LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: 
	Campus Review Weekly, 16-22 March 1995

In Campus Review (March 2-8), Vice-Chancellor Professor Fay
Gale said "she had never made any recommendation" that the
Visitor be stripped of judicial powers.  

Her claim is contrary to the facts. At a meeting of the
Western Australian Higher Education Council held on June
22, 1994 -- just one week after the University argued that
the Visitor was the proper judge for [David] Rindos' case
-- Prof Gale, as Vice-Chancellor of the University of
Western Australia, in concert with the other
Vice-Chancellors in the State, agreed to the following (as
quoted from the minutes):

"Reference was made ... to the fact that in view of the
emergence of alternative mechanisms for dealing with a
range of issues the judicial role of the Visitor had, to
some extent, become anachronistic,  It was yet another
avenue for redress after all the other avenues had been
exhausted.  The role of Visitor in New South Wales
universities had been abolished.  The former Chief Justice
and Governor, Sir Francis Burt, had recently delivered an
address to [UWA's] Convocation on this topic.  It was
resolved

	RESOLUTION 6/94 [all of this in boldface italic]
to express general support for the abolition of the role of the
Visitor in a judicial but not a ceremonial capacity.

That the Vice Chancellor of UWA neglected to consult, or
report her recommendation to the governing body of her
University, as apparently she believes she should, was not
raised by me or Dr Rindos.  The Vice-Chancellor of at least
one other Western Australian University did however report
on this matter to his University.  Perhaps Professor Gale
did report to the UWA Senate, but she doesn't remember this
either?

This is not the first time Professor Gale proves herself
less than fully informed about facts relevant to Dr
Rindos's case. To give just a very few examples: in a
formal meeting held shortly after she (in my view unjustly)
sacked Rindos, she proved herself unaware of highly
relevant and important facts regarding a matter as simple
as his Departmental affiliation.

Also in a public letter to staff at UWA she referred to
allegations about unspecified "matters of serious concern"
involving "personal relationships between staff and
students" -- the relevance of which to Dr Rindos still
remains totally unknown despite repeated requests for
details.  Oddly, Professor Gale adds to the confusion by
saying that she did not take these matters in to account in
denying Dr Rindos tenure.  WHY then was the issue
raised?  Also of concern is the number of documents
supporting Dr Rindos's case, including a number of written
communications between herself and Dr Rindos, which cannot
be found in the university files.

The Vice-Chancellor's command of some of the basic facts
should be taken into account when evaluating her various
claims and allegations about Dr Rindos's academic abilities
and performance at UWA.  There seems little doubt that Dr
Rindos is a good scholar and teacher;  this is the uniform
judgment of his academic peers both in Australia and
overseas.

When Parliament resumes, as a former scientist, I will be
dealing with the quality of some of his protagonists work
in archaeology in Western Australia. 

Mark Nevill, MLC
Member for Mining and Pastoral Region, Kalgoorlie