Campus Review 

25-31 August 1994

ROLE OF VISITOR MAY DETERMINE SACKING CASE

The case of sacked University of Western Australia
archaeologist Dr David Rindos, which was recently revived
in state parliament through a series of questions from a
local MP, has renewed interest in the role of the so-called
"visitor" in handling of complaints within universities. 

Rindos has appealed against his dismissal to WA's
Industrial Relations Commission, but the university is
arguing that, as it has a procedure (which includes access
ot the visitor) for handling matters of this nature, the
case should not be heard by the commission.

The commission is expected to make its decision soon on
which forum will hear the appeal.

The university visitor belong to an English tradition
dating back several hundred years and seldom used these
days.  In English universities the visitor is the monarch,
and in Australia the monarch's representative, the State
Governor -- although this authority is sometimes delegated
to a judge.

UWA has recorded only one significant case in the past 14
years. 

The position of the visitor at the University of Western
Australia was established under an act of parliament, and
provides an avenue of appeal similar to that of the High
Court.

According to Ms Lesleigh Green, director of development at
UWA, "An appeal to the visitor is considered an alternative
to other civil avenues.

"Having gone to the visitor and visitor having made a
judgement, the judgment is considered final and, in effect,
prevents subsequent recourse to civil avenues of appeal."

She stresses that it is a purely voluntary procedure open
to both staff and students. 

Rindos claims, however, that he was unaware of the
existence of this avenue until several months after his
dismissal.

"I would have thought the university would have said in the
letter of dismissal that if I was dissatisified I could
puruse this avenue.  I would have though that would be a
normal procedure," he said.

"I can understand why they would have wanted the case to be
handled by the university because it would be more
confidential," he said.

Rindos claims the university authorities judged him without
giving him a chance to defend himself, arguing "I was not
allowed to appear before any of the committees."

Earlier this month, Labor Opposition MP Mark Nevill tabeled
a number of questions relating to Rindos' case in the upper
house.

He questioned the procedures used by the university in
handling the matter, and queried actions taken following
the results of internal investigations regarding academic
and sexual impropriety.

Nevill also raised the matter of a secret file, and asked
about the disappearance of documents supporting Rindos'
case.

He told Campus Review that his motive in tabling the
questions was to ensure Rindos received fair treatment and
natural justice.

Should the Industrial Relations Commission decided against
hearing his case, the American-born archaeologist, who
claims to have received widespread support from academics
around the world, intends to pursue the matter.

"I don't particularly care what path I have to follow, I
just want to see justice done -- and the facts are
incontrovertible.  My case is strong," he said.

Rindos this year won $40,000 damages in the West Australian
Supreme Court for defamation arising from an entry on the
internet.