Parliamentary Commissioner
for Administrative Investigations
GOP Box X 2204
Perth 6001

8 January 1996

Dear Sir:

I request that you investigate my unjust and improper dismissal from the University of Western Australia. It is my contention that I was removed from my position, and my good name destroyed by the University not as a result of poor performance as the University would claim, but rather because I sought properly to carry out my duties under University Regulations and State and Federal Acts.

When I was acting as head of the archaeology department, I became aware of certain practices within that department which I knew were contrary to the stated aims and objectives of the University as given in its Mission Statement and Procedures Manual and which required action upon my part as provided in the University's "Regulations Governing Heads of Departments." Hence, if I were to discharge my duties as head of department, and properly observe the University's Equity Policy and Mission Statement I had to report on these events to my designated supervisors. As a employee of the State, I was acting as an Officer of the Crown in taking these actions, and was duty-bound to do so.

Motivated by the belief that certain practices that I observed were, and remain, contrary to sound educational principles and accepted norms of professional behaviour, and that certain activites occurring regularly in that department went against University Regulations as well as various Acts of Parliament which govern the University, I met with appropriate university administrators, gave evidence, and put written submissions to the appropriate officers, including the Head of Division, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research, the Vice-Chancellor, and the Equity Officer.

As a result of my complaints, and those of other persons, two investigations were conducted into the affairs of the archaeology department. The first report ("The Review of Archaeology" also known as "The Bruce Report") was made available, in part, to me, but associated documents were destroyed, apparently at the direction of the University. Others are claimed to have disappeared. This report strongly confirmed my complaints and called for strong action to be taken to rectify conditions. The second report (The "Hotop/Clyde Report") has never been released and associated documents were again destroyed or have disappeared. Some of the written complaints, however, have survived and were recently tabled in the Western Australian Parliament. A schedule [Schedule #1] is attached. I know for a fact that this second report recognised that no problems existed with myself or my behaviour, and that it while it had received highly damaging submissions regarding me, it held such statements were not worthy of consideration.

I believe my dismissal was based, at least in part, in malice, even though said malice may have been the result of misinformation which was supplied but never properly investigated. Should such malice have existed, written university regulations [Professional Relationships in the University of Western Australia - Workplace Policy] would demand that the decision be rendered null and void.

Misinformation about me was propagated because it became necessary for other parties to discredit me as a result of my reports and the inquiries to which they led. Therefore, a campaign based upon false and malicious charges was begun against myself (and my students) by members of the then department of archaeology. All of these charges originated in the archaeology department. None could stand up to independent scrutiny. No such charges have ever been brought against me at any other time. They have been considered and rejected as without merit by well-informed scholars, including persons who have known me personally in other academic settings. They were repudiated by two formal University boards of inquiry and an in editorial proceedings. All of the evidence known to me is consistent with my belief that these false charges were used as the true grounds for my dismissal and, to that end, all official reports and evaluations which supported my case for tenure were excluded or ignored, often with prejudice.

A decision was made by the University that these various false allegations were to be kept hidden from me and, therefore, I never had a chance to reply to them. Various highly damaging documents, now known to me, were placed by design in a special file which was then improperly used as the primary resource in denying me tenure. Other damaging documents are know to have existed, but are said by the University to no longer exist. Some documents known to have existed are now said to never have existed. While the allegations against me were never shown to me for my knowledge or reply, charges against me were conveyed to many unconcerned parties by members of the University.

In brief, the university contrived reasons of poor academic performance to act as a cover story for my dismissal. My dismissal was based upon misinformation and a defamatory campaign, not upon inadequacies in my performance at the University. Since my sacking the University has attempted to use its considerable wealth and power to make itself effectively unaccountable for its improper actions. The University has continued in its improper behaviour by conveying misleading, false, and harmful charges abou me to various persons including members of government and the press.

Given that I believe a strong case may be made that evasion and misdirection have charactertised University replies to matters regarding my case, I hope that in your investigations you will be able to obtain evidence in the form of Statutory Declarations. I am fully prepared to put all of my testimony, including that presented here, in that form.

Specifics of my charges against the University regarding the manner in which I was dismissed follow. I also include a chronology of events relevant to my employment and eventual sacking by the University of Western Australia (Attachment #1). This document, taken in conjuction with the following pages, will help identify the documents referenced in my summary charges. I apologise in advance for the length of the chronology, but my case has now dragged on for such a long time, and is sufficiently complex, that brief treatment is impossible.

Your Sincerely, David Rindos

"Decisions within the University should be made explicity, openly, consistently, and on the basis of relevant information." [Mission Statement]

• Numerous internal documents from 1992 reference (1) the need to deny me tenure, (2) procedures which must be followed to achieve this end, and (3) the data base which was believed to justify the decision to sack me. All of this was kept hidden from me by design.
• In February 1992 the vice-chancellor and Professor Jory (who also sat on my review committee the following year) met with the History Department. Discussions held there indicate that it was already decided that I would be denied tenure.

• Even before my tenure review began in 1992, Dr Partis, as head of division, made clear statements to the meetings of faculty, to various members of academic staff, and even to my students that I would be removed on non-academic grounds. He never mentioned any of this to me, but instead pretended that he would conduct a fair and objective review of my performance. His comments about denying me tenure were met with strong written disapproval by persons familiar with my abilites and the problems in archaeology.
• The vice chancellor also wrote (Dec 1992) that natural justice would be fully observed in my case. Her letter has disappeared from university files.

• Non-academic factors are predominant in all official reports on my tenurability. This includes both reports written by Dr Partis (in which academic reasons are never mentioned), the Report of the Wood Tenure Review Commitee and in associated documents such as those written by Professor Jory and Professor Woood. Non academic reasons are given predominance in the letter of dismissal. In brief, false allegations regarding my non-academic behaviour constituted the only reason tenure was denied to me.

• In July 1995, the State Freedom of Information Commissioner ruled that certain documents had to be released to me on these same grounds.
• My Stautory Declaration, as supplied to the Freedom of Information Commissioner, provides a documented account proving that I was never counselled for poor performance and that all counselling I received judged my performance to be satisfactory.
• Deputy vice-chancellor Professor Wood, the chair of my tenure review committee, wrote (undated, mid-April 1993) that he accepted I had been done a serious injustice when I was sacked without ever having been notified of any deficiencies in performance.
• The Vice-Chancellor in her letter to staff (June 1993) admitted that I had been required to meet unknown and unstated performance standards.

• I was specifically excluded in writing from personally appearing to testify or defend myself. I was told that I was not permitted even to meet members of the Committee established to rule on my tenure.
• The written terms for the creation of the Tenure Review Committee demanded that myself or my "representatives" were to be excluded from the proceedings.
• Discussions were held, and all decisions were made in camera. It was written that a representative of my Union would not attend these discussions because such a presence might "inhibit discussion."
• All of my attempts to be allowed to see and reply to the material on which I was being judged were repudiated. Despite written requests, I was not even provided an inventory of evidence considered during proceedings.

• This arose by design, such an option having been proposed as one of the ground-rules for the Committee, and occasioned complaints by my union.
• I attempted an appeal to the University Senate (June 1993). It would not consider my case, but instead merely noted that the vice-chancellor had the power to make decisions regarding tenure. This was a failing of Senate in its duties under the University Act.

• It was claimed that the decision was made without considering exceedingly relevant reports such as the Review of Archaeology or the Hotop/Clyde Report.
• Deputy vice-chancellor Professor Wood, the chair of my tenure review committee, was unable to reply (undated, mid-April 1993) to my complaint that their inability, or unwillingness, to judge whether I was disadvantaged by matters outside of my control makes their recommendation invalid since it presumes, but does not even attempt to demonstrate, "guilt" on my part. As I had written: "Natural justice necessitates that barring convincing evidence that the fault in fact was mine, then the benefit of the doubt must be given to me."
• The university has since that time falsely claimed on numerous occasions that the committee had judged me personally responsible rather than unable to make a judgement.

• It was admitted in writing by the Review Committee that other persons with academic productivity lower than mine (even as described by them) had been granted tenure.
• It is a fact that persons have been granted tenure around the same time as myself had far lower rates of publication than myself.
• The decision was inconsistent with all other tenure decisions made at the university because it was based on non-academic criteria (themselves judged according to false allegations).
• The decision by the vice-chancellor, who introduced her "personal" reason for denying me tenure -- the claim that (her interpretation of) my relationship with Professor Bowdler was somehow relevant to my continuance at the University, was totally improper. Such matters are irrelevant, and besides being factually incorrect would, even if correct, be inconsisent with any and all standards for tenuring. Her action occassioned strong complaints from my Union.
• The decision was inconsistent, both in terms of procedure and results, with the advice I had been given when deciding to apply for the position, with advice to me from the Personnel Office in 1990 and 1991,with the advice given me by my supervisors in 1990, 1991 and 1992.
• The decision was inconsisent with the legal advice given the university on the process followed, the data which must be considered, and the reasons which may be considered as relevant.

• Scores of letters by members of the community and internationally renowned academics have been sent to UWA making this point.
• The gross injustice done to me has been widely commented upon by the press (including a editorial highly critical of the University in The Australian newspaper).
• The improper behaviour of the University administration, and the various injustices to which it has led, have resulted in several series of Parliamentary Questions. Recently, the entire affair has been discussed at length in a speech delivered in the West Australian Parliament.

• The threats were carried out when I did not accept their offer, and harmful actions continue to the present.

"Folios may be added to files using the records numbering system but may not be removed from files" [Proc. Man. 1.10.1.3]

"No statement about a staff member's unsatisfactory work performance (actual or alleged) may be placed on the file without the staff member having sighted and signed the statement and being provided with a copy of the statement. Where a statement has been placed on the file under 6.1 above, the staff member may require that their written reply shall also be placed on file." [Proc. Man. 1.10.6.1-2]

"All file transfers must be via the Records Office." [Proc. Man. 1.10.1.9]

"Heads of department will provide written comment relating to summary and the staff member's overall performance. A copy of the summary with comment added will be provided to the staff member . . . with any recommendation appropriate to the circumstance. ie. (b) the report is not satisfactory and (ii) the period of review should be extended."[Proc Man 2.4.15.3.C.iv]

• In 1991 a report, not written by my head of department, was (likely improperly) solicited by the Head of Personnell and entered into my personal file. It was, properly, not treated as a formal performance report by my supervisors at that time. Instead, the claims made in it were repudiated in a summary document on my performance writeen by my supervisors. It was later, improperly, given the status of a performance report, but I was neither informed of its contents, nor did it lead to any notification of unstasifactory performance, nor was it treated in the appropriate manner to lead to an extension of the review period.
• My probationary period was extended for non-academic reasons, unrelated to my performance, and not as part of a normal review process, as mandated. Both of my formal extensions of review were given solely for the benefit of the administration and neither mentioned problems with my performance.
• Neither extension resulted from the process of yearly review (all formal reviews of my work held my performance satisfactory).
• The extension of a probationary period without evidence of poor performance was abnormal according to advice provided by the vice-chancellor herself.
• The extensions occasioned strong complaints from my Union. The university itself admitted that the extension was improper and stated it would not happen again. Their sole reason for following improper procedures was that the situation was not "usual."
• Following my dismissal, the University has falsely claimed privately and publicly, on many occasions, that the extensions were given for my benefit and were evidence of concern with my academic performance.

"Normally, on the expiration of the intital specified period, an appointment subject ot review is convered to a permanent appointment not subject to review." [Proc Man 2.4.3 and my Contract]

"Heads of department will provide written comment relating to summary and the staff member's overall performance. A copy of the summary with comment added will be provided to the staff member." [Proc Man 2.4.15.3]

"Personnel Services will (a) record that the report has been received together with any other decision taken." [Proc Man 2.4.15.3.vi.a]

"The University has a duty of care to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its employees at work. The University is committed to providing, maintaining and improving, as far as it practicable, a safe working enviroment for all employees, which is conducive to productivity and job satisfaction." [Proc. Man. 1.7.2.1.1-2]

• My forced placement in archaeology, several months before it was dissolved, returned me to a situation from which I had been removed one year earlier for protection from ongoing and severe harassment and victimisation.
• I was subjected to victimisation by means of false and malicious charges made against myself and my students which were improperly handled by the administration. The false charges included sexual harassment, promotion of pornography, plagiarism, and behaviour offensive to aboriginal people.
• The demands made on me for the rewriting of my 1992 yearly report by Dr Partis and the various reports and rejoinders required of me afterwards led to medically recognised stress-related illness.
• University administrators, including the vice-chancellor, made improper and untrue comments about me to third parties. This added to my stress. This pattern of improper behaviour has continued to the present time.

"At all stages the utmost care will be taken to ensure confidentiality" [Sexual Harassment Section, Proc. Man. 1.8.3.5]

"Complaintants will be advised at all stages of the interanl procedure to discuss their complaints with as few people as possible." [ibid.]

III University Mission Statement

"Values of the University include . . . ensuring justice in dealing with staff and students." [Mission Statement]

All of these persons had a responsibility to the university and the larger community to ensure that they were acting fairly and justly, and on the basis of proper and correct information. They had a responsibility to ensure that they were not acting unjustly and on the basis of false and defamatory evidence. They had a responsiblity to ensure both that justice was done and was seen to be done. Such is not the case with the events in archaeology.

"The University is committed to the belief that freedom of intellectual thought and enquiry is essential to the achievement of its mission and its value to society. Academic freedom is central to the University's role and philosphy and it will seek to protect staff and students from any attempts to remove or reduce this freedom." [Mission Statement]

In documents calling for my sacking, my actions in this regard are provided as a central reason to deny tenure. Dr Partis wrote that I had not "accepted" the "authority" of Professor Bowdler. I believe by these words he means to say that I should not have made my reports, and that I should have accepted, perhaps even cooperated with, activities I knew to be improper, unprofessional, and harmful to students and to the university as an institution.

What Dr Partis claimed I should have done, I could not do without failing in my obligations, both legal and moral, to myself, my students, and the community as a whole. I do not believe that my unwillingness to accept, and cooperate in, unprofessional, improper, and possibly even illegal activities should be accepted as a proper reason to deny me the ability to make a living in my profession.

IV The decision-making process was improper

The review process was improper in that it was directed towards attempting to find a justification for a decision already made rather than seeking a fair review of my academic performance.

Administrative transfers were used in a improper manner to ensure that I would be denied tenure.

• The only reason I was removed from the positive and productive work environment which had been arranged for myself and my students in geography was to ensure that my final yearly report (1992) would not be written by Professor Taylor.
• Professor Taylor had already written a very positive performance report (August 1991), and hence it would have been known that he would write a positive final review which would, in turn, have guaranteed my tenure.
• By February 1992, when this move was forced onto me, plans to incorporate archaeology into another department were already being attempted. The dissolution of archaeology occurred about three months after my move out of geography. I was excluded from the move on the basis of false and harmful non-academic statments made about me.
• Unlike my move to geography, these later administrative changes were neither documented nor formalised, so in the narrowest of senses, the move was of questionable standing.

• Relevant and proper data was not placed into my personal file while false and harmful claims made about me were taken into consideration without my knowledge and without a chance for me to defend myself.

• My period of review was improperly extended. Rather than being given for valid reason, the university admitted the extension was to be "justified" on contrived grounds. The only conceivable reason for this extension was to give the University more time to come up with reasons to justify the denial of my tenure. This goal is implicit in all internal documents discussing the extension and review.
• Agreements between myself and the university regarding procedures to be followed during the review were never followed, and we were not informed of that fact. Other aspects of the agreements were later misrepresented to my detriment.
• The Wood Review Committee specifically excluded matters of placement from the question of tenurability. After I replied to their report, showing their academic reasons for denying tenure were without merit, the Vice-Chancellor raised the matter of my placement as the primary one having bearing upon my tenurability. It was agreed I could reply to this issue. My report was refused.
• Since June 1993, the University has added new "reasons" (such as alleged personality disputes, problems with my teaching and the quality of my scholarship, and the false claim that other departments were "unwilling" to take me on) in public statements explaining why I was dismissed. Hence, the standards by which I have been judged have even changed retroactively.

• Dr Partis' reasons for unacceptablity of my yearly report kept changing requiring rewriting and amplification of the report.
• The university did not answer letters or provide feedback on the processes being followed or the decisions made.

The demands of the process of review forced me to concentrate on providing the University with new evidence they required of me. This, of necessity, led to interference with my normal work (for example, I had to cancel research plans and was unable to meet writing deadlines). The results of this were then used to my disadvantage as evidence of non-productivity.

In June 1992, at the same time as my review was beginning, I was defending myself from several false charges which had been made against myself and my students. At the very same time I was left without any departmental affiliation when the archaeology department was dissolved and I was left without normal departmental support services. These further distracted me from my normal work.

Positive and objective evaluation and testimony was not sought and when supplied was ignored, often with prejudice.

• Professor Oxnard, who had written my earlier performance reports, was available as an appropriate academic peer to review my performance in 1992. He wrote a letter pointing this out. Instead, Dr Partis, who is a mathametician and a close personal friend of Professor Bowdler was chosen to write my final performance review (which task he never completed) and recommend on tenure. It must have been realised that he would write another positive review guaranteeing tenure, a fact unfavourably commented upon by Dr Partis. His exculsion, even though he was the best person avaiable to judge my performance, must have been done to ensure I would be denied tenure.
• The positive 1990 performance review written by Professor Oxnard was never even cited. The positive 1991 performance review by Professor Taylor was not mentioned in official recommendations, and was grossly misrepresented elsewhere. These action went against legal advice provided the University.
• The 1991 peformance summary written by Professor Oxnard was misrepresented to my detriment as having been written in positive terms because of my alleged "mental problems."
• Dozens of letters of support which arrived in 1993 were ignored, and later misrepresented to my detriment, by the university.

• The two outside referees were not supplied the final version of my yearly report. They were led to believe that my previous one year's production had been my entire work while at UWA. They were never supplied with a full bibliography of my work despite repeated written and verbal reminders. They were not provided copies of work in progress. They were instructed not to consider the well-known extenuating circumstances in archaeology. Despite all of these attempts to influence the outcome of their evaluations, both referees believed a case could be made for tenuring me.
• Dr Partis misrepresented the referees reaction to writing the reviews in a manner that was harmful to me. Their reports were improperly treated by the Wood Committee, and were later publicly misrepresented by the University to leave the impression that they had called for denial of tenure. These improprieties later led one referee to write a letter of clarification to the University.

• Negative testimony was actively solicited to provide "reasons" to deny tenure. Internal documents make clear that false and harmful statements were consulted and that these provided the actual reasons to deny tenure. Reviews of my performance from clearly biased and prejudiced sources were considered favourably. Performance reviews of unproven standing were improperly, and secretly, brought into consideration. The totally non-academic arguments to deny tenure advanced by Dr Partis in his two reports were accepted by the Wood Review Committee. All of these actions were in direct contravention of universally accepted standards of review, university policy, and the agreed upon process for review.

Materials specifically requested from me were neither consulted nor brought into the decision-making process. This fact was freely admitted and caused the Committee to exclude the majority of my work from consideration because it was too "technical" for them to understand.

The University did not follow the industrial legal advice provided it regarding the manner in which the decision had to be made.

• They did not even attempt to follow legal advice on due process, natural justice, and fair-play in the decision they were making. They did not follow advice on the kinds of data which would have to be obtained or brought into consideration.

Data which could have supported my case for tenure "disappeared" from university files.

This pattern has continued to the present with claims being made that documents which might serve to support my case are missing.

Performance indicators which could have supported my case for tenure were excluded or ignored.

• Among the widely accepted indicators of performance which were ignored or excluded from consideration are: citation rate and pattern, external letters of evaluation and support from eminent scholars, positive performance reviews, very positive teaching reviews, one of the highest student-retention rates in the University, and objective comparative statistics on productivity.
• My bibilography was subjected to inappropriate manipuation to discredit the value of my work or to find means to exclude a given publication from consideration.
• None of my work in progress was given any consideration whatsoever. This was done despite independent evaluations of such work being provided them.

• My classes were cancelled and then my artifically low teaching load was held against me.
• My removal by Professor Oxnard from teaching the introductory class was treated as if it were evidence of problems with my teaching.
• The transfer of myself and my students to geoghraphy, one which had been initiated and approved by all high university administrators, was treated as if I had been at fault.
• The fact that the Anatomy department was unable to take me on for financial reasons was portrayed as if it were an academic judgment.

V. The decision was made on fallacious grounds

Even before the review had begun, the university was making public comments about how an alleged "personality dispute" was the basis for the problems discovered in archaeology.

• My complaints about such statements from early 1992 were not answered properly or dealt with. They have been "lost" from university files.
• The university continues to make this claim in public statements.

• Many internal documents make this claim. Both of Dr Partis' recommendations to deny tenure are based solely on such a claim. The claim is accepted in the Wood Recommendations, given prominence in associated documents, and has been conveyed publicly by the vice-chancellor and other administrators, verbally and in writing.

VI Contract, Award and Industrial Provisions

The contractually established nature of my position (its financially protected status) was abrogated by executive fiat.

• My Contract reads that the position I accepted is an "established position," which is to say, permanent funding is attached to it.
• In May 1993, when other departments sought to take me on as a tenured member of staff, the vice-chancellor said that no continuing funding for me would be made available.

• Senate "noted" the decision, and did not ratify.

• The University agreed in the State Industrial Commission that Award Procedures governed my treatment by the University.
• Requirements for supervisors [13(c)(d)] were not met. The person who had supervised me and written performance reports on my work during 1990 and 1991 was availaibe during 1992 and 1993 and was not utilized.
• Review and Assessment [13] procedures were neither invoked nor followed.
• Clear procedures are mandated by the Award [13(e)(f)(g) and 14] in cases of alleged poor performance. These were never followed by the University.
• The negative evidence on my performance by Professor Bowdler was lodged despite clear and concise counsel by her supervisor that her actions were improper, and despite instructions that, according to the Academic Award, she must not continue in said manner.

I was removed from any and all proper departmental affiliation when I was excluded, apparently on the basis of misinformation regarding myself, from incorporation with other members of the archaeology department when they were moved into the administrative care of the anthropology department.

• This action by the University occasioned written complaints from my Union.
• It was noted that said move could likely adversely affect my future at the University through no fault of my own. This was later proven to be true when issues of placement were advanced as reasons to deny tenure.
• It was also noted that my exclusion might reflect unfavourably upon me. This later occurred in the various written recommendations to deny me tenure.
• It was also noted that my non-assignment to a department was improper.

• Created under an act of Parliament, the University has a duty to maintain proper industrial procedures. The State Industrial Act recognises that "long standing traditions" of a craft exist as an implict part of industrial relations legislation.
  • There is 'the most ample scope for the continued existance of customs in the trade or industry...' . . . It is not inappropriate to look at the history and surrounding circumstances..."
• I had been repeatedly assured by my supervisors (Professors Taylor and Oxnard) and the Personnel Office (Mr Robin Slater) that certain procedures must be followed in the tenuring process. They were not.
• Letters written by members of staff at UWA, and by Australian and overseas scholars point out that universal standards exist in matters of tenuring and tenure reviews. These standards were never met by the University, an action which has caused the university's reputation to become gravely harmed.

• Given the fact that specific action was taken, and was taken on the grounds of "poor performance," I hold that this constitutes a dismissal for cause rather than simply the "non-renewal of contract." If the grounds for the "non-renewal" were improper and therefore the event should never have occured, then, had proper actions been taken, I would have been tenured as a matter of course. Therefore my case, in effect, is no different than any other dismissal for improper reasons.
• This point was accepted as a valid ground for appeal by the State Industrial Commission.
• Had it been a the belief of the University that my contract was merely "not being renewed" they would not have paid out six month's salary "in lieu of notice." A contract ending on a specific date would not bring this requirment with it.

Judgments have been described in exceedingly ambiguous terms apparently designed to evade the real reasons underlying denial.

False and oftentimes damaging statements have been publicly made about the review process, the reasons for the decision, my "acceptability" to other departments, my personal behaviour, and my academic performance.

False and malicious allegations against me were shown to and discussed with unconcerned parties by members of the Administration. This was done in total contravention of written regulations.

False and likely defamatory public statements have been made about me, with the University going so far as to make false negative claims about the quality of my scholarship and even impuning that I was involved in improper personal relationships with my students.

Documents are said to have disappeared, and the university has refused properly to cooperate with the Freedom of Information Commission, causing complaints to be written about its behaviour in the Commissioner's Judgment.

Officers of the University have falsely claimed to many parties that I "resigned" from my position, and hence have no aveune for appeal. This is a fabrication contradicted by the written record.

The university appears to be willing to indemnify people who are currently not members of the university in civil action. Given advice I have received, their decision effectively prevents such actions because of the huge potential costs I could occur during litigation, costs I cannot afford.

Advice from academics and members of Parliament, confirmed by Press Reports, hold that on more than one occasion the vice-chancellor of another University in Perth sought to intervene with UWA to propose means for resolving the current situation. I understand that UWA was unwilling to cooperate towards this end.

My own early (1993) attempts to find a quiet resolution were repudiated.

The university now publicly pretends that this case is "in the past" and not worthy of further discussion or consideration.

The University may not be fully carrying out its duties as a Government Agency.

• A representative of the Minister for Education has complained to the University about the advice they provided Parliament. His letter has disappeared from university files.
• The Minister for Education has spoken unfavourably about the University's unwillingness to provide information.
• Members of Parliament seek to discover if the University has misled Parliament.

The effect of these actions by UWA has been to destroy my career and my good name, thereby preventing me future employment. For personal reasons, I must remain in Australia.

I have been unable to gain even honorary appointments at universities within Australia so that I might continue with the supervision of my students and apply for grants. This was solely a result of people at other departments not wishing to "get involved" in matters at UWA.

• The University of New England wished earlier to take me on for a period as a visiting scholar. Since these events they were unwilling even to pay my expenses to attend a meeting at that univeristy.
• I was held unaccaptable to the Centre for Human Biology at UWA simply because they feared the "political consequences" of seeking to appoint me on my merits.
• I applied for but was unacceptable for a junior postion at the ANU. I did not even make the "short list," which is, quite frankly, astonishing.
• I applied for a position at UWA to teach agricultural origins and method and theory, my two primary areas of expertise and topics in which I have an international reputation. Again, I did not even make the short list.
• I cannot seek governmental funding without a university position, so I am unable even to attempt to gain funding to be a "free-lance" academic.
• I continue to apply for positions but hold out little hope for myself until my name is cleared.
  • In late 1995 I was nominated for the Foundation Chair in Anthropology and Sociology at Edith Cowan and have cooperated with my nomination by lodging a formal application.
• It is my belief that no matter how well qualified I might be for this position I shall not be judged on my merits until the various false and harmfull allegations which have been made about me are fully retracted by the University of Western Australia.

• I am a dedicated scholar and a teacher. I have had almost five years of my career taken away from me. This is a cost which is impossible to bear and for which no compensation will ever be possible. Appeals, such as this one, continue to be highly diverting from my normal and proper career.

The effect of these actions upon my students has been profound and gravely harmful. I cannot speak for them in this appeal, but hope that their concerns will be heard in some forum so that at least some of the damage may be undone.

Respectfully submitted

/signed/
David J Rindos