Now, it's not every day that staff members get dismissed, and one can understand that that makes it newsworthy enough to headline the front page of Varsity - which it no doubt would have done, had the strike not stolen that honour. But in an environment in which incompetence is widely held to lead to promotion rather than dismissal, enquiring minds were keen to establish quite what the grounds were which led to this outcome.
The staff member in question had been the subject of many allegations in the past - none of which had resulted in dismissal, the steps between "allegation" and dismissal obviously being many and confidential - and so it was great interest that greeted news of his dismissal.
The grounds, according to the report, were "abusing his position of trust and the misappropriation of funds" - accusations which are now the subject of a CCMA appeal.
Other people have in the past been dismissed for misappropriating funds - otherwise known as stealing, fraud, or being caught with fingers in the petty cash. "Misappropriating funds" by spending large amounts foolishly on white elephants apparently doesn't fall into this catgegory.
But... "abusing his position of trust"? That's a tweaky thought. It assumes, among other things, that a relationship of trust exists, and that there is use, ill use and abuse possible thereof.
Now, many staff who are employed on conditions other than academic - and even some employed on academic conditions - are at great pains to lament the absence of a relationship of trust. They feel that their comings and goings are watched and noted, their lives under constant scrutiny and their output measured - even when this is cognitively ridiculous - reducing them to little more than assembly line workers. How does one abuse such a "position of trust"?