Before I took my questions to ACU’s governing body in August 2022, I was still trying to understand how what had happened to me could possibly be reconciled with the standards ACU had set for its own staff and managers.
Those questions didn’t arise in a vacuum.
They came after years of trying to have serious concerns about my treatment, psychological health and safety heard and addressed. They came after I had repeatedly asked for protection, communication, accountability and a safe pathway towards recovery and return to my substantive role.
ACU’s own Capability Development Framework helps explain why I took those questions to the governing body.
The framework doesn’t merely describe technical skills or performance targets. It sets out expectations for how people at ACU should behave, how managers should exercise responsibility and how the University’s Mission, Vision and Values should be translated into everyday decisions.
Reading it is deeply confronting.
——
Living ACU’s Mission, Vision and Values
The first capability in the framework is:
 |
Figure 1. “Live ACU’s Mission, Vision and Values.” Extract from Australian Catholic University, The ACU Capability Development Framework: Expectations and Behaviours—Comparison of Achievement Levels 1 and 2 (copy held by the author and relied upon in August 2022). Reproduced for criticism and review. |
All staff were expected to link their work to ACU’s Mission, Vision and Values, take pride in being trustworthy, and deal with others openly, honestly and respectfully.
Management carried an even greater responsibility.
Managers were expected to:
- give proper expression to ACU’s Mission, Vision and Values;
- help staff understand how their work connected with those values;
- encourage and recognise conduct aligned with the Mission; and
- convey compassion and honesty in difficult situations.
These weren’t peripheral ideals. They appeared at the beginning of ACU’s framework for workplace capability.
Yet when I raised concerns about psychosocial hazards in July 2019, and continued trying to communicate the harm occurring by senior executive staff in HR, I didn’t experience compassion, openness or respectful engagement. I experienced conduct that left me increasingly frightened, isolated and unwell.
By August 2022, I wasn’t asking the governing body abstract questions about Catholic identity. I was asking how the treatment I had experienced could be reconciled with the University’s own stated expectations.
What does it mean to “live” a mission if compassion disappears when a staff member is injured?
What does trustworthiness mean if serious safety concerns are not answered transparently?
What does respect mean if the affected person’s voice is excluded from decisions about her own health, work and future?
——
Considering the human impact of change
 |
Figure 2. “Adapt to and Lead Change.” Extract from Australian Catholic University, The ACU Capability Development Framework: Expectations and Behaviours—Comparison of Achievement Levels 1 and 2 (copy held by the author and relied upon in August 2022). Reproduced for criticism and review. |
Under “Adapt to and Lead Change,” the framework required managers to:
“Proactively consider the impact of change on people and their personal circumstances.”
Managers were also expected to address those impacts through their actions and communications, communicate clearly, reduce ambiguity and provide direction during periods of change.
That expectation matters profoundly in my circumstances.
I’ve been a committed ACU employee since 2001. My substantive position was at HEW 8 Step 4. I had contributed to the University, its students, academics and colleagues for approximately two decades.
When my psychological health and safety became compromised, clear and humane communication was not optional.
It was essential.
Uncertainty wasn’t harmless. Silence wasn’t neutral. Decisions made without properly including me affected my health, financial security, professional standing and ability to recover.
A manager (or senior executive leader), who genuinely considers the impact of decisions on people, doesn’t separate organisational “processes” from their human consequences. And on that topic alone, where do the unethical and manipulative “processes” used by HR senior executives “on behalf of the university”, fit into the capabilities expected of staff, especially its leaders?
The person at the centre of a “process” is still a person.
Even more so when published processes, policies and legally binding agreements were not followed or implemented by senior leaders in HR “on behalf of the university” - which means the governing body were responsible for such unethical decisions.
——
Stakeholder-centred service
ACU’s framework also required staff to keep stakeholder interests at the centre of University decisions. It said requests for service should be answered in a timely and thorough way, stakeholder needs should be prioritised and satisfaction should be followed up.
Managers were expected to bring the appropriate people together to address challenges and demonstrate service excellence in their day-to-day work.
I wasn’t simply an employee raising an abstract disagreement. I was an injured worker asking for a coordinated response to documented psychosocial risks.
Where were the appropriate people brought together to protect my health and support my recovery?
Where was the timely and thorough response?
Where was the follow-up to determine whether the University’s actions were making me safer—or causing further harm?
Those questions became even more pressing as the years passed.
——
Listening before making decisions
 |
Figure 3. “Communicate with Impact.” Extract from Australian Catholic University, The ACU Capability Development Framework: Expectations and Behaviours—Comparison of Achievement Levels 1 and 2 (copy held by the author and relied upon in August 2022). Reproduced for criticism and review. |
The framework required effective collaboration and communication. Managers were expected to ask others for their views and opinions when making decisions and plans.
They were also expected to:
- seek to understand other people’s perspectives;
- listen sensitively to their concerns and interests;
- adapt their communication to the circumstances; and
- provide people with the information they needed.
For all staff, the framework specifically required respect for others and for how they were feeling.
These obligations cannot be fulfilled by making decisions about a person while denying that person a meaningful voice.
Listening isn’t the same as receiving a document and filing it away. It requires engaging with what the person is actually saying, responding to the substance of the concern and allowing that information to affect the decision being made.
By the time I approached the governing body, I had spent years trying to be heard.
I hadn’t stopped communicating because I lacked evidence or because my concerns had been resolved. I was trying to survive an unethical “process” that had itself become traumatising.
Furthermore, senior leaders withholding information I had a legal right to know, to disadvantage me, is abuse. Under WHS and workers compensation regulations, the university leaders had a statutory responsibility to ensure compliance, including the provision of information.
——
Responsibility, accountability and risk
 |
Figure 4. “Be Responsible and Accountable for Achieving Excellence.” Extract from Australian Catholic University, The ACU Capability Development Framework: Expectations and Behaviours—Comparison of Achievement Levels 1 and 2 (copy held by the author and relied upon in August 2022). Reproduced for criticism and review. |
Perhaps the most significant part of the framework is the capability titled:
“Be Responsible and Accountable for Achieving Excellence.”
All staff were expected to adhere to regulatory obligations, apply relevant policies and procedures, fulfil their commitments and accept responsibility for their work.
For management, the expectations were more explicit. Managers were required to understand the purpose of ACU’s governance policies and procedures, take ownership of issues and actively manage risk in ACU’s best interests.
They were expected to know when an issue needed to be escalated to senior decision-makers or subject-matter experts. They were also expected to take ownership of matters carrying potential legal or risk implications and work those issues through.
My circumstances plainly involved health and safety risks. They also raised questions about governance, legal responsibility, injury management, communication and the implementation of protections.
Why, then, was ownership so difficult to find?
Who accepted responsibility for ensuring that my reported psychosocial hazards were properly addressed?
Who examined whether the University’s subsequent conduct was worsening my psychological and physical health?
Who ensured that commitments made to protect and support me were carried through to completion?
Who escalated the matter when it became clear that it involved serious and continuing risk?
These were governance questions.
——
Evidence-based decisions and consequences
 |
Figure 5. “Make Informed Decisions.” Extract from Australian Catholic University, The ACU Capability Development Framework: Expectations and Behaviours—Comparison of Achievement Levels 1 and 2 (copy held by the author and relied upon in August 2022). Reproduced for criticism and review. |
The final capability in the framework concerned informed decision-making.
Managers were expected to make timely, evidence-based decisions, look beyond the obvious, identify broader contextual issues and consider the consequences of their actions.
That last expectation matters:
“Interpret data to make causal links and consider consequences of actions before making evidence-based decisions.”
By August 2022, there was no shortage of information showing the seriousness of my circumstances. There were contemporaneous communications, medical evidence, repeated requests for protection and records documenting the effects of what was occurring.
The question wasn’t whether information existed.
The question was whether those with authority were willing to confront it, connect it to the harm being caused and act accordingly.
Evidence-based decision-making cannot mean relying only on material that supports an institution’s preferred account. It must include the evidence of the person experiencing the harm. It must examine patterns, consequences and the cumulative effect of decisions over time.
Here’s just one concerning example: http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/06/the-decision-maker-now-vice-chancellor.html
——
Why I went to the governing body
I took my questions to ACU’s governing body because governance is where responsibility ultimately rests when ordinary channels fail.
I was asking whether the University was prepared to apply its standards when doing so was difficult.
Would it listen?
Would it examine the evidence?
Would it recognise the human consequences of its decisions?
Would it take ownership of a serious psychosocial safety risk?
Would it hold senior decision-makers to the same standards of honesty, compassion, accountability and respectful communication that ACU expected from every other member of staff?
I was asking ACU to live by the standards it had written for itself.
A capability framework has little meaning if it’s used only to measure those with less institutional power. Its real value is tested when a person is vulnerable, when the facts are uncomfortable and when accountability must reach those in positions of authority.
The standards were already there.
The questions I took to the governing body were about whether ACU was willing to uphold them.
Eg. http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/04/vice-chancellor-on-notice-delivered.html
——
Reference
Australian Catholic University. (2017). The ACU Capability Development Framework: Expectations and Behaviours—Comparison of Achievement Levels 1 and 2.
