Critic editor escorted off campus by Police
The ODT reports:
The editor of Critic – the University of Otago student magazine – was escorted from the magazine’s office over an employment dispute yesterday, but says he hopes to continue in the role. …
Senior Sergeant Brian Benn confirmed police were called to the office off Cumberland St just before noon, following concerns a ”former staff member” was refusing to leave. …
OUSA general manager Darel Hall declined to make any comment concerning the dispute. Mr Fredric and the university also avoided discussing the conflict.
A spokeswoman said Otago University would be making ”no response” in regard to the matter.
However Beau Murrah blogs some details:
One of the exciting events for a lot of people this year was the visit by Belgian drum and bass Act Netsky. A then Critic TV reporter, Tristan K, was seeking an interview with the artist on behalf of Critic and was allegedly legitimately treated rudely by the event managers who kept him waiting for several hours after they said they would give him an interview.
In response, Tristan wrote an email (which I have not read) but by various credible accounts was outrageous, insulting, bitchy and rude to Netsky’s event managers under the guise of it being an official communication of Critic magazine**. When Callum Fredric learned about this he apparently was not concerned and thought it was basically rather funny and did nothing.
Netsky’s event managers, which apparently manage several other major musical acts, did not think it was funny and threatened to never send acts to OUSA/Dunedin events ever again. OUSA general manager Darel Hall was then forced to profusely apologise and Callum adjoined to it on behalf of Critic.
If I was kept waiting for several hours, I’d write a bitchy e-mail also. If anyone has a copy of the e-mail in question I’l happy to publish it!
The staff appointment the ODT alludes to is the attempted appointment of Maddie Phillips, Callum Fredric’s girlfriend, as sub-editor of Critic magazine to replace Sam McChesney.
There possibly could have been a situation where an editor boyfriend could appoint his girlfriend to the second highest (or third highest? There is also a deputy editor and I get confused) position in a newspaper and it not be cronyism but this is not it. …
If Maddie was a popular, safe choice it could have been ok but actually it is just appointing your girlfriend over a number of other possible qualified candidates (of which I am not one). At the very least, it creates a very strong impression of cronyism and needs to have been clearly justified.
If someone you have a relationship with someone who is in line for an appointment, it is best to delegate the decision, or at least involve others in it. I don’t know if this happened in this case.
The OUSA general manager, Darel Hall, probably saw and heard all this. If he did not hear the grumblings or see some questionable choices he definitely experienced the Netsky incident and he definitely had cause for concern about Cronyism. Anyways, he saw it necessary or desirable to suspend Callum’s employment.
With all of that in mind I also cannot see Callum staying as editor. He apparently is already not editor anyore and Sam McChesney, last publicly noted as resigning from his job as Sub editor a few weeks ago, was the acting director as of at least last Friday. Yesterday when the police walkout occurred Callum was allegedly told not to the come to the office for a meeting and did, thus the police walkout occurring.
What will also be interesting is what process has OUSA followed. You can’t just sack an editor because you disagree with his decisions. This case could well end up in the employment courts.
UPDATE: I’ve now heard from several sources on this issue. Two interesting further aspects.
Maddie Phillips was sub-editor in 2012, so having her do the job again in 2013 is not that big a think it seems.
The bigger issue is that it appears OUSA gave no notice or written warnings to the Critic Editor before they informed him he was suspended and had to vacate the premises. If this is correct, I think they may be on shaky legal ground. As the University now funds OUSA, it is ultimately student funds at risk.