Arc whistleblower, Noise cofounder barred from ‘illegitimate’ board election

Former managing editor of Tharunka, co-founder of Noise and Arc Whistleblower Alex Neale has been disqualified from running for Arc’s board in response to blowing the whistle on censorship practices and ‘dishonest workplace behaviour’ at Arc, in violation of the not-for-profits’s social media policy. Neale says that its actions are covered by whistleblower protection law.

The Noise editors stand in solidarity with Alex, and have compiled a brief summary of why we are skeptical of the Board’s vote, as well as a list of what you can do to help reverse this decision.

Alex provided us with the following statement:

On Thursday the 21st of March I was informed that I have been disqualified from candidacy in this year's Arc Board elections on the grounds that I had breached Arc's code of conduct in November of last year. No reasoning or evidence was provided as to how l did so, and the decision as it stands has no basis.
However, it is easy to guess what Arc is referring to. Last November, I leaked evidence of serious staff misconduct and unethical business practises to Honi Soit, leading to coverage of tensions between Arc and Tharunka. They won't dare disclose this, as it means admitting that I have been barred for blowing the whistle on the misconduct of high-ranking Arc executives.
Returning Officers Joelle Barallon and Lucy Huang, who made this decision, are both Arc employees and work directly under Shelley Valentine, one of the persons whom I allege perpetrated the misconduct I referred to in my leak. Valentine is a permanent member of the board whose elections Barallon and Huang have been appointed as Returning Officers.
Their decision was purportedly submitted to the Arc Board itself, including Valentine, for approval. However, no board meeting has been held this year, and I have confirmed that at least two Board members were not notified that a vote on my candidacy would be taking place.
It appears that student directors are being misled or excluded from important matters by corporate executives. Since Arc has refused to disclose the numerical results of this vote, we have reason to believe that quorum at this meeting was not met, and that the vote did not legitimately pass.
As a rightful candidate in these board elections, as a UNSW student, as a former Arc staffer and as a current Arc member, I am hereby requesting that Barallon and Huang both step down as Returning Officers in light of a clear conflict of interest with those of the current board. A new RO must be hired who is independent of Arc, and must be instructed to review this decision.
With Huang and Barallon presiding, as Arc employees, over these elections, with results published exclusively on Arc platforms from Arc databases, UNSW students have no way of verifying the accuracy of the election's final results. If they do not step down, there can be no trust in the legitimacy or integrity of these elections.
Furthermore, I believe my exclusion is a clear-cut case of whistleblower victimisation, and I will be evaluating my legal options.

Arc's Decision

From an email shared with us by Neale, Arc’s returning officer (who manages and runs the board election) believes that Neale stands in violation of the following policies:

“Staff and affiliates should not make any public comment to the media, University officials, or other stakeholders on behalf of Arc unless they are established representatives of Arc or are authorized to do so by the CEO or the board of directors”.

We believe that this was in response to his communications with the University of Sydney student paper, Honi Soit, regarding the unethical changes in editorial processes last year. In our opinion, these statements are covered under whistleblower rights laws as Neale argued. We believe this is an unethical and retaliatory response from Arc, to discourage future whistleblowers who intend to maintain their careers in UNSW Student Life.

The additional sections of the Code which they claim Neale violated are:

“Observe confidentiality regarding Arc’s operations that is gained over the course of their employment with Arc”

“Take reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorised use of or disclosure of confidential or personal information”

“Respect individuals‘ right to privacy and maintain the privacy and confidentiality of information”

Once again, we believe these are in regards to the same Honi article published in November 2023. We’ve linked it here so you can decide for yourself whether it leaked anything that should be considered “confidential” (noting that the Tharunka charter and its amendments are publicly available).

What does the Board have to say?

In order to ensure balanced coverage, We emailed the Chair of the Board about this issue, and we’ve added her reply below.

In all Arc Board elections, the Returning Officer reviews all nominations received during the nomination period to ensure nominees are eligible with Arc regulations. Those nominations that do not meet the criteria are ineligible. Student candidates who do fulfil the criteria are accepted and progress to elections. In accordance with the regulations, the Returning Officer must notify candidates that do not meet the eligibility criteria. There are circumstances where the Returning Officer must recommend to the Arc Board that they rule a candidate ineligible. This year candidates were notified of their eligibility by the Returning Officer on the 21st March. 
Candidates can be ineligible for reasons including: not having valid Arc Membership, not being a currently enrolled UNSW student, being found to have previously breached Arc policy or have recorded breach on the UNSW misconduct register. In fairness to all candidates we do not publicly disclose unsuccessful candidates, nor the reasons for their ineligibility. 

We note that the tally of votes from the board was also requested, and yet not provided. Additionally, they were unwilling to disclose if any previous candidates have been disqualified.

Can't he just appeal it?

In a word, no. In more words, not without your help.

Arc’s Constitution states that in cases where a nominee is to be rejected, “the decision of the board will be final.”

However, we believe that several members of the board, primarily students, were not provided with sufficient information to make a good-faith and accurate assessment of the facts.

To take this vote without having Neale’s side heard is unethical at best, and only reinforces the image of secrecy and unethical practices that we have been fighting against.

We are calling on the Board to allow Neale the chance to explain his actions and defend himself, for the last vote to be declared invalid, and for a new vote to be taken.

What can I do?

• Contact Board reps and let them know that you think this decision was unethical (we’ve got their emails below if you want to write your own email, or a template just below that if you don’t).
• Share this post with UNSW staff, students, researchers, and alumni. anyone who is involved with UNSW is affected by this decision.
• If you’re in a society, contact the presidents and Arc delegates and have them reach out to Arc executives demanding answers.

The only way to change a system as flawed as this is through our collective action. This is about making UNSW a better place for everyone, and making Arc a little bit more ethical and representative of students.

Main people to email

Email Template

Unfair Treatment of Arc Board Election Candidates

Hi all,
As you are aware, Alex Neale has been excluded from the upcoming Arc Board election for speaking his mind on unfair treatment during his time at Tharunka.
As a member of Arc and a student of UNSW, I believe that Arc hasn't been transparent in its decision. I have reason to believe that this decision was either not made in good faith, or that members of the Board were misled regarding the actions which supposedly warrant his exclusion.
I implore you to call a re-vote and undo this decision, and take the first step towards a more transparent and ethical Arc.

Noise will always have a dedication to independent student representation, and a commitment to supporting students who have been screwed over by the systems Arc can use to exploit its volunteers.

We’d like to thank you for supporting us and enabling us to push for positive change through campaigns like this.