David Rindos at the University of Western Australia:

An Abstract on Procedural Flaws

Dr David Rindos' academic performance at UWA over his three-year probationary period is summarised in the following statistics:

Research: Approximately three to four times the mean national publication rate in his discipline areas.

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, he carried around twice the teaching load of the other UWA archaeologists. The "drop-out" rate when he was teaching the first year class was also the lowest recorded: student withdrawal rates when other staff coordinated the class were some 2.5 to 4 times greater than his.

Administration: He became Head of Department some six months after his arrival. As Head he attempted to develop numerous projects in areas such as computer technology, foreign academic exchange programmes, student teaching evaluation, and written standards for departmental administration. Internal University grants to the Department went up by more than 500% under his headship.

Given that this was Dr Rindos' actual performance, it would seem reasonable to ask why was his tenure denied on grounds alleging unsatisfactory academic performance? Why was he the first person to be denied tenure by UWA?

The following data give some idea of how, if not why, the event occurred.

Contract and Award Provisions:

• 1) The contractually established nature of his position (its financially protected status) was abrogated by executive fiat.
• 2) Award provisions were totally ignored, for example, the requirements for supervisors, review, normal departmental support, and the procedures to be used in cases of alleged poor performance.
• 3) His probationary period was extended for totally non-academic reasons having nothing to do with his performance.
• 4) Recommendations for denial were based on non-academic reasons.
• 5) Recommendations for denial were based upon falsehoods.
• 6) His dismissal was not ratified by Senate as demanded by contract.
• 7) Normal University tenure review procedures and standards were never applied.
• 8) Long standing and universally accepted standards for tenuring were totally ignored.

Natural Justice and Due Process:

1) The decision to deny tenure was prejudged.

• The decision was made well over a year before implemented, and it was widely and publicly discussed and commented upon.
• This decision was apparently based upon the false allegation that he was the "guilty party" and that his removal, therefore, would somehow bring about a "solution" to the exceedingly serious, indeed scandalous, problems discovered in the Archaeology Department.

2) The decision was made on improper and fallacious grounds.

• False and malicious charges in University files were never shown to him for reply. Instead, these charges were deliberately placed into a secret file for the express purpose that he would then be unable to know of or access them.
• False and malicious charges were shown to and discussed with totally unconcerned parties by members of the Administration. This was done in total contravention of confidentiality regulations.
• Malicious, and unsubstantiated allegations, including defamatory charges unsupported by any evidence, were pursued.
• These various false and defamatory charges were brought into consideration and treated as facts in the decision to deny tenure.

3) The review, itself, was a flawed process which served solely to justify a decision already made rather than seeking an open, fair, and proper review of his academic performance.

• Negative testimony was actively solicited to provide "reasons" to deny tenure.
• Performance "reviews" of unproven standing, written by a person who made clear her personal dislike for Dr Rindos, improperly, and secretly, brought into consideration.
• These actions were in direct contravention to University Policy on Reviews, and also contravened the agreed upon process for review.
• Reviews of his performance from clearly biased and prejudiced sources were considered favourably.
• Positive and objective evaluation and testimony was not sought and when supplied was simply ignored, often with prejudice.
• Data which could have supported his case for tenure temporarily "disappeared" from university files.
• Performance indicators which could have supported his case for tenure were excluded or ignored.
• Official recommendations, made by a properly constituted University Committee, that had clear bearing on his case were left unconsulted and unconsidered.
• A willful and pre-determined exclusion of him or his "supporters" from all decision-making proceedings was instituted and put into writing.
• All discussions were held, and all decisions were made in camera.
• He was given no effective right to representation, reply, or appeal.
• The standards for the review process kept changing and numerous administrative delays occurred.
• Numerous extraordinary and taxing requirements were placed upon him during the review process.
• Materials specifically requested from him were never consulted nor brought into the decision-making process.
• Incomplete and totally misleading data were sent to outside referees.
• The internal reviewers were not his academic peers, were totally unfamiliar with his subject area, and had no academic expertise to judge his work.
• The true record of his performance at UWA was subject to extensive misrepresentation and even the facts were portrayed in a prejudical and negative manner.
• The reasons given for denial of tenure changed repeatedly.
• Recommendations and advice provided the University by legal advisors, by its own administrators, and even by the Tenure Review Committee itself were repeatedly ignored.
• The Vice-Chancellor, in her denial of his tenure, added totally non-academic and purely personal reasons to the allegedly "academic" ones advanced by the Tenure Review Committee.

4) The decision has been publicly misrepresented by the University.

• 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, his "acceptability" to other departments, and his academic performance.
• False and likely defamatory statements have been made about him, with the University going so far as to make demonstrably false claims about the academic merit of his scholarship and even making the false and exceedingly damaging claim that he was involved in improper personal relationships with his students.

[While extensive documentation for the claims made above may be found in a variety of locations in this Web Site, most of the points discussed here are covered in the comments by Dr Rindos to the replies given to the Parliamentary Questions, and in the discussion, and embedded documentation to his Statutory Declaration provided to the West Australian Freedom of Information Commissioner.]