAINST University policy.
If they don’t like you for whatever reason, any of the 3 above will do you down.
If they like you and you were delivering whatever you were expected to deliver, they would turn a blind eye.
Normal behaviour I am afraid…
Its now a bit late, but for others, if you wished to operate in a slightly maverick manner (ie go against the flow of your paymaster) then make sure that you are perfect with all of the bureaucratic rules they impose, and turn it into a long waiting game.

Jonas N says: “MacqUniv’s claims here are to ‘unapproved agent’ wrt to his ticket purchase. The other words about ‘expenditures’ are just blustering, no substantive accusations. Salby claims that his travel and arrangements where known, approved, and adjusted towards their requirements.”
Sorry but no. Prof Salby’s statement contradicts what you are saying. “9. Forms for research travel that were lodged with Macquarie included a description of the findings. Presentation of our research was then blocked by Macquarie. The obstruction was imposed after arrangements had been made at several venues (arranged then to conform to other restrictions imposed by Macquarie). Macquarie’s intervention would have silenced the release of our research.” and “12. Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged),had to be fulfilled at personal expense.”
Even prior to the university’s second statement it was clear that Prof Salby’s story was somewaht inconsistent regarding this plane ticket – i.e. he had overtly said that the university had not approved the travel and that he had to bear the costs. Even if we just go on Prof Salby’s account alone there is something odd about the plane ticket cancellation as he implies that 1. the university declined to fund the travel and 2. he had a return plane ticket for the travel paid for by the university.

Nyq Only
;y reading of this is that first things were approved, or already agreed upon and arranged, and that they were subsequently changed, and even possibly revoked. Or that he was thereafter ‘ordered’ to do something colliding with already made (and possibly approved) plans. And that such changes forced him pay for altered plans.
If, and I say if these alterations and even revocations had the (main) purpose of preventing him to present his new findings, then this would be yet another big scandal from the same ‘team’ where wev’e gotten used to such by now.
But anyhow, several things about this story stink badly of nasty university politics already. And as somebody mentioned, this has happened to him before.
Thomas (a well known Swedish activist) finds nothing peculiar with an order to not go to an already agreed and arranged conference, neither with the herrassment of his gradstudent. He writes:
“presumably because the university wanted him available for the proceedings”
Yes, presumably ‘the University’, or rather those pulling the strings had nothing but the best intentions in mind for Salby, and just happened to ‘order him’ to be where he had planned not to be at exactly that time.
And BTW .. I lost count on how many ‘independent investigations’ exhonerated Mann and Jones etc of any wrongdoing. I think even the Attorney General of Viginia could not find one thing wrong with anything of Mann’s doings while there. And you can’t blame the guy for lack of trying, can you?
/sarc off

Jonas N says: ” reading of this is that first things were approved, or already agreed upon and arranged, and that they were subsequently changed, and even possibly revoked.”
Well that isn’t the account Prof. Salby gives. He says he was blocked when he submitted forms “9. Forms for research travel that were lodged with Macquarie included a description
of the findings. Presentation of our research was then blocked by Macquarie.” Now he does also that he had already made some arrangements. He says this was “8. Under the resources Macquarie had agreed to provide, arrangements were made to present this new research at a scientific conference and in a lecture series at research centers in Europe.” But this was already well into a protracted dispute between him and the uni in terms of what he thought they had agreed to and what they thought he had agreed to.
Jonas N “If, and I say if these alterations and even revocations had the (main) purpose of preventing him to present his new findings, then this would be yet another big scandal from the same ‘team’ where wev’e gotten used to such by now.”
Huh? What ‘team’ are you referring to? And the last time I checked 1. it is the 21st century 2. physically traveling to Europe isn’t the only way of communicating important research findings and 3. Prof Salby has been communicating his findings in all sorts of ways. The primary communication issue on his findings hasn’t been obstruction from the uni but Prof Salby not providing further details about his conclusions. All he needs is a working internet connection. And none of that explains why he would buy a plane ticket using university funds if he knew he didn’t have approval from the uni.
And STILL nobody has explained what the conversion of his computer program was supposed to be. Why would a computer program need to be converted to work in Australia?

Jonas N says: “Somehow I get the impression that you are quite happy with all the mudslinging that is and has been going on. While telling me that you are completely unaware of what previous instances I was referring to.”
Not at all – I think the mudslinging at the university has been poorly substantiated. As for previous instances I took it to mean you meant from this particular university – if so you should outline them.
“I even think your ‘arguments’ glaringly contradict themselves.” – OK so can you show which arguments contradict themselves? No?
“But the notion that all this commotion (and worse) is completely unrelated to his views and findings regarding climate and CO2-levels … is more than just a bit hard to digest.”
Well we can check empirically, can’t we? Salby shot to prominence in ‘skeptic’ circles in 2011. Prior to that he wasn’t known as having controversial views on the issue. According to his own account by 2011 he was already in a protracted dispute with the university. Also his problems with the NSF predate that by several years. More relevantly Prof. Salby himself says that it was the dispute over resources with the uni that gave him the time to think about the CO2 issue.
So what is the causal connection here? Did the dispute with the uni arise because of his public comments about CO2? No. We know that it isn’t the case from Salby’s own account. Yet you say that it is implausible that there isn’t a connection. If you are correct then the CONNECTION MUST BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. i.e. his public comments challenging the role of CO2 in climate science were motivated by his dispute with the university rather than vice-versa. Is that REALLY what you would like us to take away from this situation?

Now that we have damning evidence from the NSF regarding Salby’s less than squeaky clean behaviour with research grant funds, unearthed by the no less that the Master Rodent himself, am I to be the first to point out that we now seem to have another Shakespearian tragedy in the making along the lines of the previous Miskolczian debacle?
And yet, and yet, ….how are we to reconcile such appearances with this sweet piece of cutting edge science?
http://www.dhushara.com/Biocrisis/11/jun/ozone_recover.pdf
Endorsed by Prof. David Karoly himself too, gadzooks!
Is nothing sacred?

One thing I always liked about Shakespeare and his tragedies. He always knew exactly what features made for a superb tragedy and rightly pumped them up super hard with it. This is why they work so well in an academic (and science) milieu and Brer Rabbett can’t tear himself away.
Fear and loathing.

Nyq Only
This may come as a shock. But it is not uncommon for employers to unfairly dismiss employees for a collateral purpose. Unfair employers can whistle and tie shoelaces at the same time. Salby’s contractual dispute may have started before he publicly proclaimed his heresy but that chronology in no way of itself eliminates Salby’s heresy being a substantial reason for his dismissal. Is this too hard for you? Or are you just a snivelling apologist for a ruthless and unfair employer? Or is it both?

Culture – dictatorial and barbaric (possibly also can be classified as criminal and corruption).
The Macquarie university’s response is lie. Many ‘professional Liars’ are working at the university. These are standard formula and evil tactics that they use all the time. The corruption and abuse of power are common in many Australian universities. Michael Egan, Macquarie’s Chachanceller (former Labor party politician and union official) should be very familiar with these practices at Macquarie university, even in the local state government.
Many “doggy’ people have been filled in universities. Some are from overseas dictatorial and corrupted countries. Many have “criminal” mindset and “rat” or “sickness” behaviour. I am not surprised about the Prof Salby’s case and his student’s situations at all. I know many people who have same treatments in the university. What he is telling to us is true. Prof Salby is not only the one. Other incident such as Professor Kim Walker, from University of Sydney. http://www.smh.com.au/national/postgraduate-education/uni-made-me-unemployable-says-exdean-20130213-2eddd.html. Many of cases are not in the newspapers.
Just looking at the Macquarie university, a number of incidents have been occurred (for an example, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/ex-minister-peter-anderson-bullied-staff-hired-mates-ran-fiefdom-icac/story-e6frgcjx-1226018048276). Some of the thought leaders who have strong track records that you might like know: Michael Egan (Chancellor), Judyth Sachs (Provost), Tim Flannery, Philomena Leung (Head, Accounting Dept), Peter Anderson (Policing Research Centre). There are quite a few more… . They like to hire people’s characteristics that similar to them.
Macquarie University’s organisational culture is managed by Human Resources Director and psychologist, Tim Sprague. Some of collaboration administration units include IT dept and NTEU (eg. Marc Bailey (CIO)). Don’t be surprised that NTEU is not in your side. Look up local criminal network history.
In practice, Human Resources focus on ‘abuse’ staff with ‘doggy’ psychological tactics. They have expertise to create false documents and training up liars. The IT dept removes all electronic and communication evidences. They also like to hire ‘rat behaviour’ academics. They set-up fault cases against decent people. Therefore, university can remove all fault and criminal evidences that victims could be used in future. The goal is to damage victims’ reputations and their credibilities. They also don’t want the victims keep any evidences and records. This type of “organised crime” issue is very common and serious problems in Australian universities, not just at Macquarie University. You would not want to believe it that we would have such low standard.
Can we call this “science”? Do universities conduct ‘science research’ anymore? What do you think the university’s reputation and the quality of graduates.
There is an express immigration for skilled labour (However, you should call this ‘people smuggling business model’. Note that tertiary education is the 3rd largest (cash-cow) industry in Australian economy) Some of other incidents in New Zealand: see here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-11/an-nz-china-visa-scam/4124848.
If you look up history about local government politics, Labor and union movements, and ‘local crime network’, you may have better ideas.