SUNDAY TIMES, 28 MAY 1995 MEDIEVAL TWIST TO UNI DISPUTE [Above the headline is a brief summary] The Governor, Major-General Michael Jeffrey has been asked to intervene in a costly, long-running dispute between a sacked University of WA academic and its Vice-Chancellor, Professor Fay Gale. Joe Poprzeczny looks at how the Queen's representative has been drawn into the imbroglio. [Three pictures dominate the page: To the right is a large picture of the Major-General Jefferies, with associated pictures of Professor Gale and D Rindos] In 1384, more than 100 years after Oxford's Merton College was founded, a dispute arose over who had control of the famous institution. It was decided that the heirs of the founder, Geoffrey de Merton, would inherit the title of Visitor of the budding rural college. It was one of the earliest references to the rarely heard title of Visitor, which is not well known outside academic circles. The term Visitor originated in medieval times in the administration of monasteries and religious houses. By 1400, Visitors had emerged as holders of powerful positions within non-religious institutions. The Visitor became more powerful than university chancellors and vice-chancellors. Visitors are the final arbitrators in serious and divisive academic rows. They are like family will executors, judges and jurors wrapped into one, or umpires, whose word -- right or wrong -- is the last say in settling disputes. Although six Australian State universities do not have a Visitor, all WA's State-owned campuses have one. The person with the title in WA is the Governor, Major-General Michael Jeffrey, having acquired it simply by being the Queen's representative. And he is now in the firing line of a dispute that has been festering at WA's premier tertiary institution, the University of WA. Last year when Labor MP Mark Nevill quizzed Education Minister Norman Moore on reasons for the surprise sacking of the internationally acclaimed UWA archaeologist, Dr David Rindos, Mr Moore complained that not even he could force the campus to give him all the facts of the case. "The problem we have with the university is that it jealously guards the way in which it handles its affairs," Mr Moore said during a parliamentary debate on the dispute. Mr Nevill interjected: "You should show them who is in charge." Mr Moore retorted: "It is very hard to twist its arm without being draconian. I do not think I can direct the vice-chancellor to give the information the member wants. I do not think I have the power to direct it to change its decision either." Mr Moore could have added that the only person with power over UWA (and other campuses) is the Visitor, the Governor. It is a position the previous State Governor expressed concern about while in office. Sir Francs Burt went to the extent of informally meeting with the Chief Justice, The Solicitor-General, and UWA's Chancellor to talk about his concerns about the medieval position. "Very much to my surprise the jurisdiction was defended on the grounds that it was cheap, " Sir Francis said. "Quick, final and cheap are the badges of palm-tree justice and as to the last reason. I can but say that justice administered in secret should be avoided at all costs. It prompts the question: what is there about a modern university, funded by the State, which can lead one to say such disputes as it may have with staff should be resolved in secret?" Sir Francis' comments are relevant to a bitter dispute that has been on the boil at UWA since the outcome of a campus review committee of a damning report in 1992 on its archaeology department, which was headed by Professor Sandra Bowdler. The committee heard allegations of students being subjected to public ridicule and other harsh and undesirable treatment. As a result it called on Professor Gale to investigate Professor Bowdler's department and to correct matters. Professor Bowdler than faced a personal inquiry into her behavior. She received a please explain letter, and her department was scrapped, then merged into the anthropology department. Earlier, Dr Rindos, a senior archaeology lecturer, recruited by Professor Bowdler, asked that he and his students be moved from her department. The request was granted. [bold face insert] -------------------------- "I'm confident of a full, open hearing" -------------------------- But a year later the head of the investigating committee went public by claiming serious problems in archaeology were still unresolved. When the dust settled, many UWA academics were stunned to find that Professor Gale had sacked Dr Rindos. Professor Gale's decision was so controversial she wrote to all academics outlining her reasons. She said Dr Rindos could not get along with Professor Bowdler and he had not produced enough research papers, charges he later denied. This was followed by more than 50 letters of complaint and backing from archaeologists around the world and Australia, including one from Lord Renfrew, archaeology professor of Cambridge University. Since his sacking in mid-1993 Dr Rindos has launched in the WA Industrial Commission a defence for unfair treatment. Professor Gale countered by hiring several leading QC's who argued the industrial commission could not interfere in UWA's matters, and said Dr Rindos should instead go to the visitor, a position that she, at the same time, was urging Mr Moore to strip of its powers. Although the commission took nearly a year to consider the case and make a decision, it agreed only the Governor could hear the Rindos case. So 611 years after the Merton College resolution, Dr Rindos finds himself preparing to stand before a Visitor. Following Sir Francis Burt's concerns on palm-tree justice, Dr Rindos who wants his case heard by Major-General Jeffery, has pushed for a full and open hearing with everyone, especially Professors Gale and Bowdler, cross-examined under oath. "I'm confident this ancient position of responsibility held by the Governor will mean that this happens," Dr Rindos said. WA Governors have been called just 15 times since 1913 to make visitations. And not once has the person lodging the complaint succeeded. Two failed to get to the Visitor because the applicants were told he did not have the power to hear them, six were abandoned, or lapsed, because the applicants did not follow up, and two were rejected because the petitions were brought prematurely. Only five cases were considered by the Visitor. The universities won each one. So the odds are stacked against Dr Rindos, even to just getting the Visitor to hear his case. But if he succeeds, and wins, this appeal it will be truly historic event.