IN DECEMBER last year, the Western Australian parliamentary committee set up to inquire into events surrounding the denial of tenure to Dr David Rindos, found that, as he had reasonably expected to be granted tenure at the end of his initiial period of employment, he did not have "adequate and fair opportunities to present his case.
He was not afforded common law procedural fairness, due to the University of Western Australia's "apparent reliance on material not disclosed to Dr Rindos".
The Standing Committee on Politic Administration found that procedures used to review his case, and subsequent appeals, were ad hoc.
Overall, they did not adhere sufficiently to common law rules of procedural fairness given that all relevant information was not disclosed to him.
Criticism was not confined to the tenure review process alone. The committee found flaws in the early handling of Rindos's appointment, the fact that he was not given sufficient opportunity for counselling regarding his "allegedly deficient performance at any stage during his period of employment with the university".
The report was critical of his appointment as acting head of archaeology at a time when he unfamiliar with the Australian university system (Although it acknowledged that, as an experienced academic, he could have gained the relevant information). There was criticism that his supervisor Professor Charles Oxenard [sic] (who, in his first year evaluation, found Rindos' progress "satisfactory") was not interviewed by the Tenure Review Committee (although he was consulted by phone).
The report argued that if the then Vice-Chancellor, Professor Fay Gale, had given the review committee formal guidelines, Rindos would have been better able to answer its inquiries. Although the guidelines were based on reaching, research and, to some extent, community activities, they were not formalised, and minutes of the proceedings were never taken. The committee was critical of the fact that relevant "environmental factors" (such as personality conflicts) were not given due attention.
The committee said the vice-chancellor should have ensured that all documents consulted by her in reaching a decision were made available to Rindos, including the contents of an unfavourable June 1991 tenure report by Professor Sandra Bowdler.
The report was critical of the university's record keeping and document handling facilities "which have often resulted in delays, misplaced documents, incomplete files, and inadequate material before the Committee". While acknowledging that many of these issues have since been addressed, the committee recommended that UWA undertake a detailed assessment of such processes.
The report also referred to the UWA Senate inquiry into the matter, noting that no concerns about Rindos' academic performance were expressed by Bowdler or anyone else until after he had, as acting head of archaeology, formally raised serious complaints about her administration. The committee saw no evidence to substantiate her claim that she herself raised concerns with Rindos prior to 1990.
"In any event," says the report, the Senate Report does not address the concerns still expressed by both students, staff and commentators that there has been serious mismanagement within the Department of Archaeology at the University, and this is of continuing concern to the committee."
The committee suggested that recommendations by the Senate for improving administrative and staffing procedures be implemented as soon as possible.
Describing the report as a "wasteful and unnecessary exercise", the university refuted its findings, and claimed in turn that the committee had denied it natural justice and procedural fairness. Gale (who has since retired from her position) argued that the report had not established that UWA had made its decision on material not disclosed to Rindos.
She said the report contained errors of fact, and findings "which appear to be based on evidence which is not disclosed in the report, and findings which are illogical".
Its most damning conclusions (that Rindos was denied common law procedural fairness) were based on an incorrect assumption because the university did not rely on material not disclosed to him in reaching its decision, which it continues to stand by. She accused the committee of not paying due attention to process, of being at times heavy-handed in its approach, of a serious breach of privilege, and of misleading the University.
"The flaws in process identified by the committee had already been identified by the university and structures have been put in place to avoid a similar situation," said Gale.
She said the matter should never have gone to parliament as it was an industrial relations issue, it had cost taxpayers thousands of dollars and taken so long that the report had almost lost its relevance. "Naturally, as a responsible institution, we will examine the report to see if any particular aspect could assist in the management of the University".