Parliamentary Question 1550, Parts 1 & 2
While somewhat technical, the academic award is silent regarding the length of the probationary period. My probationary interval appears to have been was set under the terms of the Tenure and Dismissal Regulations for Academic Staff, as noted above. These regulations (Paragraph 6(1)) clearly state: "Normally . . . an appointment . . . will be converted." This statement raises the natural expectation that only unusually bad performance or an otherwise exceedingly unusual event (such as a severe financial crisis) could bring about denial of tenure.
These same Regulations confirm I was hired into an "established post" (Paragraphs 1 and 2). This meant funding was attached in a permanent manner to my position. The protected financial status given my position and written into my contract was repeatedly abrogated by executive fiat [e.g. Partis to Corvaia, 23 December 1992; Williams to Wood, 3 Feb 1993; Jory to Wood, 4 February 1993; Gale to Taylor, 6 May 1993; Gale to McGeachie, 6 May 1993].
The academic award also specifies the academic requirements for supervisory personnel who would monitor probationary appointments (Award:13(7)c,d). These conditions were met for my first two yearly evaluations (1990, 1991), both of which held my performance to be satisfactory. They were clearly not met in the case of those reports which recommended denial of tenure [3 November and 23 November 1992 (leaked); Wood Report 24 February 1993 (Appendix II)].
Appropriate supervision was available in 1992 or 1993. This person is an academic peer capable of commenting upon the scholarly merit of my work, and is the same person who had written the earlier reports. Utilisation of his services would have been obvious, and would have provided continuity in supervision as well as in academic evaluation [Oxnard to Rindos, 1 December 1994].
From context, I assume the Regulations Governing Tenure and Dismissal are being referred. The cited sections of the Regulations are silent regarding matters of "protection." They specify administrative procedures by which evaluations are implemented .
Procedures to be used in cases of alleged poor performance are detailed in the Award (Sections 13 and 14), are specifically cited in the Regulations (sections 8 and 9), and are detailed in the Policy and Procedures Manual of the University. The specific procedures in the Award and the University Manual were not invoked in my case. Many complaints to this point were made by my Union (see Attachment I).
Any claim by the University that written and widely accepted and implemented procedures did not have to be followed in my case remains just that -- a claim -- and is subject to adjudication. It is uncertain if the conditions of both the Academic Award and the University's own Policy and Procedures Manual can be abrogated by executive fiat.
The Regulations, again, are silent on these issues and specify only that a "report from the Head of Department or other appropriate person" be sent the Vice Chancellor (Paragraph 6b).
The process of review and the establishment of a committee of review, once again, can be established and justified on the basis of the Award andthe University's Policy and Procedures Manual.
This process was not followed in my case. My Union wrote "the university has not complied with the tenure regulations and procedures and the process for review in this case departs from the norm." [Evans to Partis, 19 June 1992]
When discussing my upcoming tenure with the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Partis wrote "it is not clear what action can be taken at this stage. He was given a clean bill of health . . . despite evidence [of] major problems over his performance. . . . it will be very hard to arrive at an objective assessment of his academic performance now. Nevertheless it is essential that this be done if Dr Rindos is to be denied tenure." [Partis to Vice-Chancellor, 7 May 1992]
In contravention of review standards, no yearly report was prepared by my supervisor for 1992, two recommendations for denial of tenure being produced instead. These recommendations [Partis 2 November and 23 November 1992 (leaked), Appendix II] are based on fundamentally non-academic grounds, and are therefore improper.
In establishing the framework for the Tenure Review Committee, Partis established "That neither Dr Rindos nor his representatives be given the opportunity to appear before the review committee." [Partis to Vice-Chancellor, 2 November 1992].
On 6 November Partis wrote the Vice-Chancellor, The Head of Personnel (Ms Zanetic), and Professors Wood, Robson and Jory "A meeting will be held at 7:30 am on Thursday 12 November . . . the tenure review committee will be constituted as recommended in my letter to the Vice-Chancellor of 2nd November."
On about the same day, advice was received by the University from AHEIA. These concerned the inadequacy of certain of Partis' recommendations, made further recommendations about the committee, and recommended that Partis write another report giving new reasons and additional data for denying my tenure. The Comments note that "The issue of Rindos being acceptable to any other department should not be seen as relevant to the Committee's considerations. How to achive this is difficult . . ." and "Thurs [12 Nov] meeting should not go ahead until report revamped." ["Comments", file date 5 November 1992]. I found out that the Committee was canceled less than a day before it was to meet. The only reason provided me was that a Meeting was "premature."
It remains to be determined, in the proper jurisdiction, if these clear protections can be ignored (see Attachment I).
This claim misleads. Both meetings of the Tenure Review Committee were structured such that all discussions of the specific merits of my case occurred in camera. These "observers," therefore, had precious little to observe.
Dr Partis had earlier established the rules for the Committee to include "That FAUSA be invited to nominate a senior member of academic staff ... to attend meetings . . . with observer status." A footnote was attached: "FAUSA's original position was that a senior official . . .should be a member of the tenure review committee to 'see fair play.' I think this would be unwise in that it might well inhibit discussion . .." [Partis to VC 2 November 1992].
This is false and misleading as written. I was never given any extension to my period of probation . Both of the extensions were justified solely for the benefits they provided administrators.
The first six-month extension was "made to allow Dr Partis . . . a reasonable period in which to review [the] appointment." [Gale to Rindos, 13 May 1992]
The second, indefinate, extension was given by Professor Gale "for the period necessary to allow for [her] consideration and decision on the . .. report." [Gale to Rindos, 10 December 1992]
According to University procedures, extensions may be given only as a result of poor performance identified during a normal yearly evaluation [Gale to Oxnard 3 September 1991]. This was not the case with either extension given me. The action resulted in numerous complaints being lodged by my Union (see Attachment I). These data indicate that even if the extensions were not contrived to provide the University administration time to develop effective arguments to deny tenure, the appearance that such an end was in mind appears difficult to avoid. The industrial status, as well as the motivation, for these extensions appear open to question and adjudication will be needed.
As with the misleading claims about the extension, the University also holds that my relocation to the Geography Department was done to increase the hope that I might achieve tenure.
"I note that both your relocation to Geography and the previous extnesion of probation were designed to assist [your performance]" [Galeto Rindos, 10 June 1994]
"He had earlier been transferred . . . to remove him from the alleged interpersonal conflicts and give him greater opportunity to prove himself. The . . . [tenure] extension was granted . . . along with his earlier placement in Geography to allow him more opportunity to satisfy the requirements of a tenured appointment." [Summary of Events, file date25 June 1993]
My transfer to Geography, in fact, was arranged to protect myself and some students from a pattern of ongoing harassment. As Professor Moulden notes he has formed the belief that it resulted from the recognition that "life would become too difficult for you and some of the students if, having between you made a number of complaints about the management of the department, you were to find yourself under the same management regime." [Moulden to Rindos 23 May 1994].
The transfer, however, was short-lived. Professor Oxnard, who had arranged the transfer, indicates that "The move to Geography worked. . . . You became research productive there (even though that 'good' period only lasted for about nine months and not much long term work can be done in even nine months)."
Following a meeting between the Vice-Chancellor and several of my students (also attended by Professor Sargent, Chairman, and the Secretary of the PhD Committee) one student wrote:
"This brings me to by far the most important result of our meeting: that, to the bewilderment of my felllow students and I, you expressed your ignorance of the fact that by the end of February 1992 Dr Rindos was, I believe under protest, removed from the Geography Department and placed back into the late Archaeology Department . . . and your conviction that [Rindos] had been based in the Geography Department throughout the past two years."
The student ended his letter: "Professor Gale, in the name of justice, fair play and the advance of science and anything this university stands for, I appeal to you to ask the Senate . . . to allow you to reconsider your decision . .. on the grounds that at the time you were not properly informed on vital facts pertaining to that decision." [de Winter to Gale,22 June 1993]
A confidential statement provided to my legal advisors by Professor Robert Parfitt [21 February 1994] places an entirely different complexion upon the genesis of the Archaeology Review. Professor Parfitt was Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research, and Chairman of the PhD Committee, and was ultimately responsible in these capacities for issues relevant to manymatters under discussion here. I am certain that ways exist in which this document could be provided to you.
Professor Oxnard claims events which had come to his attention in Archaeology caused him to be "very much concerned about the Department of Archaeology as a whole. Therefore, when the Vice Chancellor requested from me the names of three Departments to undergo a new review process, I put down Archaeology as a candidate. Professor Bowdler was not happy with this but she could not prevent it. My reasoning here was that there were many problems, . . . that students were complaining loudly but never willing to actually lay any charges, that there were widspread but unwritten rumours of complaint about departmental teaching and about [Professor Bowdler]." [Oxnard to Rindos 1 December 1993, pg 5]
The most important findings of the Archaeology Review are summarised in a "confidential and in confidence" memorandum written by Professors Bruce and Moulden and circulated to high university adminstrators including Professors Jory and Robson, the Vice Chancellor and, later, DrPartis. I understand greater detail was presented verbally. This document must be consulted for an understanding of the seriousness of issues involved, as may be seen in the following quotations:
"In the course of our Academic Review certain matters were forced uponour attention. These consisted of a number of serous allegations . . . sufficiently grave, sufficently numerous, sufficiently consistent and potentially sufficiently damaging to the ideals and the reputation of this University that we could not as individuals ignore them and feel that the University as an institution likewise cannot afford to ignore them. . . . there are sufficient grounds for concern to suggest that the allegations be investigated by a properly constituted body of enquiry. . . . if anyone of them proved to be true then urgent and vigorous action would, we feel, be necessary. . . . [pg 1]
"Most of the verbal and written allegations received related to three issues.
"(1) It was alleged that a number of graduate and undergraduate students had had sexual relations with a member of staff [they refer here to Professor Sandra Bowdler] and that this had been followed by favoured treatment of some (for example, in terms of grants and jobs within the Department) and apparent victimisation of others (including public ridicule and denial of fair opportunity).
"(2) It was alleged that an environment had been fostered in which cynicism and ridicule were used to promote certain theoretic approaches and denigrate others, and that this stultified free academic exchange, damaged academic reputations and integrity, and ultimatly severely retarded academic growth, particlarly of some promising postgraduate students."
"(3) Because the Director of the Centre of Prehistory [they refer hereto Professor Bowdler] has an influential position on a number of relevant committees outside the University, there was alleged to be a conflict of interest regarding the University's involvement in commercial arcaheology. We were told that this could damage both the university's repuation and its finances."
"In summary, our current and considered view is that it would be potentially very damaging for the university as an institution and for the university community if these allegations were not now fully investigated by a committee or panel properly empowered to do so." [pg2], [Bruce and Moulden, 16 January 1992].
If this statement is true, it represents a change from a previously "Strictly Confidential" classification.
As far as I am aware, the Report was circulated "in confidence" to members of the Archaeology Department (including myself since I had been returned to Archaeology by that time, February 1992). I believe copies also were given to quite a large number of administrators at theUniversity. Nevertheless, quotes from it have appeared in the media. Given its "confidential" classification, this precipitated strong complaints of "malicious intent," given public quotation [Students to Gale, CC:PSA, Senate, 25 March 1992]. In a letter of the same date, Professor Bowdler also makes much of the "damaging" nature of the release of this "confidential" report [Bowder to Partis, CC: very widely, 25 March1992].
Apparently because the Review document was deemed confidential, it was not supplied to my Tenure Review Committee, or to Professors Hotop and Clyde (who did the second review) [Rindos to Gale, 15 April 1993 (Appendix II), pg 16]. Documented Reply to 1548 [2]
A surfeit of documentation proves the Hotop Clyde investigation was precipitated by, connected to, and therefore dealt with the same, and related, matters as the Bruce Review.
I begin with the obvious: the answer to this Parliamentary Question [1548 (3)] makes note of "matters raised in either review." By context, the two reviews thus indicated would be the Bruce Review and the Hotop/Clyde Review.
Other documentation providing indication for the terms of reference of the Hotop and Clyde investigation include:
A call for follow-up written submissions to the Vice Chancellor distributed by Professor Bruce [28 January 1992].
Gale to Partis [28 February 1992]. "I have asked Associate Professor Hotop and Professor Clyde to advise me what action should be taken regarding the review report . .. and the submissions received relating to this review.
The Australian 11 March 1992: "an internal inquiry by two senior academics. They will have to examine a wide range of complaints..."
The Sunday Times 22 March 1992: "Professor Gale . . . asked . . . Hotop and . . . Clyde to follow up matters for the review."
The Australian 25 March 1992: "Professor Gale has convened a two man committee who were asked 'to followup matters'. . .
The West Australian 27 May 1992: "Professor Gale asked [Hotop and Clyde] for further recommendations."
"Summary of Events" provided Professor Stanley [carrying my filing date of 25 June 1993]: "I therefore asked [Clyde and Hotop] to provide further advice . . . "
Numerous other references to this matter could be supplied.
I also note, without intending disrespect, that the question as asked was never answered. The question sought information regarding the findings of this second report. It would appear this question can be answered only by viewing the report.
I requested the Hotop Clyde Report under FOI but was refused by the Vice-Chancellor. Related documents were also refused supply, but I have been unable to ascertain how many or which documents are included in the blanket refusal. Action is pending on this matter with the State FOI Office.
This claim is false. I was denied tenure for reasons directly connected to matters considered by the Bruce Committee during its Review of the Archaeology Department (of the Hotop/Clyde report I cannot speak).
Matters at the heart of the Bruce Report are specifically mentioned by the Vice-Chancellor in the letter in which I am denied tenure and dismissed:
"There are matters in addition to those canvassed by the [Wood Tenure Review] Committee about which I also hold serious reservations. Firstly, in your response you make it clear that difficulties between yourself and Professor Bowdler, which you strongly imply have interfered with your academic performance, remain ever present. Furthermore, the scope of the Archaeology programme is under scrutiny and some reductions have already been made." [Gale to Rindos, 10 June 1993]
The connection between the "scrutiny" of Archaeology at UWA and the two reviews is self-evident given that it is they which provided initial scrutiny. I could provide a large number of references, both in the press and in internal documents, to the scrutiny to which the Archaeology programme at UWA has been subjected. This grew in intensity beginning in early 1992 when information from the Bruce Review first began to become public knowledge, and it has continued in various forms since. Clearly this scrutiny continues in the raising of questions and in my comments upon the answers.
In a University Press Release it is clearly stated:
"Taking into acccount . . . all aspects of Dr Rindos' work performance, including Dr Rindos' difficulties in working in a team with academic colleagues , Professor Gale made a proper decision that tenure should not be granted." [UWA, 28 June 1993]
I note this misleading characterisation of myself and the problems in archaeology was widely reported in the Press at that time [data on request]. Such claims by the University began almost one and one-half years before I was denied tenure.
The first reference I have to comments about "interpersonal disputes" underlying the problems in the Archaeology is a letter I wrote to the Vice-Chancellor on 26 February 1992 (this was at the same time I was returned to the Archaeology Department). In this letter I convey my distress that I had been called by a journalist and asked questions about the "personality conflict" which Mr Orr, the Registrar, had claimed led to the problems in Archaeology. I denied that such conflicts were cause of the problems in that Department, and stressed that such statements were potentially damaging to me. I also reported a long disucssion with Mr Orr on the subject. I noted Mr Orr had said that he had been "misinformed," that he had made the statement to keep matters "quiet," and that he would ensure that the statements would be retracted. I concluded my letter to the VC saying that my new Head of Department, Dr Partis had been unable to help me with this problem and so I had to turn to her.
In her reply [28 February], Professor Gale referred me to Dr Partis. (Both of these letters appear to have disappeared from University files. This matter is being pursued via the State FOI Office).
The University has maintained that a "personality dispute" caused the problems in Archaeology ever since problems first began becoming public.
"[Hotop and Clyde] will have to examine a wide range of complaints, mostly contained in a hundred-page document lodged by another staff member to the recently completed routine review . . . Dr Rindos is understood to have outlined his wideranging dissatisfaction with . . . Professor Bowdler. . . . Last year Dr Rindos was transferred . . . to reduce tension. . . .
"Professor Bowdler. . . consults widely on natural heritage . . . It is understood professional differences in assessing the value of such contract work, including various reports on the State's most controversial mining projects at Yakabindi and Marandoo . . . are amoung the wide-ranging differences between the two department academics." [The Australian 11 March 1992]
In a press release given wide coverage the University held:
"On [Hotop and Clyde's] recommendation it was necessary to take further steps in relation to the management and interpersonal relationships in the department. It is clearly a very small department which two academics with quite different views about the discipline and quite different personalities had let to a division into two sectors. An enormous amount of criticism was levelled from one sector to another. There were also various unconfirmed reports of relationships within the department, which were damaging its objectivity. I was asked to follow these up." [UWA, file date 25 May 1992]
A Summary of Events provided one year later makes essentially identical claims, save that the Bruce rather than Hotop Clyde report is now attributed: "The [Bruce Review Committee] report suggested that alleged difficulties in both management and interpersonal relationships should be further investigated. It was clearly a very small department where two academics with quite different views about the discipline and quite different personalities had let to a division into two sectors." [file date 25 June 1993]
It is important to note that Dr Partis based both of his recommendations to deny tenure solely on issues of structure and personality. In these recommendations, academic performance was given little attention.
"It is widely known that the Department of Archaeology has been the setting for an internecine dispute in which Dr Rindos was a main player...
"In my view [his] actions go far beyond the exercise of academic freedom. Dr Rindos was appointed as a staff memeber in the Department of Archaeology and proved quite incapable of working within that Department. . . .
"If Dr Rindos were to be given tenure I see no prospect of him being absorbed as a regular staff member in any of our established departments. . . . Whilst it might be argued that the University has made the structural decisions and managerial decision which have side-lined him, I do not accept this conclusion. In my considered view the situation in which David Rindos finds himself is largely of his own making. Accordingly, I recommend that Dr Rindos be denied tenure." [Partis, 2 November 1992 (leaked), (Appendix II)].
"In the last eighteen months Dr Rindos has declined to work with his colleagues in Archaeology, and has not been prepared to accept the authority of, firstly. Professor Bowdler as Head of Department, and, more recently, myself as Head of Divsion.
"[I]t should be crystal clear that he has been quite unable to work with the other specialists in the field. He has had a major destablising effect on the discipline of Archaeology and, according to a number of reports, has been prepared to personally denigrate other staff members. . . .
"It is against this background that the Head of Anthropology, with the full backing of his department, declined to accept Dr Rindos as a staff member. In his view there was ample evidence to suggest that Dr Rindos' presence would result in a repeat of the dissention which had produced such major tension . . . In that event the stability of the Department of Anthroplogy would itself have been threatened. I would have to say I entirely endorse [this] stand. . .
"The heart of the case for denying tenure is that Dr Rindos has demonstrated no capacity for working with other members of academic staff. A possible home might be found for him in Geography or Anatomy and Human Biology, but these are not departments which teach Archaeology. The Department of Anthropology, which is charged with responsibility for the discipline of Archaeology is not prepared to accept him under any circumstances. Their stand is entirely justified by the behaviour of Dr Rindos and his unwillingness to work with the other Archaeologists. I believe the University has no option but to deny tenure." [Partis, 23 November 1992 (leaked), (Appendix II)].
The Report of the Wood Committee makes sustained reference to concerns of personality in their recommendation to deny tenure.
Wood's discussion of "The Data" used by the Committee in its deliberations considers little other than this topic:
"It quickly becaome apparent to the Committee that much of the available information about Dr Rindos was a reflection of positions taken regarding his ability to work with other staff. .. .
"The Committee accepted that there was a camp that felt that Dr Rindos could not work with others and another camp that felt he was highly capable and would succceed in the right envrionment. . . . While recongnising the issues involved on both sides, the Committee was of the view that neither the support for Dr Rindos nor the criticisms of him were predominant. [pg 4]
"We did not consider the impact of interpersonal relationships and the actions of other staff on Dr Rindos' performance . . .This was not meant to refute Dr Partis in presenting his recommendation that Dr Rindos not be granted a 'Permanent Appointment Not Subject to Review.' In his role as Head of Division, Dr Partis would have had more direct knowledge of these issues. The Committee felt that the doucmented evidence available to them could not be used to produce a valid assessment of how these factors impacted on Dr Rindos' performance or whether these factors were beyond Dr Rindos' control." [pg 5]
Under "The Reasons" to recommend denying tenure they note:
"Members of the Committee found it difficult to judge Dr Rindos' contribution to University service independently of criticism made by fellow archaeologists . . . " [Wood to Gale, 24 February 1994 (Appendix II)]. This statement, like others, clearly implies, despite repeated assurances to the contrary, that such negative evidence was considered by the Wood Committee.
Inclusion of issues of personality and structure as grounds for denial of tenure were protested by my Union:
"I note your letter advising . . . of your decision not to convert Dr Rindos' appointment to an appointment not subject to review.
"You indicate in your decision that you have considered a number of factors not least of all the recommendation of the Tenure Review Committee.
"I refer particularly to your reference to difficulties between Dr Rindos and Professor Bowdler, [and] changes in the scope of the Archaeology programme that are directly relevant to (although presumably not a consequence of) the non confirmation of Dr Rindos' Tenure" [Crampton to Gale, 17 June 1993].
Documented Reply to 1549 [1] "Reasons"
In my reply to the previous question I show that numerous claims were advanced in various documents recommending and confirming denial of tenure. These involved (1) Structural claims (2) Personality claims, and (3) Performance claims. All of these claims can be demonstrated to be, to one extent or another, invalid, improper, undefended, irrelevant, or untrue [Rindos to Gale, 15 April and 24 May 1993 (Appendix II)].
Performance matters were mentioned by the Wood Committee's recommendation. Just before suggesting denial of tenure, they state:
"Dr Rindos' performance was satisfactory prior to his joining the University of Western Australia and we were unable to judge whether the drop in his research output over the last three and half years was due to factors that were attributable to him or beyond his control. I would stress that the Committee based its judgements solely on the research output mentioned above and set aside the possible effects of external circumstance that may have affected Dr Rindos' performance in this area. " [24 February 1994 (Appendix II), pg 6, emphasis added]
Public statements by the University, however, present the findings of the Committee in quite another form:
"the Tenure Review Commmittee's recommendation . . . was that, notwithstanding any mitigating circumstances that existed , his teaching and research did not measure up . . ." [UWA, 29 June 1993, pg 2, emphasis added]
"The [Committee's] recommendation, following a long review process which included independent international input, was that, notwithstanding any mitigating circumstances that existed, his teaching and research did not measure up . . . [Gale to Staff, UWA, 30 June 1993]
These quotations misrepresent the Committee regarding mitigating circumstances. Clearly, to be "unable to judge" and hence "to set aside" from consideration, means that such factors were not taken into account. "Notwithstanding" means they were taken into account. The two formulations contradict.
The quotations above also make other false claims:
The Committee judged my teaching "satisfactory" [24 February 1994 (Appendix II), pg 5]. The claim above regarding teaching, besides contradicting the answer as given to Question 1548 by adding "teaching" to reasons for denial of tenure, is also factually inaccurate. Tenure is dependent upon "satisfactory" performance.
The Committe's evaluation of my teaching had to be done on the basis of very limited evidence. At the time of the Review my previous teaching reviews had disappeared from University files [Wood Report, Appendix II, pg 3]. These (supportive) reviews were later found (apparently in the Vice Chancellory), and were supplied via FOI in the last few months.
I also note, in terms of the second quotation above, that (to the best of my knowledge) all of the 50-odd letters providing such international input" to my case involved strong statements of support and calls that I be tenured. This fact had to be known to the University, but the imputation drawn from the words, as given, is quite otherwise.
Hidden Reasons?
Mention must be made of other possible reasons for denial of tenure. These go well beyond the "official," public positions taken by the University. The possibility of "hidden" reasons for the denial of tenure is first reported in the Press:
After noting the public reasons of performance, structure, and personality as mentioned in Gale's letter of dismissal to me, the reporters continue: "But according to campus sources, some senior university administrators were privately claiming that there was [another] reason they could not disclose." Sunday Times, 27 June 1993.
Of possible interest, both the UWA media release and the Vice-Chancellor's Memo to Staff contain these words:
"Testimonials as to the quality of work done by Dr Rindos in other academic environments in the 1980's, of which many of the writers appear to have had very limited first-hand knowledge, seemed to have only marginal relevance to the current issue the University was trying to resolve ." [Gale to Staff, 30 June 1993; UWA, 29 June 1993, pg 2, emphasis added]
Among these "writers" who are alleged to have "limited first hand knowledge" are included the Heads and other members of staff from every single one of the previous three universities at which I have been employed. Supporting statements were also sent by members of my PhD committee and others familiar with while I was a student at Cornell University.
Seemingly related statements pointing to some general, albeit not clearly spelled-out problems, are made by the University.
"The Rindos case has caused much anguish to many people . The decision not to grant tenure was not taken lightly, or without careful consideration of the implications, both for the individual and for others involved in the case. My primary concern however, had to be for the general good of the University community . . ." [Gale to Staff, 30 June 1993, pg 3]
"the claims of the several parties who have become involved in the dispute have inevietably touched un some very personal and sensitive issues . . . This kind of material is not appropriate for public reference " [ibid. pg 1]
"The review process and the recommendations resulting it have been quite wrongly associated with sexual politics and with personal and even academic prejudices . . . [ibid. pg 1]
"The secondary issues of this case, such as personal relationships between staff and students, which have diverted the focus of attention from the quality consideration, are of course matters of serious concern. These are matters on which absolute confidentiality has to be maintained. They have been and will continue to be resolved through established University procedures. They were not, however, taken into account in determining that tenure should not be granted to Dr Rindos." [ibid. pg 1]
I, as well as others, have been forced to wonder why such matters were even raised in the Vice-Chancellor's memo, especially if, as claimed, they were not "taken into account."
"The obvious interpretation here is that Dr Rindos is guilty of some wrong doing regarding personal relationships with students, but that this was not used as evidence against him in reaching the decision to deny him tenure." [Gray to Rindos, 12 Dec 1993].
False Allegations
As documented in Attachment II(B), numerous allegations of a false, and possibly defamatory, nature were made against me. These included but not limited to: plagiarism, unprofessional activities, bad teaching, financial mismanagement, ailignment with "non-accredited consultants," intimidation, attempts to get rid of the Australian staff and replace them with Americans, sexual harassment (of both females and males), "anti-aboriginal" attitudes, the promotion of pornography, and the creation of a "campaign" to harm Professor Bowdler. These written complaints were placed into University files by members of the Department of Archaeology over a period of several years.
The contents of those letters now known to me are upsetting in the extreme, and the negative allegations made are uniformly false and likely malicious and defamatory. All of the letters hold my academic performance and personal life to ridicule, and several make strong claims that a "campaign" spear-headed by me somehow "created" the findings documented by the Bruce Committee.
Professor Bruce gives public notice to a number of the charges made against me. Regarding the sexual harassment charges he notes that he "and others [at UWA] were told that the University was considering laying a charge of sexual harassment against Dr Rindos. That this charge was not pursued indicates to me that it was without foundation. However, the effect of this threatened charge must have been very damaging . . . A pending or possible charge should never have been revealed to me or others" (in total contravention of written conditions of binding confidentiality, I might add). Bruce believes the "Univerity owes [Rindos] an apology and should fully investigate whether such implied charges were based on mischevious information."
Regarding allegations of plagarism Bruce says: "After careful investigation . . . this charge was deemed to be without foundation but would have added to the stress placed on Dr Rindos. " [Bruce, 20 March 1993, pg 3].
Professor Bruce responds strongly to claims of a campaign: "[Professor Bowdler] presents her view that the major problem within the Department relates to a particular academic staff member, namely Dr Rindos, and a group of students currently working with him. She has referred to this as the 'Rindos affair' and claims that he and his cohorts have conducted a campaign to bring discredit to the Department and to Professor Bowdler personally. Further she claims 'there are clear indications that this campaign did indeed bear fruit.
"We reject this interpretation unreservedly. As we have written to you, the number and gravity of the allegations concern abuse of academic power and the wide range of their sources, impelled us to concentrate much of our attention on these matters since if the allgeations were found to have a foundation, clearly they would have major impact on the academic health of the Department. In so doing, we had to be very sure that the allegations were not just part of a campaign . . . We are convinced that . . . allegations we received did not just emanate from one group. There was a clear indication of serious problems within the Department . . . that began well before Dr Rindos was appointed." [Bruce, file notes, letter to Vice-Chancellor, 5 February 1992]
Hidden Allegations
It was only by means of Freedom of Information proceedings that any of these highly damaging documents came to my attention. These letters must, and will, become subject to proper legal response; the process already has begun in some of the cases. Unfortunately, given the large number of documents involved and their oftentimes intertwined (possibly even conspiratorial) nature, it will likely take a substantial amount of time and effort (not to mention money) before these matters are settled.
But this leads to the most troubling fact of all: not only were these letters written, placed into files, and never shown to me, but evidence exists that their unavailability was designed and that they might have been used (even if not specifically cited) in the decision to deny tenure.
Internal communications of the University indicate that certain, unspecified, "negative reports and warning notes" were willfully placed into a special file and thereby became totally hidden from myself or my representatives. In a memorandum from the Principal Industrial Officer, Mr Slater, to the Acting Director Personnel Services, Mr Bandt, it is written:
"University policy on personnel files requires that the member of staff can view their file on application . . . The policy also requires that no statement about a staff member's unsatisfactory work performance (actual or alleged) may be placed on the file without it first being sighted and signed and a copy made to the officer.
"In this situation it is then understandable that Professor Bowdler's comments, Professor Taylor's comment and the 'warning notes' would not be on file since they have not been provided to Dr Rindos.
"In this particular case the issues are most sensitive and clearly personalities are involved . To place the Bowdler Report and indeed Professor Oxnards's full report on Dr Rindos' file would of course mean that he (Rindos) would have every right to see them . In the particular circumstances I cannot see that doing so will in any way enhance the situation. However, those documents (and others) are relevant to the whole situation and must come into consideration. "
Mr Slater then speaks to the way in which my tenure review period might be extended, giving special note that the extension "can be justified on the basis of the change in headship."
"Dr Partis, in his capacity as Head of the Department, should be aware of all of the correspondence which has been received -- including the 'in confidence' memos to Professor Oxnard from members of the academic staff of the department (these cannot be put on Dr Rindos' file).
He then turns to the specific University procedures which must be followed if tenure is successfully to be denied and concludes:
"Given all the surrounding circumstances it will be extremely important that the process of Dr Partis' review of Dr Rindos for tenure be carefully managed. " [Slater to Bandt, 6 May 1992, emphases added]
By December 1992 when the first extension of my probationary period was coming to an end, and having no more knowledge but that some sort of a "negative recommendation" had been made by Dr Partis, I wrote to the Vice Chancellor. I asked her to confirm my tenure on the grounds that my academic performance had been satisfatory in my yearly reviews. I, of course, suspected negative comments existed, even though I had not seen any. Therefore I wrote to her:
"I respectfully request that if you have any evidence of inadequate performance, that such evidence be forwarded in writing to me immediately. The requirements of natural justice make it clear that if any substantive allegations of unsatisfactory performance have been made, then I must be given the opportunity to review such evidence and contest the matter in an appropriate manner." [Rindos to Gale 4 December 1992].
Professor Gale responded: "Until [a Tenure Review Committee's] report is received it would be inappropriate for me to deal with the request contained in your letter. You have my assurance that the requirements of natural justice will be adhered to in this matter." [Gale to Rindos, 10 December 1992]
In sum, it appears hard to avoid the conclusion that highly damaging documents were filed in such a manner that it became impossible for me to become aware of, no less respond to, charges made in them. Furthermore, and of grave significance, it is clearly stated, on more than one occsion, that these documents were relevant to the question of my tenuring and that they must come into consideration. The constant and repeated reference to negative claims made about me in all documents recommending denial of tenure clearly indicates they were brought into consideration.
Charges appear to have been locked away in a "secret" file which was held in an unspecified location, and I did not see them. However, this appears not the case with others. The President of the Guild of Undergraduates was apparently allowed, by Professor Gale herself, to view a "secret file" relating to me and stored in the Vice-Chancellor's office. [Budrikis, May 1994].
All in all, it strikes me that the "true" reason I was denied tenure remains somewhat unclear at this point in time. However, I am certain that as litigation proceeds these matters will become increasingly obvious.
Documented Reply to 1549 [2] "Standards"
The "standards" applied to my case are given prominence in both parts of Question 1549. Yet, even the Vice-Chancellor apparently felt a certain disquiet on this issue. In her memorandum distributed to all academic staff at the University [30 June 1993] she notes:
"It has been argued, in particular in a petition . . . that it is unreasonable to require a member of staff to satisify performance criteria without specifying in detail what those criteria are. While I am sympathetic to this argument, in principle, we have procedures in place to ensure that sufficient guidance on the standards expected is given . . . through statements of duties, and through feed-back from the continuing review process . . ."
Procedure, again, is invoked in answer to a question raised about the decision itself. Yet, both of my yearly reviews which preceded the recommendations to deny tenure judged my performance to be satisfactory. Hence, even had real problems existed with my performance (which was not the case), I was never so informed.
Application of standards also raises questions. A few of the many unusual procedures adopted during my review include:
The copy of my yearly report supplied the Comittee and the outside referees was not the final version. The final version of my report dated 31 July 1992 seems to be missing from all university files. My compilation of teaching and research activities since arrival, amounting to some 800 or more single-spaced pages, which was demanded by Dr Partis (and the production of which caused cancellation of my research during winter 1992) was apparently never seen and was not commented upon. Professor Wood judged it to be not "comprehensible" to members of the Committee.
Published papers accepted as part of an earlier performance review were specifically excluded from consideration. No mention was made of my exceptionally high citation rate. Work in progress was neither read by members of the Committe, nor was it supplied, despite repeated requests, to the outside referees. A copy of my publication list was never supplied to these referees, again despite repeated requests and reassurances that this had, in fact, occurred. As a result of the non-supply of my vita, one of the outside referees made his recommendation under the misapprehension that my previous one years' work represented my total research productivity since arriving at UWA (he wrote that the record as given did not indicate a "particularly strong" case for tenure, but publication of a paper under review would greatly increase my case, and, furthermore, that well-known extenuating circumstances would have to be considered).
The spanish translation of my book was dismissed without mention, save that as a "reprint" [!] it was irrelevant to tenuring. My volumnous teaching materials and class-room handouts were apparently left unconsulted by members of the Committee and were not sent for outside review. A paper I published on an innovative teaching method was dismissed as being unrelated to my tenure claim. A major, and ground-breaking, project I had initiated to develop an international Anthropology network service, to be based at UWA and commented upon most favourably by many scholars, was totally ignored. All of my teaching reviews, save for the ones from classes I had taught while in Geography, suddenly went "missing." Written evidence proves they were earlier held in Archaeology Departmental files. They have reappeared and were supplied under FOI this year.
As part of the Wood Review I was asked to provide extraordinary, and possibly unethical, written advice from Editors regarding the likely publication of manuscripts submitted for peer review. This "standard" invoked by the Wood committee (requiring work to be already published or to have written proof of being close to same) would seem to place the matter of tenuring, in large part, upon the speed which with editors can get a manuscript through the review process and into print, rather than upon the applicatant's merit. The Committee refused to consider work in progress as relevant.
Given that the Committee excluded work published during my first year in residence (on the grounds that it had been done "before my arrival at UWA"), and that the Committee excluded work in progress or under review (on the grounds that it was not "published") the Committee very effectively minimised the amount of research which it even allowed into consideration during their deliberations.
The many grave problems evidenced during the Wood Review are described in Appendix II [Rindos to Gale 15 April 1993, 27 May 1993]. Professor Wood wrote a reply to my document of 15 April, but this has been refused supply. The issue rests with the State Office.
The very question of what is meant by "standards" becomes highly problematical in terms of the Wood Committe's Report. They write in discussion of the "Standards" to be applied to my case:
"In discussing the standards to be applied, the Committe recognised that it would be possible to identify individuals . . . with lower performance . . . However, the Committee rejected using a 'lowest common denominator' approach in judging . . . This decision was based on several points. First, the University . . . . has made a clear public committment to high quality standards . . . In recent years, there has been an increasing use of short term contracts to avoid appointment to tenurable position before the University has had a chance to establish the quality of a staff member . . . Finally, members of the Committee believed that all staff converted to "Permanent Appointment Not Subject To Review" at the Senior Lecturer Level in the last three years have had a higher level of performance than Dr Rindos during the probationary period. " [24 February 1993 (Appendix II), pg 3, emphasis added].
I point out to avoid (an understandable) misunderstanding, these words are written in the section of the Report in which "The Standards" to be applied to my case were enumerated. One of the "standards" applied to me was the "belief" that my performance was below that of all others granted tenure in recent years.
I am at a loss for words with which evaluate this "standard."
I note, with no disrespect intended, that the question as asked has not been answered. The question spoke specifically to the "committee's recommendation on comparative productivity statistics." The answer said that such did not exist. This is untrue. The Committee Report's discussion of Standards finished (following directly upon the underscored quotation given above):
"This belief was based largely on information provided by Professor Robson who has been Chair of the Promotions Consultative Commitee. It is a matter which could be confirmed or refuted through a review of the relevant personnel files. " [emphasis added]
The committee made a clear recommendation that files be reviewed to ensure that Professor Robson's subjective "belief" was correct. The answer to question 1549 (2) should have told us if the University had performed such a review of the relevant personnel files or not; whether this "standard of performance" was ever subject to a test of factuality as demanded by the Committee itself. How does my performance compare to persons granted tenure in recent years?
Despite my clear request [Rindos to Gale, 15 April 1993] that this data be provided, as earlier was requested by the Committee, such was never done. Some performance data relevant to this issue are now in my posession and can be provided upon request. I also note the following from the Professor of Surgery at UWA:
"I have obtained a copy of Dr Rindos' Curriculum Vitae. There is not the slightest doubt that the output and international standing of Dr Rindos is far in excess of some other appointees within the University who have been granted [permanent] positions at either Senior Lecturure or Associate Professorial status within the past three years. . . . While I have not been party to any of the discussions of the Tenure Review Committee, regarding Dr Rindos' academic performance there appears to be a glaring double standard." [Gray to Rindos 12 December 1993].
The University has referred directly to the issue of "future productivity."
"The determination of the tenure review committee was based on an assessment of the relative levels of performance and promise of performance" [UWA, media release, 29 June 1993]
"the central issue [is] academic performance and promise of performance by a member of staff seeking a tenured appointment."
"The determination of the tenure review committee . . . was based on an assessment of the relative levels of performance and promise of performance" [Gale to Staff, 30 June 1993]
I assume no claims of prescience are being made. Instead, it appears structural matters are again referred:
"I . . . investigated the possiblity of placing him in another department. I established that no department was willing to accept him as a member of staff. Thus since he did not meet academic critera for tenure and no position could be found for him . . .the University was not in a position to offer him a permanent position." [Summary of Events, file date 25 June 1994]
"I also took into acccount Dr Rindos' ability to be an effective member of an existing university academic programme. Clearly it is essential, when granting tenure, that there is a long-term role within an academic discipline for a particular staff member. This was not so, in the case of Dr Rindos." [Gale to Crampton 29 June 1993]
As demonstrated earlier, both of Dr Partis' recommendations to deny tenure were, in essence, calls to deny tenure on Structural grounds. This decision had been made long before my review began:
"When we discussed [Rindos' tenure] you based your argument primarily on managerial grounds, not on grounds of academic principle or natural justice. I am not a blind idealist. I have no difficulty in imagining cases in which I might be prepared to subordinate high-minded principles and take a managerial action . . . The poisition you put to me seemed at first sight to be such a case, given the two stark alternative you offered, namely either to deny tenure and live with the consequences or to grant tenure and have Rindos rattingly around without a department for twenty years." [Moulden to Partis, 12 June 1992].
That other departments had been approached, without success, to place me has also been given considerable attention (I set aside the apparent contradiction in exploring such relocation given my alleged unsatisfactory performance).
"I also investigated the possibility of placing him in another department. I established that no department was willing to accept him as a member of staff." [Summary of Events, file date 25 June 1993]
"I also took into account Dr Rindos' ability to be an effective member of an existing university academic programme." [Gale to Crampton, 29 June 1993]
"The recent posting by Hugh Jarvis describes a supposed case of suppression involving Dr David Rindos. This is a highly inaccurate version of these events. To single out but one inaccuracy, far from any other department at UWA being "enthusiastic" about Dr Rindos joining their staff, NOT A SINGLE department has been willing to have him, despite generous conditions offered by the university. Anyone who wants to know the truth should contact someone else at UWA, such as the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Head of Academic Board, Senate etc - unless they are ALL believed to be involved in some conspiracy." [Sandra Bowdler, 25 June 1993] (I set aside how Professor Bowdler could have known any terms for discussion.)
As in other matters, statments about my "unacceptablity" to other departments mislead. Dr Paul O'Higgins replied to Bowdler:
"As a member of one of the departments . . . unable to accept Dr Rindos I feel that I must clarify the comment made in Professor Bowdler's letter. Unfortunately Professor Bowdler's note could be taken to imply that our inability to accept Dr Rindos in some way reflects on his academic standing, quality, or integrity.
"This is not the case.
"The University . . . did indeed approach the members of the Department of Anatomy and Human Biology at an extraordinary meeting to "offer" us Dr Rindos. The members of the department were somewhat taken aback by the terms of the offer and the conditions under which it was made. In contrast to Professor Bowdler's assessment we felt that the offer was very poor in that no long term commitment to funding Dr Rindos' was made. Furthermore we were not given adequate time to assess the academic implications of the offer.
"As such our department voted to reject the Universities' offer SOLEY on the grounds that it was not viable economically. At the same time we hoped we had made it clear that this rejection was in NO WAY INTENDED TO REFLECT ON DR RINDOS' ACADEMIC ABILITY OR STANDING.
"In other words given the same terms we would have rejected Albert Einstein." [Paul O'Higgins, 26 June 1993]
Internal university communications prove Dr O'Higgins' correct. Professor Gale wrote to the Heads of Geography and Anatomy and Human Biology:
"It has been mentioned to me verbally, that [your department] would be willing to find a suitable position for Dr David Rindos.
"There is, of course, no central funding available for recurrent positions." [Gale to Taylor, Gale to McGeachie 6 May 1993]
Professor Taylor of Geography replied: "I am afraid that we do not have the funding for such a position." [Taylor to Gale, 13 May 1993]
Professor McGeachie replied that Anatomy would gladly consider my relocation to their Department's Centre where my skills would be most appropriately used. He wrote "Rindos does have an excellent international reputation . . . his ongoing research and teaching is worthy of support. . . . Dr Rindos [holds] an established position as a Lecturer . . . [therefore] funding could be transferred to another Division so that he could establish a new home department without becoming an encumbrance on [our] department's resources. . . . I must admit some concern at your comment that 'there is, of course no central funding . . .', Dr Rindos is in fact already funded." [McGeachie to Gale, 14 May 1993]
These terms were refused by the Vice-Chancellor. One week before I was denied tenure, Professor Wood wrote, summarising the situation at that time, "In response to the Vice-Chancellor's request both [departments] responded . . . that there was no place for Dr Rindos under the [financial] terms spelt out in [her] letter." He then asked Profesor Oxnard to confirm their Departments' decision under the terms offered them. [Wood to Oxnard, 4 June 1993]
Professor Oxnard replied Anatomy "did discuss the matter and the answer is unanimous on two counts (1) the answer was 'no', and (2) that the reasons had nothing to do with the academic merits of the case." [Oxnard to Wood 7 June 1993]
While funding is always of concern, my contract provided me an "established post." It remains highly questionable if this contractual, protected status can be revoked by administrative fiat.
Furthermore, using administrative funding powers to influence tenuring decisions goes against any and all proper standards for academic decision-making. Had the University not wished to commit itself to the long-term position in which I was hired they could have filled it as a temporary or short-term contract (I would not have accepted such a posting, but that is not at issue here).
Finally, Anthropology accepted control for Archaeology under seemingly unconstrained financial conditions. Data obtained put the following terms as the ones accepted by the Vice-Chancellor ["Draft letter" Gordon to Gale, 18 May 1992]:
Around $25,000, per annum, to be used at the discretion of the Head of Department, towards research assistants and contributions to the Department's publication costs. (Minutes of the Department, 21 and 25 May, seem to indicate the final agreement called for one such payment).
Agreement that budgeting and statistics for the two entities be kept separate and not be used to disadvantage.
A tenurable position at the Associate Professorial level. (The Minutes of 25 May 1992 make clear this was to be treated as an "established post" which made it "a major benefit for the Department, especially in view of the foreshadowed budget cuts").
Conversion of one fixed-term renewable position to a tenurable position, and the conversion of at least one other temporary position to a fixed-term renewable position. (A three-year position was advertised on 18 November 1992 and it was filled for the 1993 year).
The agreement, and all responsibility to end on 31 December 1994.
I note in passing that by December 1994 Professor Bowdler will be the ONLY Archaeologist from the "old" Department of Archaeology still employed by the University.
Again, with respect, the question has not been answered.
I provided clear and unambiguous comparative statistical data on my both my research (15 April 1993) and teaching (24 May 1993) performance. Despite the easily documentable harassment I suffered at UWA, I still maintained an academic performance as follows:
RESEARCH: Approximately THREE to FOUR times the mean national publication rate in my discipline area.
RESEARCH IMPACT: About FOUR TIMES the citation rate in the literature of ALL other UWA archaeologists COMBINED (some 20 times their mean).
TEACHING: Based upon student loads as computed by UWA, I carried around TWICE the teaching load of the other UWA archaeologists. The drop-out rate when I was teaching the first year class was also the lowest recorded: student withdrawl rates when other staff coordinated the class were some 2.5 to 4 times greater than mine.
My Reply to the Wood Committee's recommendations (15 April 1993), which contained an analysis of my research productivity as well as my criticisms of the review process, was answered in a letter from Professor Wood to the Vice-Chancellor (undated, but apparently late April 1993). This letter has been refused me by the University. My appeal is pending with the State FOI Commissioner.
I assume my second document on teaching went unread. After verbally agreeing at a meeting to allow me the opportunity to produce a report to reply to her claim that "no department was willing to accept me," Professor Gale wrote me:
"Further to the contact you had with my office today, I advise you that I do not require any further communication from you regarding your possible placement in other departments within the University. I require your immediate advice as to whether you are prepared to discuss a voluntary separation package."
REPLY Dated: 2 June 1994