Exclusive: Rector Stella Maris to seek re-election despite row costing St Andrews around £200k

In an exclusive interview with The St Andrews Tab, the rector of St Andrews revealed she intends to stand for re-election despite the university having spent at least £195,000 in an ongoing dispute with her.

The university’s expenses were documented across two Freedom of Information disclosures, seen by The St Andrews Tab, revealing £29,953 paid to a “strategic communications and public affairs agency” and £17,508 spent on “defamation advice for members of staff and court.”

The St Andrews Tab can also reveal the university initially declined to disclose these records in full. This decision was overturned by the Scottish Information Commissioners Office, allowing these records to be made public.

The rector has been embroiled in a dispute with the university since being dismissed from the university’s governing body for the first time in 2024, following her claims Israel was committing “genocidal attacks.” This decision was overturned by the late chancellor of the university and former Lib Den leader, Menzies Cambell.

The Rector was dismissed for a second time in January. This decision was also overturned by Lord Keen KC.

Stella Maris told The St Andrews Tab: “I think it’s absurd that the university wasted nearly a quarter of a million pounds to be proven wrong, when Scottish universities are on the brink of financial ruin.”

“This money could have been spent on student’s experiences or invested in the university’s future.

“Almost all of my legal expenses have been offered pro-bono, being on the right side of history has its own advantages

“It is completely inappropriate for the university to fund personal defamation lawyers for members of court; I was never offered these services as a member of court.”

When asked if she would stand for re-election in October, the rector responded “Hell yes. I have more stuff to do.”

“I have fought against the student-elected president of the court being isolated and made susceptible to the influence of university leadership in the future. I have experienced the reality of what diversity in leadership looks like when there are no safeguards whatsoever.”

via Wikimedia Commons under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

In a statement to The St Andrews Tab, a spokesperson for the university argued the rector is responsible for incurring the extra costs.

The full statement read: “It is regrettable, at a time of severe financial pressure for universities, that additional money has to be spent to uphold governance, and defend St Andrews, and some of its students and staff, from legal actions, complaints, groundless allegations, and personal attacks by the rector.

“In every instance, the only person responsible for St Andrews incurring these extra costs is the rector, who has a long history of making complaints against staff, and some students, and refusing discussion or mediation.

“Defending these claims, therefore, is the only responsible course of action open to the university in the circumstances.

“Contrary to Ms Maris’s statement, the university was not twice ‘proven wrong.’

Most Read

Dad Gary Siders Jr’s part in 16 kids rescued in Ohio, as ‘wretched’ details emerge

‘Nothing is true’: Elizabeth Siders’ brother shares more details about the family in new posts

All the insights we’ve had into Elizabeth Siders, from statements and prison visits

“The rector has twice been found to have broken university governance rules, once by Morag Ross KC in 2024, and again by Lord Keen KC in 2026. These judgments are in the public domain. In both cases, the university had to incur legal costs to uphold its governance when the rector refused to accept she was bound by it and refused to discuss any resolution.

“Adherence to governance isn’t optional – it’s essential to the proper running of our universities, which have a legal duty to act when breaches occur. Trustees are legally obliged to act when one of their number decides they will not abide by governance. They cannot simply look the other way. The rector signed a declaration agreeing to abide by university governance when she was elected in 2023.

“The costs to obtain defamation support are, again, entirely the result of statements made by Ms Maris. She published various defamatory statements which had no foundation. She has repeatedly failed to withdraw or apologise, and has also chosen not to respond to a succession of legal letters in connection with these matters, adding to the expense incurred.

“It is important to point out that on every occasion there has been a disagreement involving the rector, the university has sought to resolve it by civil discussion and mediation, and without incurring costs. On every occasion however, the rector has refused to engage or launched complaints, allegations, and actions herself, leaving the university no option but to consult lawyers to protect its staff and students, or uphold governance.

“Her attempted takeover disrupted a key meeting of court last October when university finances were due to be discussed. court dismissed her because she refused to accept court’s decision to hold to its standing orders, and because she refused to accept she was bound by collective responsibility. It is matter of public record that, after court voted against her, the rector put headphones in her ears, accused fellow members of acting illegally, and refused to take any part in the rest of the meeting, including the portion at which the matter of the rector’s assessor was covered.

“In his published judgment Lord Keen found unequivocally that the university was correct in these circumstances to dismiss the Rector, and that her claims of authority and that she wasn’t bound by collective responsibility were wrong.

“He gave her the option of being reinstated if she signed an undertaking agreeing to reverse her previous position and abide by standing orders and collective responsibility, which she then did. He made it clear that if she did not sign the undertaking, he would uphold the university’s dismissal. This isn’t being ‘proven wrong.’ as Ms Maris falsely claims.

“This is an example of the way in which the rector has forced the university to incur additional legal costs. She refused to discuss or accept the university’s position after she wrongly claimed to have absolute discretion over court. It took a formal dismissal and an expensive appeal process to prove that the university was correct all along.

“Regrettably, the rector is still forcing the university to incur costs.

“We have received a further independent report following a serious complaint about the rector’s alleged behaviour and her treatment of St Andrews’ staff, a complaint with which she has again refused to engage. The rector has been invited three times to engage in the investigation which led to this report, leading to delays and incurring further expense.

“The university has also received a formal complaint about a recent serious incident at the Students’ Association in St Andrews when security was called, and specifically the alleged behaviour of the rector towards association staff and elected student representatives. The rector herself chose to bring this into the public domain by posting about it on social media.

“We will not comment further on this, however, while investigations are taking place.

“When Ms Maris first made a series of FOI requests about costs, we declined to answer on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, out of responsibility to the lawyers and contractors whose services we were forced to employ, who generally are entitled to expect their fees will not be made public when contracted by a client.

“We are pleased, however, that these expenses are now public, and there is transparency about the extent to which the rector’s repeated breaches of governance, complaints, and attacks on staff have incurred costs which could otherwise have been invested in teaching and research.”

The Israeli Embassy has been contacted for comment.

Featured image before edits via Instagram @stella_standrewsrector and geograph.org.uk under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0