tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928558687993333585.post4118210750060219112..comments2023-07-12T00:18:15.899+10:00Comments on State of The Union: Further information concerning the Motion being put to Board this FridayYour USU Board:http://www.blogger.com/profile/09586897782860566543noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928558687993333585.post-23989376731994096422013-10-03T11:07:15.520+10:002013-10-03T11:07:15.520+10:00(Continued, 3/3)
Moreover, despite asserting that...(Continued, 3/3)<br /><br />Moreover, despite asserting that "bringing this motion to the Board is a decision that has not been taken lightly", the Board can be seen to be rushing to a conclusion on what is a serious matter by providing only the minimum four days notice for the Special Meeting, and holding it on a date when Executive is quite aware that not all of the Board will be able to attend. This is a clear abrogation of democracy.<br /><br />The aforesaid article claims that the present anti-democratic scheme that has been concocted by certain Board directors has not been embarked upon lightly. Yet it is plain, from even the most uninformed vantage points, that something fishy is going on. The entire process is not a process at all—it is a crusade to remove a democratically elected director. One may even venture to say that certain members of the board are in patent breach of their Duty Statement ((c)(ii)) by allowing personal preferences or differences to impede their work as directors. One may venture further and suggest that personal ambition is at play. Speculation aside, it may be fairly concluded that due process, fairness, and democracy have been put to one side by many on the USU Board. For that, they should be ashamed.<br /><br /><br />Edward McMahon and Fahad Ali<br /><br />(Original text found here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/fahad-ali/further-actual-information-concerning-the-motion-being-put-to-board-this-friday/10151758571604442)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12840213499742546904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928558687993333585.post-52684888056871015742013-10-03T11:06:51.339+10:002013-10-03T11:06:51.339+10:00(continued, 2/3)
One will immediately note that a...(continued, 2/3)<br /><br />One will immediately note that a "serious breach" must be established. Several examples are given. Tom does not fall into any of those examples. The Motion accuses Tom of breaching a fiduciary duty, but this is certainly not "clearly ascertainable" nor does it appear that expert "evidence thereto" has been supplied to the Board. The best that certain members of the Board have been able to do, in an attempt to make out their case, is to quote certain general Common Law rules. Unfortunately for Tom's detractors, to quote a rule does not a man guilty make.<br /><br />So it is that Tom's would-be deposers move quickly to their second allegation—that Tom, contrary to his Duty Statement, made improper use of information. They admirably establish that the quote in question was confidential according to the terms of Board policy. They further establish that Tom has breached that policy. Yet they do not appear to grasp that Tom must be found guilty of a "serious breach" of the terms of the USU's governing documents. The policy in question does not form part of those governing documents. It is not in the Constitution, nor is it a Regulation, nor a Duty Statement. The only thing that the policy can tell us is that the information that Tom leaked was "confidential" according to Board policy.<br /><br />It is at this juncture that Tom's accuser's fail in their quest to depose Tom. They assume, without further inquiry, that Tom has improperly used information according to his duty statement. And even if he has improperly used information, it must be improper use of the order that it amounts to a "serious breach". Clearly, not every improper use of information amounts to a "serious breach" in the sense required. If, for example, a Board director learned that a food outlet was about to discontinue their favourite candy, and rushed to that outlet in order to purchase every last one, that director has improperly used information to gain personal advantage. Yet no one could seriously suggest that the hypothetical director could be Constitutionally deposed because, 12 months earlier, they had been censured for stealing a USU pen.<br /><br />Of course, Tom's use of information was of a different nature. Was it "improper" in the sense required? And if so, was it such as to amount to a "serious breach"? These are the questions that the Board should be asking.<br /><br />Tom's accusers have omitted the following duty from their deliberations:<br /><br />(ii) Duty of care and diligence<br /><br />Tom encountered information that revealed collaboration between university management and the NSW police force during recent industrial actions. Tom knew that further industrial action was (at the time) imminent. He further knew, from first hand experience, that police brutality at the picket lines was a real threat. Tom's duty of care and diligence demanded that USU members be informed of this collaboration, so that they could make an informed decision about their participation in this industrial action. This use of information was arguably consistent with Board policy, since the Board clearly cared about the welfare of member's at the picket line; for the previous industrial action, the Board decided to provide food and water to those members involved. Tom's use of information was in breach of confidence. However, he was clearly required to do what he did in the discharge of his Duty Statement. So, while it may be argued that Tom's use of information was "improper", it cannot seriously be argued that it amounted to a "serious breach" of his Duty Statement.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12840213499742546904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928558687993333585.post-37865169662341584232013-10-03T11:05:55.169+10:002013-10-03T11:05:55.169+10:00Further, actual information concerning the Motion ...Further, actual information concerning the Motion being put to Board this Friday<br /><br />"Your" USU Board yesterday posted an article titled "Further information concerning the Motion being put to Board this Friday". Rather than providing further information, though, the article provided an exceedingly weak and prejudiced case against Tom Raue. The article, posted on the official USU website, should plant serious doubts in any reasonable mind about the impartiality and fairness of the Board's forthcoming deliberations.<br /><br />The article uses the Royal "we", ostensibly on behalf of the entire Board, to draw conclusions such as "we consider Tom to have breached his fiduciary duty to the USU as well as made an improper use of information, both of which are serious breaches of the duties he is bound by as a Director of the USU." This language is explicable only by reference to the terms of the USU's governing documents, into which certain members of the Board are attempting to fit their arguments in an anti-democratic attempt to remove Tom.<br /><br />It is an uncontroversial proposition that a person ought not be removed from a democratically elected office unless exceptional circumstances exist, which are here defined by the aforesaid documents. The USU's Regulations state:<br /><br />3.1.3 Failure to adhere to the Constitution, Regulations and/or Duty Statements may be acknowledged by a motion, carried, censuring the Director in question. Further failure by a Board Director to adhere to the Duty Statements may be brought before the Board provided the breach contemplated is clearly ascertainable and evidence thereto is supplied before the Board.<br /><br />3.1.4 Upon satisfaction of clause 3.1.3, the Board may then decide:<br /><br />(a) by Special Resolution only, that the Director in question is guilty of misconduct and shall cease to hold office. This shall apply in the case of a serious breach to the Constitution, Regulations and/or Duty Statements, such as a breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of corporate opportunity, disclosure of in camera proceedings, or systemic failure to attend meetings.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12840213499742546904noreply@blogger.com