A Question of Mission, Governance, and Catholic Social Teaching

Public University. Public Accountability.

Preface — Why This Is Public

This post is written reluctantly, but deliberately.

For years, I relied on internal processes, grievance mechanisms, and external regulatory pathways to prevent adverse action, harassment, and serious harm following a workplace injury and safety concerns. Those processes did not stop the harm. They did not protect my dignity, my livelihood, or my family.

When every available avenue is exhausted — and when the effects include sustained financial deprivation, reputational harm, and family distress — public accountability becomes an act of self-preservation.

This post is not a legal pleading.

It does not allege criminal conduct.

It does not attribute improper intent.

It asks a public governance and mission-alignment question of a publicly funded university that grounds its identity in Catholic mission and social teaching.

⸻

A Necessary Clarification (Employment Status)

For clarity, and to prevent further mischaracterisation:

I did not resign.

I have consistently sought continuation of my employment and a safe, lawful return to work.

My employment status remains disputed due to unresolved WHS and workers compensation obligations, and ongoing concerns about adverse action and coercive conduct.

Any suggestion that I am a “former staff member” is inaccurate and contributes to the very harm this post seeks to stop.

⸻

The Question

How are decisions taken under the authority of the Vice-Chancellor aligned with the Mission and Identity of the University?

This is an ethical and governance question — not a determination of legality.

⸻

Mission, Identity, and Catholic Social Teaching

The University publicly grounds its identity in Catholic tradition, drawing on principles that include:

• Human dignity — the inherent worth of every person

• Care for the vulnerable — a preferential concern for those who are injured, distressed, or disadvantaged

• Justice and fairness — right relationship, procedural fairness, and moral responsibility

• Truth, integrity, and accountability — honesty and transparency in the exercise of authority

• Pastoral care — accompaniment, not abandonment, in times of harm

• Subsidiarity and stewardship — power exercised to serve, not dominate

• Faith expressed through action — values embodied in conduct, not confined to statements

In Catholic Social Teaching, these are not aspirational ideals.

They are standards against which institutional conduct is measured.

⸻

1. Human Dignity

Mission standard:

Human dignity requires that a person is never treated as disposable, reduced to a problem, or managed out of existence — particularly after long service.

Features of my experience include:

• prolonged exclusion from work

• exhaustion of accrued leave entitlements (approximately 305 days)

• retrospective reclassification of leave status

• requests for repayment of wages while income-replacement processes remained unresolved

• employment termination action taken while workers compensation and WHS matters were still active

Mission-based assessment:

These outcomes sit in tension with a dignity-centred approach.

A response grounded in human dignity would prioritise protection, continuity, proportionality, and restoration — rather than isolation, financial destabilisation, and procedural opacity.

⸻

2. Care for the Vulnerable

Mission standard:

Catholic social teaching imposes heightened responsibility where a person is injured, grieving, or psychologically vulnerable.

Relevant context:

• prior trauma and bereavement were known

• the injury arose in the course of employment

• the employer and insurer controlled income, process, and access to work

• WHS, insurer, and regulatory processes remained unresolved

Mission-based assessment:

Allowing adverse employment outcomes and financial recovery actions to proceed during active injury and vulnerability is difficult to reconcile with a care-for-the-vulnerable ethic.

Even where conduct may be argued to be technically lawful (a separate question), mission alignment requires more than minimum compliance.

⸻

3. Justice and Fairness

Mission standard:

Justice requires fair process, proportionality, and protection for those who act ethically and raise concerns in good faith.

From my chronology:

• I relied on the University’s own Code of Conduct, Mission, and policies

• I raised concerns relating to safety, bullying, and integrity

• those actions coincided with adverse employment outcomes

• grievance processes concluded without my participation

• employment termination action occurred prior to resolution of compensation and safety matters

Mission-based assessment:

Where ethical engagement with institutional values coincides with exclusion and loss of livelihood, justice is strained.

A mission-aligned institution safeguards ethical participation — even when doing so is complex or inconvenient.

⸻

4. Truth, Integrity, and Accountability

Mission standard:

Integrity requires clarity, consistency, and transparency — especially where decisions affect livelihood and dignity.

Issues raised include:

• inconsistent characterisations of capacity, employment status, and pay

• reliance on medical process where grievance resolution was sought

• financial recovery requests while statutory income processes were unresolved

Mission-based assessment:

These features suggest a prioritisation of procedural resolution over substantive engagement with contested issues.

Such an approach is difficult to reconcile with an integrity-based institutional identity.

⸻

5. Pastoral Responsibility

Mission standard:

Pastoral care requires accompaniment — walking with a person through harm — not merely managing risk.

Observed outcomes:

• isolation rather than accompaniment

• escalation rather than de-escalation

• financial pressure rather than protective buffering

• family distress rather than containment

Mission-based assessment:

This reflects a managerial posture rather than a pastoral one.

Catholic institutions are called to do more than what is legally sufficient; they are called to act pastorally where harm is foreseeable.

⸻

6. Stewardship of Power

Mission standard:

Authority must be exercised to serve the common good, particularly where power imbalance exists.

Context:

• Vice-Chancellor authority is ultimate and non-delegable

• key employment decisions occurred while I lacked income, leverage, or effective protection

Mission-based assessment:

Exercising institutional authority to conclude employment arrangements while material risks and injuries remained unresolved raises serious questions about stewardship, proportionality, and restraint.

Power exercised without effective safeguards for the vulnerable departs from Catholic stewardship principles.

⸻

Overall Conclusion — Mission Alignment

Measured against the Mission, Identity, and Catholic Social Teaching the University publicly claims:

The decisions and outcomes described are not aligned with those standards.

This conclusion:

• does not assert illegality

• does not attribute motive or intent

• does not seek punishment

It seeks ethical accountability.

Public universities that ground their identity in faith-based mission invite public scrutiny when conduct appears inconsistent with the values they profess.

Silence in such circumstances does not preserve mission. It erodes it.

⸻

Final grounding note

The impacts described above reflect my lived experience of events as they affected me and my family. It is also based on contemporaneous evidence. I never expected the university we trusted, that my family are positively affiliated with since 1998, to do this to us. Reasonable people may disagree with my assessment. I offer it in good faith, measured against publicly stated standards.