<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Dear UCC committee and Andrew Adamson,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Yesterday, Andrew/BOB informed me via Facebook that he wishes to send me a letter to Cease and Desist and asked for my address.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">When I asked him what he wished me to cease and desist, he did not reply and merely said "it will be in the letter". </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Obviously, I cannot stop doing something if I don't know what it is, but as a person already suffering from Anxiety and Depression such an act terrifies me and is further damaging my already somewhat fragile health.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This makes me afraid to speak openly and I'm really being as careful as I can about what words I use.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Andrew/BOB, please not I am writing the following email in defence of Felix, rather than to attack you.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Please consider the following facts:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">* When I was still secretary a number of people came to me with complaints, either about UCC in general or about BOB specifically, and were unwilling to speak up.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">* Apart from the letter to cease and desist, I have also faced:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- Suggestions on UCC Discord from people (I don't know their real names from the handles) that if I want to avoid civil litigation any competent lawyer would tell me to stop commenting about this dispute.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- An anonymous motion to exclude me from UCC and ban me from the club room, to which which BOB commented on Facebook that after March 29 'the shoe is on the other foot'</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- My server previously hosted at UCC being vandalised and damaged by persons unknown</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- <b class="">At least one person, whose name I believe I can get permission to share if I ask, feels she was physically threatened by BOB in a manner bordering on assault.</b></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Where a person who has made a complaint is threatening potential "defence witnesses" in relation to that complain in a way that insinuates the possibility of civil litigation, I do not believe that a committee can impartially evaluate that complaint.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'm going to try to respond to a number of issues where I'm fairly confident I'm legally entitled to say something.</div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">However, Felix has persisted with his bullying since March 18, and I feel I<br class="">have no choice but to make this public. I have condensed this as much as<br class="">practicable for the sake of expediency, however if anyone wants more details<br class="">of incidents, I am happy to answer them.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Even if Felix's reasons for wishing to remove you were in error or unjustified, from what I have known of him I believe his motivations were genuine and that he was acting in what he believes to be the best interests of UCC.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I have seen Felix expend an incredible amount of time and energy in service to UCC and see no ulterior motives that I am aware of. As I see him as a friend, I may of course be biased, but it's hard to make that conclusion from the time when I was more involved in UCC.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Background: Incident with Melissa on the day of the AGM. On that day<br class="">I tried to help Melissa with handover by giving her a list of things that<br class="">needed to be done at handover, some of which required assistance from wheel,<br class="">however she took it to mean that I disapproved of her becoming secretary.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I do not believe that this is an accurate description of events.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>During the conversation, in which I asked for access to "wheel" (meaning the UNIX user group, on the machine containing club records, not the UCC technical committee of the same name) so I could do my job, BOB told me that "he does not trust me" and I "would never have access to wheel" so I would have to "get someone else".</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I cannot see how BOB is claiming that he approved of my becoming secretary if he did not trust me. Does that mean he approved of having a club secretary that he does not trust?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Please keep in mind that according to the Associations Act, a club secretary must have CUSTODY, not just access, to all club records, excluding financial records which should be in the custody of the treasurer. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>The effect of of my brief interaction was BOB was that I was distressed, almost in tears, and had gone from being excited and happy about being able to contribute to a club I passionately believed in, to wanting to resign and walk away, in less than an hour.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">The interaction also put me in the unfortunate position of saying "no" to<br class="">Melissa - both to being immediately put on wheel, and to fully unfirewalling<br class="">her co-located machine. The details of this interaction are long and<br class="">contended by Melissa, however the crux of it is that I was subsequently<br class="">labelled by Melissa as transphobic, and she went to Felix and offered to<br class="">resign later that day.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I will start by confirming that BOB did not misgender me, or otherwise do any stereotypical actions.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>However, he has mistrusted me and appeared to be hostile to me to an extent that I have only experienced in my life prior to that moment in conjunction with explicit transphobia, and I'm 43 years old.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I don't believe that BOB thinks his actions are transphobic, but he has confirmed that his opinion of me, and his distrust of me, were subjective rather than result of any objective experiences, grievances or complaints that he could put his finger on.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>There is such a thing as unconscious bias, and I doubt BOB would have felt the same way about me if I were "one of the guys" or even a non-transgender woman who had perhaps been socialised to interact with men with BOB in a different way? I do not know, but what I experienced certainly felt like transphobia, whether it was BOB's intention or not, and it was enough to induce me to walk away from the club.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Moreover, he did not appear willing to workshop some alternative solution that would address both our concerns, but wished to leave me in a situation in where I, after living most of my adult life as a geek and computer consultant, had to at the very minimum choose between not fulfilling my responsibilities as club secretary, resigning, or asking someone to regularly hold my hand like a computer newbie, generally in a room full of other people, and be humiliated.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>There were plenty of ways we could have gotten around this without giving me the opportunity to read other people's email, or access to sensitive data that was irrelevant to the office.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I should point out that transphobia is more than about calling a transwoman "sir" or asking her to leave the women's toilet. If a transwoman cannot get a job, or an apartment, or retain membership of a club, and there is no apparent reason other than that she is transgender, it is legitimate for her to infer transphobia.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>To make a relevant example, I recall a current affairs program that showed an educated, well off and professional Indigenous Australian man going to a real estate agent with a hidden camera and being told they have "no apartments available for rent", politely, with no racial slurs nor any suggestion that this was because of his ethnicity or race. A few minutes later, a white woman walked into the same real estate agency and asked to rent an apartment, and although she had less money and a less secure job, they had a range of apartments to show her.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>It's one question about whether or not BOB believes his actions to have been transphobic, but it is quite another in terms of how I experienced them, particularly after a past incidents of being shunned and distrusted, particularly by conservative people, once they learned of my gender past.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>On this topic I wish to ask one last question although (with the sword of Damacles hanging over my head) I will say it relates to whoever sponsored the two motions on the last OGM:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Why when Felix is the alleged 'ring-leader' of this alleged action would he be allowed to remain a member of UCC, while I, an alleged side-kick, would not only have my membership removed but also be banned from entering the club room as though I am some type of dangerous criminal or sex offender?</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Felix manipulated Melissa into not resigning by threatening to<br class="">resign himself if Melissa did<br class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Rather than speaking to me, or making any attempt to defuse the<br class="">issue, Felix spoke with Melissa and let her know about a number of rumours<br class="">that he had heard, including that I had committed insurance fraud, bank<br class="">fraud, had copied clubroom keys without permission, and had unethically<br class="">locked the account of Tom Almeida for reinstalling a windows machine. </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Some of these rumours were also corroborated to me to third parties, in some cases several third parties.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>And at least some of the "rumours" such as alcohol use in the club room, that BOB has acknowledged he was punished for, were true.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>In regards to diffusing the issue, I would like to make clear that I took steps to difuse the issue, including:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* Voluntarily removing my server from the club room (although by that point it was already vandalised).</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* Resigning my position as secretary</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* Voting AGAINST BOB's expulsion from UCC and making clear that what I wanted was a better future for the club, not punishments and recriminations.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>BOB's response to that included:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* Efforts on Thursday to make sure that the resolution to ban me from the UCC clubroom was voted on, or alternatively, that there would be no election of an OCM.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* A comment, which I have a screenshot of that I can send, about how "now the shoe's on the other foot" referring to that very committee meeting</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* A request for my address (which I assume meant my home address) to send me a letter to cease and desist.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* Refusal to tell me what to cease and desist, or to tell me what I've done beyond the references to March 29th.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">These<br class="">conversations were quoted at the March 29 meeting by Melissa, and<br class="">subsequently confirmed by Felix at the same meeting. This hearsay and<br class="">allegations are all false and I reject them completely, however they shaped<br class="">all subsequent interactions between Melissa and myself. </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Immediately following the meeting on March 29th, I approached BOB and offered to sit down and eat with him, either immediately or at his future convenience, so we could talk through any remaining issues and fully reconcile.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>BOB's response was:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>1. To refuse to reconcile and indicate that he did not want to know me.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>2. Two months later, to champion the agenda item to ban me from the club, from even being able to enter the clubroom and use its facilities. I will not further elaborate since everyone was there and can draw their own conclusions.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>3. To make a comment, when I asked him what was happening that 'now the shoe is on the foot'.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>4. To refuse to answer when, in the midst of a panic attack, I asked him what I had done wrong, which worsened over the next few days leading to significant worsening of my anxiety and depression over the last few days.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>5. To intimidate me by asking for my address to send me a letter to cease and desist, while at the same time refusing to state further detail.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>6. To again refuse to answer questions about what BOB wants me to cease and desist.</div><div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">To quote Melissa at<br class="">the March 29th meeting: "What I'm going to say is this. I went to [FVP], I<br class="">told [FVP] that I wanted to resign. I did not say anything that anyone<br class="">should be removed from anything. </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>There are a number of people within the university administration that can substantiate my goals, which were:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* To get diversity training for the club's committee members. This related to many reasons, including support within the club for Fraser Anning, and people from UniSFA who told me they HAD been misgendered at UCC.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* To reform the structure of the club's servers so there could be more than one wheel, a "traditional wheel" that was appointed as it is now, and a "new wheel" that has different and more liberal entry criteria.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">[FVP] then responded that this was his<br class="">nightmare, that he really did not want me to resign, that he might consider<br class="">resigning too if I resign, and then told me a bunch of stuff about these<br class="">various allegations, and about, that he thinks you (bob) should be removed,<br class="">and at first, I disagreed with him, but then after what he told me, I began<br class="">to concur". </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I'm generally a very forgiving person and do not believe in punishment, vengeance or recriminations.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I'm also a geek. I believe that most of the world's problems can be fixed by writing better code, or by getting more shiny cool servers. My solutions to UCC problems were coloured by this. I'm saddened that UCC cannot find a way to tech its way out of this situation (e.g. by creating multiple "worlds" within UCC where different factions can each have what they want) rather than fight its way out.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Ultimately, it's not my problem any more, but the whole thing breaks my hours.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">There are various other quotes in the March 29 minutes which<br class="">detail the assorted allegations and I encourage all members who wish to be<br class="">informed on the issue to read those minutes in full.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I will also point out that the minutes have gaps in them and as far as I can tell the gaps do not appear to be random.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>There is a lot of issues at hand here, which go beyond a single committee meeting.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>There is also the very real fact that, in just three months, Semester 2 will be over, and next year there will in any case be an AGM and a new election for the entire committee.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rather than running this horrible trial, why not just wait until next year to vote in a new committee who can decide where the club will go from there?</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Felix called an unofficial exec-only meeting to discuss how to<br class="">remove me from wheel. The following excerpt is from his email to exec at<br class="">approx. 2pm:<br class=""><br class="">"Apologies for the short notice. I believe I have contacted everyone<br class="">individually about these issues, and I would like to schedule a meeting<br class="">for the current exec to come to an agreement about what plan of action<br class="">we should take, and how we should best broach these issues with the rest<br class="">of committee.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Note that this is potentially sensitive information so it would be much<br class="">appreciated if this could be kept in confidence. I have invited the IPP<br class="">(Andrew Gozzard) and IPPP (Chris Forbes) to this meeting so that we can<br class="">get some context on Bob's behaviour and input on how to deal with him<br class="">and the rest of the wheel group.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">It would be very much appreciated if everyone could fill in this form<br class="">[REDACTED] with your availabilities for the next<br class="">week. I will get back to you with the final meeting time and date.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I would like everyone to view this situation in relation to the facts above.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The agenda in the "REDACTED" link contained the following text,<br class="">where Melissa called for cancelling my membership. She subsequently claimed<br class="">at the March 29 meeting that she had made no such calls:<br class=""><br class="">"- Bob is a problem<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""> - Repeated abuse of Wheel powers / breach of ethics<br class=""><br class=""> - Email to Tom Almeida "Windows Reinstall", 21/05/2018, threatening<br class="">account locking<br class=""><br class=""> - (MSX) Report re my experience of Bob's behaviour, including<br class="">interference with my projects and his attempt to prevent me from taking my<br class="">role on committee.<br class=""><br class=""> - Suggested solution: removal from wheel and cancelling membership<br class=""><br class="">- Wheel culture is toxic<br class=""><br class=""> - Schedule wheel meetings more often<br class=""><br class=""> - Make wheel reapplications a thing<br class=""><br class=""> - Afford more control to the democratically elected executive/committee<br class="">over the administration of the computer systems<br class=""><br class="">- (MSX) Legally committee must maintain root control of UCC systems, and of<br class="">the clubroom, potential severe consequences to us if we don't.<br class=""><br class="">- (MSX) Perception on campus of UCC as an unfriendly place and "wheel" as a<br class="">dark shadow committee. Need for cultural change."<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Regarding this e-mail, it was a summary of discussions amongst a number of people including myself and Felix, and based on information I received from third parties.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Please once again consider:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>1. I voted against cancelled BOB's membership on March 29th (or possibly, procedurally against the agenda item, it's been a while, I'm stressed, and the effect is substantially the same).</div><div><br class=""></div><div>2. I endavored to reconcile with BOB, after voluntarily resigning from committee and removing my server and he refused.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>3. I also endeavoured to find a win-win solution and avoid confrontation (e.g. suggesting two separate 'wheels' one for the old guard and one for new UCC geeks so they could learn and make mistakes unshackled)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>4. BOB's actions at the last OGM, particularly in relation to the measure to ban me from even walking into the club room.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>5. The 'shoe is on the other foot' comment.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>6. BOB's request for my address to send me a cease and desist letter.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>7. People on UCC discord, who I suspect may be friends of BOB, who warned me it would be legally dangerous for me to speak about issues </div><div><br class=""></div><div>8. The various complaints that I became a lighting rod for in Feb / March</div><div><br class=""></div><div>9. The general state of the club, which under the atmosphere of this "Game of Thrones" has been unable to fulfil its mission in many ways (everything from having a club camp this year to being able to have UPSs on critical infrastructure that cannot boot up on its own after a power failure).</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Later that day on the committee-only discord channel, Felix gloated<br class="">about being able to kick me off wheel:<br class="">[6:36 PM] frekk: Ah yes btw we get to be the committee to kick Bob off<br class="">wheel. More to come at our first actual meeting!<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I once again point out that Felix did this with a set of beliefs about BOB.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Whether or not those beliefs can be objectively proven, I do not think his actions were motivated by a desire for some type of revenge.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Provided for context: Melissa lets slip that an exec-only meeting is<br class="">happening, which is quickly followed by condemnation of this on the wheel@<br class="">and committee-only@ mailing lists<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Looking at the above, particularly BOB's informing me he would send me an unspecified letter to cease and desist (this is now, after I've not been on committee for two years) can anyone possibly imagine any other context here?</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Exec-only meeting happened unofficially. I believe the whole<br class="">committee was invited to this meeting after the wheel uproar. Note that at<br class="">the time I was aware of this unofficial meeting, was unable to attend it,<br class="">was having my membership of both the club and wheel discussed in a closed<br class="">forum, and had no opportunity to defend myself at this point. I was<br class="">extremely stressed, unable to sleep, and unable to focus on my work, and<br class="">this continued until March 29.<br class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Subsequent to this meeting, Felix emailed committee and suggested<br class="">ways to remove me from wheel without any due process:<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>In response to this, I would like to ask BOB, when he told me that I would "never" be able to join wheel because he did not trust me, did he:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* Follow due process in regards to consulting wheel about the topic and let them make a determination.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* Inform me about the existence of sprocket or other other intermediate access levels that may have been sufficient to allow me to do what I needed to, or propose the creation of new access levels or any other technical solution, rather than telling me I must get someone else to do my job as club secretary??</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* Inform me that wheel was an unofficial committee and subject to the decisions of the elected committee of UCC as to its membership.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>* Contact me by phone, email, or any of the other usual means of communications to have a meeting to voice his concerns? Or Felix?</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">"Hi committee,<br class=""><br class="">In light of the discussions at the meeting on Wednesday (earlier today...?<br class="">or yesterday... :P), I would like to suggest that we implement a system of<br class="">regular wheel applications, in a similar manner to what we [should] do with<br class="">door members.<br class=""><br class="">In particular, regarding the issues raised with Bob, this may provide a less<br class="">"hostile" way for us to remove Bob from wheel with the same effect. Given<br class="">the circumstances, I do not believe kicking out Bob individually, which<br class="">regardless of our reasoning may be seen as us making an example to the rest<br class="">of wheel, is the most tactical way to go about this. I do not believe there<br class="">are many, if any, other (active) wheel members who are similarly<br class="">problematic, and as such if we did kick Bob out to make an example then I<br class="">think it would have many consequences which are undesirable (such as<br class="">potentially losing many of our other active wheel members).<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I'd like to point out that, if Felix, I, or anyone else was planning to kick BOB out of the club, why would we be separately planning to kick him off of wheel?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>My understanding of this paragraph is that members who were to be removed from wheel could apply to remain, and would be allowed to do so if there is a legitimate reason, and no compelling reason to remove them.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">However, if a system of wheel reapplications cannot be decided upon and<br class="">enacted in the short term, then I would see a necessary intermediary step<br class="">being the removal of Bob from wheel as soon as is reasonable in the eyes of<br class="">committee (preferably effective immediately).<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>My understanding here is that Felix believed that the club could be subject to recrimininations if BOB remained on wheel.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Whether this is true or not, Felix believed it and I again ask that committee consider this issue in the context of BOB's recent actions towards me, when I am no longer a committee member and was not actively involved in UCC for two months arelady.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Regarding the potential reapplication process, I do not believe that it is<br class="">disrespectful to ask current or prospective wheel members to justify why<br class="">they should have administrative access to club systems and what benefit they<br class="">bring to the club. Such access is not a right nor an entitlement, but a<br class="">power granted by committee that comes with great responsibility and only<br class="">given to those who can be trusted. As such, I would propose an open-ended<br class="">application process whereby current / new members simply explain why they<br class="">should be on wheel, with only a small number of criteria provided (such as<br class="">"benefit to the club", "benefit to yourself / what you want to learn",<br class="">"trustworthiness", etc) so the applicant at least has some idea what we are<br class="">looking for.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I believe the plan here was to replace a currently entirely subjective process, which at the time I understood to be based in part on whether or not BOB subjectively found a person to be "trustworthy".</div><div><br class=""></div><div>This came from his comments to me "I don't trust so... you will never be on wheel".</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Regarding "the short term", I believe that we should aim to discuss, decide<br class="">upon and vote in a wheel reapplication system ASAP (ie. this Friday) such<br class="">that applications can be submitted from the date of the meeting until, say,<br class="">one month from then. At that point, committee will review the applicants and<br class="">vote to re-add members to wheel as appropriate, to be determined by<br class="">committee.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>This would put committee back in its legal position, where those who were elected by club membership hve power over the club.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> In the meantime, current wheel members could retain their<br class="">privileges, however it would be a good opportunity to work out and discuss<br class="">further strategies in an open and transparent manner to improve the<br class="">application/reapplication system. </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Please read the above comments:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>IN THE MEAN TIME, CURRENT WHEEL MEMBERS COULD RETAIN THEIR PRIVILEGES.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>In other words those who were active in UCC and had a legitimate reason to be on wheel would be on wheel.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I wish to bring this up in another context. When I put my server into the server room, a set of pre-authorised keys were added giving perhaps dozens of external users root access to my machine, rather than a single administrative account.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I had by this point been told of an incident in which a single external wheel member's account has been compromised, leading to numerous machines at UCC being "pwned" because any wheel member could totally control any machine, whether their responsibilities and involvement were relevant to that machine or not.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>That if nothing else should justify - if not adopting such a resolution, then AT LEAST THE FACT THAT IT WAS RAISED IN GOOD FAITH.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">This extra time will also allow us to come<br class="">up with strategies to deal with wheel members upon their removal (such as to<br class="">deal with the possibility of Bob going rogue). I am sure contributions to<br class="">discussions about such will be many and "juicy" (for lack of a better word)<br class="">given the relatively controversial nature of a wheel<br class="">application/reapplication system in general. Not only will this provide food<br class="">for thought but will likely be very amusing (hahaha)."<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>When Felix spoke to me about these issues, I can genuinely confirm that he appeared to be afraid BOB would go rogue and sabotage UCC systems if asked to leave.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I personally don't have enough history to reasonably comment, but once again ask committee to consider this IN LIGHT OF RECENT ACTIONS TOWARDS ME.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>At the March 29 meeting, Melissa referenced Felix's allusions to me<br class="">possibly going rogue as another item on her list of complaints.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I can certainly confirm that this was a major basis for the "secrecy and lack of transparency" in what could otherwise have been an open process. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Please consider the facts at hand on which I had to decide what to do as club secretary:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>1. The club was an incorporated association, and I had been made to sign a lease with the Student Guild for the clubroom, which I believed would make me personally financially liable for any damage to the room.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>2. I was aware that BOB had broken club rules previously (e.g. the open alcohol container incident) and was hearing serious complaints about BOB from a number of people. I could practically describe the situation as my being a "lightning rod" for complaints relating to both BOB and UCC at the time.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>3. Felix, who was the PRESIDENT OF THE CLUB had told me that BOB going rogue was a very real possibility.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>4. Gozz, previous club president, had hardly given me a glowing recommendation about BOB.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>5. Multiple resignations of club office holders and complaints about the club reaching me from all directions.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Additionally, I remind everyone that Felix, myself, and other people are not lawyers, nor professionally hired to run UCC, and that as long as UCC is a student club we should only be expected (at least in regards to this type of complaint) a level of competency of a reasonable student club office holder.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Felix proposes annual wheel purges (see wheel@ and committee@<br class="">lists).<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I beleive, once again, was the intention to allow younger members of the club who were current university students to gain serious experience which could help them in their future careers, rather than having systems administered primarily by former students, with current students being at best apprentices to the old guard.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I'm not sure if this is the right idea, and I'm not sure whether BOB's comment about my "never going to be a member of wheel" coloured my judgement about the wheel process, but one way or another this should not have any bearing on removing an office holder in mid term. Particularly if the proposal is not on the agenda.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Governing by fear, be it threatening litigation or to remove office holders or ban them from the club, is in my opinion inconsistent with the values and ethos of a student club at a university.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>This was the day of a committee meeting. Leading up to the meeting,<br class="">I was aware that the issue has not been resolved, but that it had continued<br class="">to be discussed behind closed doors. I had been held in suspense for nearly<br class="">three weeks at this point, and basically had to be on standby to attend any<br class="">of the intervening meetings. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>BOB, didn't you previously say that I'd already "let slip" what had happened.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>There was no agenda item pertaining to the complaints/issues that<br class="">had been raised regarding the day of the AGM, no formal notification that my<br class="">membership would be discussed (again I was relying on club insiders to let<br class="">me know). <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>This is a procedural matter that (having seen the complexity of the UCC constitution recently) I do not feel free to comment on.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This meeting was scheduled at 3pm - during work hours for me. I was<br class="">only able to make it at 3:50pm.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Did you contact anyone and request that they delay the meeting? Also, please see notes above.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This meeting was three hours long, in which I was forced to defend<br class="">myself against spurious accusations which had sprung from Felix's initial<br class="">rumour spreading.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Can we distinguish between allegations that are unproven, or even unprovable, and them being spurious?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>There are objective issues at play here, some of which are provable, and some of which have been proven.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>During the meeting, Felix moved to give me a formal warning before I<br class="">was able to speak to the allegations, and other committee members had to<br class="">point out that they had not yet heard from me<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>If the only motion was to give you a formal warning, this may have been procedurally inaccurate, but does it not contradict what you were saying about a committee meeting to throw you out?</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I strongly urge all members who wish to be informed about this issue<br class="">to read the March 29 meeting transcription in full, however, here are a few<br class="">relevant quotes:<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Can you please confirm whether this is a transcription, or notes taken at the meeting? And if it is a transcription, can we please make the audio file available? This will, for example show the level of distress I was in that may lend some context to some of what I said, and ensure that nothing was missed.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>It's probably also easier to listen to this in a "podcast" format rather than try to painfully read it and follow.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">"- [BOB] I'm going to rewind a little bit. I believe I am here to answer to<br class="">a complaint. I have not been told what that complaint is.<br class=""><br class="">- [FVP] Right, well, unfortunately you missed that part of the meeting."<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Please not that there was a motion to remove me from the club and ban me from the clubroom, and I cannot see how anything I've done could possibly justify such a thing, particularly given that I had never been disruptive in the clubroom, even to the slightest extent (I have never been doored, or even warned) and have never misused UCC facilities.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">"- [BOB] I want to actually get a clarification of what the issue is /cutoff<br class="">- [MSX] And I'd like the other issues that you ([FVP]) told me from before,<br class="">being the issues from 2010<br class=""><br class=""> - To be talked about and not have my name on them because they were<br class="">told to me<br class="">- [FVP] Yes. I was going to get onto that. [MPT] can you finish up then<br class="">please."<br class="">"- [JGM] (to [FVP]) based on what you just said, it sounds like you've got a<br class="">strong bias towards believing [BOB] is guilty - And I am questioning the<br class="">chairing of this meeting, including as such ignoring instances where people<br class="">are interrupting and not being held accountable for this. I'd like that<br class="">minuted"<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>All of these are relevant arguments in terms of not having a process at that meeting to deal with complaints about BOB.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>At the end of the meeting, I believe I had addressed the concerns of<br class="">all parties, including those regarding allegations of fraud and transphobia.<br class="">The committee voted unanimously to apologise to me for their overall<br class="">treatment of me, and it was generally agreed that the events on the day of<br class="">the AGM were a comedy of misunderstandings.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>This being the case, and with my support at that meeting, BOB still did all of the things mentioned above, including championing the agenda items to vote to ban me from entering the clubroom.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><div> would like to point out that, for not ignoring them, whoever it was (the committee would know) wanted me banned from entering the clubroom, and BOB made a comment about "now the shoe is on the other foot".</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The severe and unequal consequences (Felix could remain a club member, I would not be able to even enter the club as a non member) made me feel identically to other incidences of open transphobia I've experienced in my life, such as where the Orthodox Jewish community rejected me for being transgender, or when I had multiple ballroom dancing partners go from being enthusiastic about training with me to not wanting to know me after other people laughed at me for being a transwoman.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Is it truly reasonable that a cisgender male can gloat ('now the shoe is on the other foot') about a university club voting to ban a transgender woman from its clubroom, while a cisgender man in a similar situation (in this case Felix) is only being asked to leave committee, but can retain his membership of the same club?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Is it really reasonable when, in all probability, the type of students who spoke in support of Fraser Anning could then easily spread rumours about why I had been banned, and that the social impact of such a ban on me would be particularly severe?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Perhaps we should consider the relationship between my being transgender, and being in Perth with no family around me, and the increased importance that Cameron Hall clubs consequently play in my life and in supporting my studies AS A UWA STUDENT.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>As with the example I mentioned previously, where a real estate agent did not want to rent any apartment to an Indigenous man, but was happy to rent to show a reange of apartments to a white woman with less qualifications and a less secure job, even if that real estate agent could honestly say that it was just their "gut feeling" about the two applicants, and they really were not racist and even have many Indigenous friends, that the outcome is not racist?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I would like to point out the following three facts:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>1. BOB genuinely believes he is not transphobic and I have no reason to doubt his word on that issue at this point.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>2. However, BOB was in a position that opportunities to participate in UCC (as far as I am aware) effectively depend upon his subjective opinion about the students who wish to take those opportunities, with no explanation or reasoning given.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>3. BOB quickly formed a position about me, that put me in a position that I still believe precluded me from being a UCC secretary without breaching the Associations Act. Once again, I'm not a lawyer, but I have to err on the side of caution.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I'd like to remind everyone that the topic at hand here is punishing Felix for trying to run the club as best he could, and that all the factors above should be taken into account.</div></div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I provided a dump of all my communications regarding the 2010<br class="">insurance claim to committee and requested an audit. I have had confirmation<br class="">from the Treasurer today that he is satisfied with it all.<br class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>At the same time I presented a scan of the welcome letter from<br class="">Westpac, dated 12 days *before* the hail storm. Turns out we were 100%<br class="">legally setting up a bank account with Westpac so that we could accept<br class="">paypal payments.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>This greatly relieves me. However this doesn't change the reality that having become aware of allegations in regards to these issue, I could not possibly simply ignore them.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Felix motions to require a full review of all group memberships at</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">an OGM and the motion is passed.<br class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>With less than one days' notice to committee, Felix attended a<br class="">meeting with the Guild president to respond to a complaint that had been<br class="">made against the club. At that meeting, Felix states "non-students aren't<br class="">the problem, problem members are the problem". <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Given that BOB is a non-student, I cannot see how this in any way relates to his complaint. Can anyone please clarify?</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Following this meeting Felix made the following entries in his<br class="">report into his report for the upcoming meeting, which was then sent out<br class="">with the 4-day meeting notice:<br class=""><br class="">"- Had meeting with Guild President this morning, forwarded minutes to<br class="">committee@<br class="">- lol bob"<br class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>When asked what the "lol bob" statement meant via IRC, Felix refused<br class="">to answer. I asked Felix several times what the statement was across<br class="">multiple days before he removed it from his report. He finally insisted that<br class="">if I wanted an answer, I would have to add it as an agenda item for the<br class="">upcoming meeting. I did so.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I think the "lol BOB" statement is inappropriate, and for that particular issue an apology would be appropriate regardless of any other issues at hand.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I am a strong believer in taking action in ways that minimise impact on other people's well being. Had BOB told me at the time that he was experiencing anxiety and had difficulty sleeping or working there would be NO WAY I would ignore those concerns, and we would make sure that any procees proceeded in a way that would resolve the issues at hand without causing him unnecessary stress.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I will leave it to Felix to comment about his position.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Committee meeting. Regarding the "lol bob" statement in his report,<br class="">Felix responds that "It was irrelevant and not appropriate, and a bad meme.<br class="">No further explanation necessary."<br class="">*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Felix made no apology to me for a statement that he acknowledges was<br class="">inappropriate and had yet again kept me on tenterhooks for a week.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I think that where a person had caused emotional pain to another, apologies for this are always appropriate, as are whatever steps can reasonably be taken to minimise that pain. regardless of who is right or wrong or what else happens.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>We now know that this type of pain causes physiological outcomes, some of which can lead to both psychological and perhaps physical illness, and as such, if it is done intentionally or recklessly it is a form of violence.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I know perhaps other people may not agree with me, but I prefer to try not to cause unnecessary pain to others when doing so is avoidable.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I am honestly not sure where to go from here. Felix's bullying and rumour<br class="">spreading has led to minor disagreements being blown monumentally out of<br class="">proportion, and the ongoing fallout from it has been damaging to all parties<br class="">and the club. </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I don't think this is at all an accurate assessment of the situation. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>A person who hears a serious allegation needs to report it whether they are certain it is true or not. While such unsubstantiated allegations or hearsay may not be considered evidence in court, I also do not believe they should be dismissed outright.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Consider the person who "thought" they saw a tiny tear in the fuselage of a Hawiian Airlines Boeing 737 many years ago, but dismissed it because he as not technical qualified and could not prove or even have any basis to say it was serious.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The outcome of that tiny tear was THIS:</div><div><br class=""></div><div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NWW77HnGTc" class="">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NWW77HnGTc</a> </div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I think that anyone who knows me knows that I am not<br class="">transphobic, and even some people who think I'm an ass have attested to<br class="">that. </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Three's a difference between not believing yourself to be transphobic, and not causing transphobic outcomes.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>There is a lot I don't want to say because of the "sword of damacles" hanging over my head.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>But I can say this.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>It's a fine fine line between been an ass and being a bully.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>And it's a hard sell to tell me, after my interactions with BOB left me with thoughts about suicide, and contributed heavily to my having to drop half my subjects at UWA, and take deferred exams, and after that he felt the need two months later to try and push through a motion to have me banned from the UWA clubroom, while Felix, who by his admission is his primary "concern" was never at threat of being banned, that speaks volumes.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Yes I know that perhaps two anonymous people at different times made two different motions, but please consider BOB's comment about "the shoe being on the other foot" and his actions refusing to tell me why while I am suffering, in pain, and having suicidal thoughts.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Being an "ass" to someone who is struggling to survive, and not letting go when there is no reason other than the "fun of it" is being a bully, not an ass.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I feel that if Felix had a shred of decency left, he would step down<br class="">from the President role, as he has very clearly abused his position. If that<br class="">were to happen then I would consider this dispute settled.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Why is it not enough for BOB that I've left committee and DBA has left committee?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>And why did he make what I believe is a legal threat to me the day before he initiated this action.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>If you're talking about due process, what would you think about a crown prosecutor who, before trying someone for a crime, let all of the defence witnesses know that they'd be indicted if presented any evidence in support of the accused?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I'm shaking. I've had to vomit while writing this email response. This is a familiar feeling now when dealing with communication from a small subgroup of UCC members who - how should I say this simply - just look at who tried to force the vote against Felix and against myself earlier on.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I believe Felix went into his presidency with the attitude that I am too<br class="">involved in the club and am holding onto the reigns too tightly, and hence<br class="">jumped on an opportunity to get rid of me. </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>BOB, I don't think acting to constrain your power to non-superhuman levels is the same as trying to get rid of you.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>And believing yourself entitled to hand pick the entire committee of a non-profit association that is functioning as a UWA STUDENT CLUB ON UWA PROPERTY USING UWA INTERNET AND ELECTRICITY is the very definition of holding onto the reigns too tightly.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I come into the club once a week<br class="">in the evenings and am active on the mailing lists. I admit that it is hard<br class="">to not keep an eye on something that I have put so much work into, however<br class="">this year the effort spent defending my work has far surpassed the original<br class="">effort I put in.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>BOB - no one has a problem with you coming into the club once a week, or being involved.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Where it's an issue is where you get to decide which students at UWA can learn at UCC and which ones can only play games, and where you do so not based on an objective process but a feeling in your gut.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Such gut feelings tend to treat transgender people and other minorities unfairly, and are not consistent with how other things are done at Australian universities. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>I recently had another UCC member tell me that "UCC is a non-profit association, it is not a UWA club" and my response was, would you like to come with me to the head of the Student Guild and tell him that?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I do not believe your work is not under attack.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> I am tired of the revolving door of student politics and<br class="">thus have been looking to move on from UCC. I would like to be able to do<br class="">this while remaining a distant member, however I am reluctant to step back<br class="">while my name is being dragged through the mud. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>BOB - While I'm no longer a committee member, I believe that if you agreed to relinquish administrative control of systems that are not part of your legacy (but retained it for those that are), and did not attempt to determine the constituency of UCC commitee beyond your vote, no one will ever question your legacy or speak bad of you again.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>You may not be aware of this, but I've told countless people about your various achievements such as dispense and the UCC drink machine and how cool a geek you are, while you campaigned against me months after I had left any leadership role within the club.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Melissa </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></body></html>