Since the success of the previous open letter in consolidating action, I have resisted persistent calls facilitate another. However, the  revelations of the past 24 hours , coupled with the increase in calls for these actions from a significant number of current and former staff , students, alumni and members of the borader community have made it impossible to not set this up for formal consideration by the UOW community.  I present a summary of this issues for  those time poor in the UOW Community who are still reading what has been presented in the public domain. It is presented to assist evaluation based on evidence available. 

The resolution is provided at the top and bottom of this for your consideration.

Resolution 

We, the undersigned; 

1.  Declare that the current University of Wollongong Council has lost the confidence of the University community and must resign. Should its members decline to resign, we call upon the NSW Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education, TEQSA and any other relevant authority to take all steps available within their respective powers to remove or replace them through appropriate statutory and regulatory processes.
2. Call for the immediate suspension of all activity relating to the selection or appointment of a new Chancellor. No such appointment should proceed until the integrity, independence, competence and fitness of the current Council members to participate in that process have been independently examined and publicly confirmed. Any future appointment process must be lawful, transparent, independently overseen and demonstrably undertaken in the best interests of the University of Wollongong and the communities it serves.
3. Call upon the NSW Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education and TEQSA to intervene urgently to facilitate the appointment of a renewed University Council whose members possess the independence, competence, integrity and relevant experience required to restore proper governance, institutional accountability and public confidence. This process must be undertaken with the critical staff unions CPSU and NTEU, who have consistently sought to hold the University and its governing bodies to their legislative, industrial and ethical obligations, as well as appropriate representation from staff, students, alumni and the broader University and Illawarra communities.

Summary 

Revelations throughout the NSW Independent Commission of Corruption (ICAC) public inquiry into the University of Wollongong (UOW), Operation Scandi, have led to deep questions being asked of the effectiveness of the current UOW Council.

The whole of the UOW community has only just begun to digest the thousands of pages of evidence, testimonies and have commenced evaluating this within the context of personal experience, institutional memory and current operations. Some of us have had front row seats to this for far too long.

The UOW Act requires that Council members have a “duty to exercise care and diligence” (s.2a.2). They “must act honestly and exercise a reasonable degree of care and diligence in carrying out his or her duty.” As part of the public airing of UOW Council operations in this past three weeks it is clear that questions need to be asked about the effectiveness of UOW’s Council since late 2023.

Let’s be clear the Tomlinson review in late 2023 assessed that “UOW is well above the Threshold Standards (the law for universities) for corporate governance” (E25/0175/EXH-0072 p103), prior to the appointment of the former Chancellor in December of that same year. Since then Mr Still chaired (pg26) the Council Nominations Committee, the committee terms of reference also include a Deputy Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor and President and two external council members approved by council. If you consider this, only in principle first, within the context of the emerging evidence, without even starting to look at the public record for the appointments made under Mr Still’s term, the integrity of all appointments to UOW Council must be questioned.

In the specific period in question these past three weeks (specifically from December 2023 to mid-2025), what is available on the public record will horrify those interested as they look into the prior overlap and/or connections of those appointed. When you also consider the emerging evidence on inappropriate influence on senior executive appointments and overlay this with the attitudes and actions of those appointed, in their own words, as evidenced through screenshots shown through the ICAC inquiry, towards protected groups taking protected actions, even more questions emerge.

Based on the hours and hours of testimony and our ability to interrogate Council records now in the public domain, including its minutes, seem to be deficient in recording its discussions and decisions. What is also brazen is that the machinations of Council, as described in public testimony, is in contrast to any of the versions of the Council handbook you might pull out to evaluate. To be clear, there is no provision for side groups to be running the Council on their own. There is no provision for non-minuted discussions or lobbying to occur as a practice of integrity. The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 outlines a critical core component that the Council needs to maintain “a true record of the business of the governing body.” The responsibility for this is not a team of so-called “sector leading” professional governance personnel, it is the responsibility of the whole of council. In all the thousands of Committees I have managed, supported, been a member of or even chaired, the responsibility has been the same. The Committee is responsible for maintaining an accurate record, its why we have a whole part just on the boring machinations of accepting minutes. Just because you might ego-centrically consider a Committee with higher perception of prestige, more important – this obligation doesn’t change.

The current public record of the current Council’s subcommittees terms of reference shows, and still enables, that a small number of Council members can be quorum in powerful subsets. Furthermore, where is the evidence that reform is already been underway? The same people are supporting these Committees. Sure, small amendments have been made to delegations, in March 2026, to rectify their manipulation only after being aired in an open Parliamentary Inquiry in December 2025.

In this period of uncertainty – integrity, transparency and a focus on the purpose and object of the University should be central to every decision being made.

If the current UOW Council is operating in a season of renewal towards this process then how can the current UOW council make these significant errors: Greg West being appointed as Acting Chancellor and UOW thanking the ex-Chancellor who bought the institution’s reputation into such disrepute?

The appointment of Acting Chancellor Mr Greg West

What many of the UOW community are having trouble with is how a key figure in UOW Council subcommittees over the past six years is now Acting Chancellor. Why not one of the Deputy Chancellors or someone with significant actual NSW or federal public service? How was that decision taken?

There are few elements to these questions that should be considered when evaluating the answers being given in this matter. The UOW Act, its legislation, states for the role of a Deputy Chancellor, and Syed Ahmed and Merran Dawson are current Deputy Chancellors that:
 “(4) In the absence of the Chancellor or during a vacancy in the office of Chancellor or during the inability of the Chancellor to act, the Deputy Chancellor or (if more than one) a Deputy Chancellor appointed from time to time by the Council has all the functions of the Chancellor.” (Div 2.11.4)

So how and why was an appointment made that seems at odds with the very steps outlined in its founding legislation is to occur in the very circumstance UOW finds itself in – a vacancy in the position of its Chancellor.  

Lets assume the process has been undertaken with integrity, appropriate due diligence and there is legitimately reasons why Mr Ahmed or Ms Dawson chose, though seemingly required under legislation for these Deputy Positions, UOW Council did not consider other potential options. In mid to late 2025 and during 2026, UOW Council appointed Council members with extensive academic, community, university and public-service experience, publicly emphasising how these appointments would strengthen UOW governance. Despite concerns with the integrity of the nomination committee, it is particularly encouraging that Council now includes an Emeritus Professor of UOW and former TEQSA Commissioner, as well as a former experienced Speaker of the House of Representatives who is a UOW graduate and former staff member. Given the depth of experience now available on Council, and consistent with UOW’s history and contemporary university practice, appointing a person with substantial higher-education, regulatory or public-service experience, and no involvement in the decisions now under examination, would appear the more prudent course.

To reassure the UOW community of Council’s commitment to the purpose and objects of the University, Council should explain why Mr West’s continuity and longstanding involvement were preferred over the independence and directly relevant experience of these newer appointees.

The public record confirms that Mr West held senior governance responsibilities at UOW during the relevant periods bought into question. He chaired UOW’s Risk, Audit and Compliance Committee, participated in significant Council committees and smaller decision-making groups, and was involved in the governance structures, with small quorums, now being examined through publicly available ICAC evidence, exhibits and Council records.

Those records raise direct questions. What risks did Mr West identify? What decisions did he support? What concerns did he raise? Did he seek independent assurance or record any dissent? If he did not identify the governance problems now being examined, how did Council assess his effectiveness? If he identified them but did not act, how did Council assess his judgement? If he accepted or supported the arrangements, how can he independently oversee their review?

Mr West’s position with UOW Global Enterprises gives rise to further concerns. He is a paid UOWGE director and Deputy Chair and has served on its board since 2003 NSW parliamentary inquiry (page 35-36). He has been on the UOWGE board through its expansion. This expansion by UOWGE has been called into question formally by the NSW parliamentary inquiry’s recommendation for further examination of UOW’s commercial activities. UOWGE is a specific inclusion in this recommendation. The publicly available records concerning UOWGE and the proposed Saudi Arabia operations also appear to raise questions about the consistency of the Council and parliamentary records. Mr West held positions within both UOW and UOWGE governance structures. His participation, declarations of interest and any recusals should be disclosed.

Market Index lists that Mr West “is also an Executive Chair of Education Australia Limited, having been appointed in 2006. Since 2019 he has acted as Chair of Education Centre of Australia Limited and was appointed as a Director of St James Foundation Limited in 2015” [accessed 03/07/2026]. If joint appointments for other senior executives and university Council members have been called into question, then there is a heighted obligation to ensure that any perception of a conflict for an Interim Chancellor is carefully managed. With previous governance practices, as described by ex-Chancellor Still and Pro-Chancellor Shanks at the NSW Inquiry (pages 45, 58), to draw a subset of Council members together to make critical leadership decisions, or for these to be conducted “by circulation” (As example ICAC Operation Scandi Exhibit 0055, pg16) at UOW, it is even more critical to articulate and provide reassurance to the whole UOW community, and those tax payers funding it, on the actions taken to adjust practices standards of governance that pass the “pub test.” 

Concerningly, Mr West was invited but did not participate in the NSW Legislative Council inquiry into the university sector. That Inquiry provided a direct opportunity to explain his governance responsibilities, his UOWGE role, the operation of the Risk, Audit and Compliance Committee and the decisions now attracting scrutiny. It is noted by the Inquiry that on 8 December 2025 the formal record evidences that he refused the invitation (NSW University Sector Interim Report, page 88). How can the UOW community be reassured in this context then that he would be able to proactively lead Council through an integrity crisis.

Genuine leadership renewal requires independent oversight. The committed UOW Community cannot allow the same governance system now under examination to assess and repair itself.

Given the serious governance matters that have emerged from the ICAC public inquiry, it would be prudent for UOW Council to clarify:

1. What process and selection criteria did Council use to appoint and continue Mr Greg West as Acting Chancellor?
2. Was independence from the committees, decisions and governance arrangements now under examination treated as an essential criterion?
3. What consideration was given to Mr West’s previous roles, including Chair of Risk, Audit and Compliance, participation in key decision-making groups, paid UOWGE directorship and refusal to participate in the NSW parliamentary inquiry?
4. Were recently appointed Council members with substantial higher-education, regulatory, parliamentary or senior public-service experience considered, and why was Mr West preferred?
5. Did Mr West withdraw from all discussions and decisions concerning his appointment, and what was the numerical voting outcome, including recusals and abstentions?
6. Who prepared the papers, governance advice and resolutions supporting the appointment, and was that advice independently reviewed?
7. Given that the public record now leads to real questions of competency and/or actual instances of being influenced or potential to be influenced  for those supporting council, what arrangements are in place ensure that Council is receiving independent advice on these matters?
8. Are the tainted governance personnel continuing to advise Council on the ICAC response, Mr West’s appointment, disclosure of records and the appointment of the next Chancellor? If so, how are any actual, potential or perceived conflicts being managed?
9. Given emerging questions about governance processes, will UOW publish the numerical results and independent verification of recent elected Council member ballots, including the election involving Ms Samantha Peace, Dist Prof Gordon Wallace and Prof Alfredo Payolo?
10. Will Council publish the relevant appointment process, voting outcome, declarations of interest, recusals and conflict-management arrangements so the UOW community can assess whether the decision was made independently and in the University’s best interests?
11. Can a body such as NSW Electoral Commission or the NSW Auditor General be engaged to verify these election processes have had integrity?

These questions do not presume wrongdoing by any individual.

Putting aside the integrity and actions of the current UOW Councils appointments, the second issue is a red flag that shouldn’t be ignored.

Public comments on Mr Still’s resignation

How did the current UOW Council allow communications to be issued, and remain uncorrected, to thank the previous Chancellor for his contributions when there was sufficient information already in the public domain that serious questions of his conduct were being asked?

The specific problematic statement issued on 3 July this year states “The Council thanked Mr Still for his contribution to the University, including the significant role he played in its transformation strategy, most notably the appointment of Professor Max Lu AO as Vice-Chancellor and President.”

It is the very transformation strategy, particular aspects of the process of Professor Lu’s appointment and actions undertaken in his onboarding process that is before the ICAC inquiry. This statement made by the UOW governing body seems to be completely disconnected with the reality of this. 

Not only that those approving the communication would have known by this point what had been handed over to ICAC in their investigation, and so knew the depth of the conduct being examined was going to be significant. Even in allegation, from the opening statement to the public inquiry, the conduct would have been sufficient to bring UOWs reputation into disrepute. So why is there a thanks for actions and efforts towards the core of a corruption inquiry? The harm the actions being examined in themselves have caused is most likely in contravention to multiple other acts of parliament but it also brings into question current and ongoing obligations to the psychosocial safety of staff and students. This statement and process for approval fundamentally calls into question the inability of Council to fulfil their obligations under the WHS Act for managing organisational justice issues. It is not a suggestion either, it is law.

When examining just these two specific questions alongside the Functions of Council under the UOW Act, the effectiveness of the current UOW Council to fulfil its legislated functions is completely at question. Conclusions might be that they are either inappropriately influenced by their previous associations or they are ineffectual in their roles and membership. Either is unacceptable.

If you are fortunate enough to have studied at UOW and have a BA in history or have studied at the masters level in educational leadership, you might have the skill to trace the incestuous relationships between those sitting on Council and those who have had to start giving public accounts for their actions. You’d also be able to look at the submissions made on Council membership to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry and refute this with the Council official records that have been loaded up on the internet this past few weeks. So, the question begs – what now?  Many of us have been taught to look at the evidence, consider the facts, respect the views/feedback/perspectives of others, even when presented in inconvenient forms such as consultation or complaints. We might not agree with a view, but we have an obligation to consider it on its merits and evaluate how it might help build for the future.

What UOW needs is intervention either by the NSW Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education or TEQSA to reset UOW Council through processes of integrity and transparency in the best interests of the institution and having particular regard to the needs of the Illawarra region. 

The NSW University Sector Interim Report released in April 2026 considered “immediate and targeted action is warranted to improve governance, transparency and decision making at…UOW” (page ix) along with a recommendation “that the Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education exercise the power under section 21D” of the UOW legislative instrument a report on UOW commercial activities. This recommendation specifically seeks this to include UOW Global Enterprises (page 72). Whilst there hasn’t been an update since it was reported that the Minister is considering the recommendation and request, staff at UOW have been told that strong UOW advocation is occurring to the Minister. The silenced question is – to what end? Shouldn’t a public institution committed to accountability, integrity and transparency welcome a report being requested? Shouldn’t the new stewards of UOW in leadership positions proactively seek to demonstrate the UOW values in action here? Perhaps one should be provided anyway. With questions now emerging in public testimony over the past few days about potential influence of local members of parliament in connection with the ousting of a previous Vice Chancellor, it is critical the NSW Government assures and reassures the taxpayers, voters and UOW Community that they support the restoration of integrity in UOW’s governing body with haste.

What has emerged seems to many in the UOW community, and as a graduate under part 2.4d of the UOW Act, I personally remain a part of the University, to be the need for the current UOW Council to resign or be removed, and a more appropriate UOW Council be installed. All along the CPSU and NTEU have been the only groups attempting to hold those bad actors to their legislated obligations. 

Throughout this period, the CPSU and NTEU have been the principal organised bodies seeking to hold those responsible for the University’s governance and management to their legislative, industrial and ethical obligations. Their representatives, together with staff, students, alumni and the broader University community, must have a meaningful role in rebuilding the University’s governing body.

Resolution

We, the undersigned; 

1.  Declare that the current University of Wollongong Council has lost the confidence of the University community and must resign. Should its members decline to resign, we call upon the NSW Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education, TEQSA and any other relevant authority to take all steps available within their respective powers to remove or replace them through appropriate statutory and regulatory processes.
2. Call for the immediate suspension of all activity relating to the selection or appointment of a new Chancellor. No such appointment should proceed until the integrity, independence, competence and fitness of the current Council members to participate in that process have been independently examined and publicly confirmed. Any future appointment process must be lawful, transparent, independently overseen and demonstrably undertaken in the best interests of the University of Wollongong and the communities it serves.
3. Call upon the NSW Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education and TEQSA to intervene urgently to facilitate the appointment of a renewed University Council whose members possess the independence, competence, integrity and relevant experience required to restore proper governance, institutional accountability and public confidence. This process must be undertaken with the critical staff unions CPSU and NTEU, who have consistently sought to hold the University and its governing bodies to their legislative, industrial and ethical obligations, as well as appropriate representation from staff, students, alumni and the broader University and Illawarra communities.