THE AUSTRALIAN [Higher Education Section]
10 Jan 1996

MISSING FILE LEAVES RINDOS IN LIMBO

By Ross Storey

A missing University of Western Australia personnel file is
delaying any further action by internationally respected
archaeologist Dr David Rindos in his push to clear his name
after he was refused tenure amidst ructions centred on the
university's department of archaeology

Dr Rindos said he had recently been questioned by a private
investigator he claimed was hired by the UWA in an effort
to locate the file that was thought to be pivotal to his
case.

He told the HES his lawyer had advised the UWA Visitor, the
West Australian Governor, Major General Michael Jeffery,
that an appeal against the refusal of tenure would be
lodged, and there was no time restriction on when this
could take place. 

As a Visitor, Major General Jeffery has jurisdiction over
all matters of dispute relating to the internal affairs of
and management of the university. 

Dr Rindos said he had no choice but to continue fighting to
clear his name to ensure his future employment, but
visitorial appeals were very expensive and they were not
part of the public record the way an appeal to a court
might be.  

"In the past three months, we've hit a bit of brick wall
because of the missing personnel file, because that is
where the university's case is felt to be, and they can't
find it -- it's gone walkabout," he said.

The missing file came into fresh focus after a renewed
attack on UWA in the West Australian Parliament over its
handling of problems in the archaeology department. 

Labor MLC Mark Nevill made the attack in a lengthy speech
to the State Parliament on December 14.

Mr Nevill told the Upper House that a UWA review had shown
that conditions in "archaeology constituted a scandal
without precedent in the history of higher education in
Australia, and one which was to be covered up rather than
corrected."  Mr Nevill said Dr Rindos had been set up as a
scapegoat for the problems in archaeology, his denial of
tenure "is the ultimate insult," and the archaeology affair
was "unfortunately an unfinished chapter in that
institution's history."

But UWA's deputy vice-chancellor Professor Alan Robson,
rejected Mr Nevill's allegations as scurrilous and
one-sided. 

He said the speech did not provide new claims or
information other that that disclosed and fully discussed
in Kate Legg's article in The Weekend Australian of 28 - 29
October, 1995. 

Mr Nevill said that he had been involved in negotiations
and discussions about the issues for 12 to 18 months and
felt little progress had been made. 

"The affair at the University of Western Australia involves
the exploitation of students in that department," Mr Nevill
told Parliament. 

"There is also the sexual exploitation of students.  I
believe the University of Western Australia has abrogated
its duty of care to the students in that department, some
of whom have been forced to leave the department and
continue their studies overseas."

Mr Nevill said Dr Rindos "found himself shunned, harassed
and victimised in the same way as the students who had
motived his concern were harassed and victimised."

Parliament was told the UWA administration failed to
understand "the depth of feeling both within UWA and within
the university community nationally and internationally."

He urged Parliament to take an interest in the case because
it went to the heart of how universities were run.  

"Universities should be autonomous but at the same time
they should be accountable," he said. 

Professor Robson said that all the issues had been widely
canvassed and discussed throughout the media and community
and that nothing new had been offered by Mr Nevill.

He said that UWA did not plant to take any action based on
Mr Nevill's speech and Dr Rindos was not an employee of the
University. 

In a previous letter to The Australian (November 1),
Professor Robson said the university would be happy for Dr
Rindos to take his case to the UWA Visitor. 

"As stated publicly many times, the university will be
happy for this process to take its course, and is confident
that the outcome will vindicate its handling of the case."

"Having regard to the possibility of a hearing before the
Visitor I consider it quite inappropriate to embark upon a
public argument.

"I can however say that the contract appointment offered to
Dr Rindos in January 1989 was, as is normal, subject to
review. 

"A rigorous review by a specially appointed committee,
including a staff union observer, followed accepted and
normal procedures in reaching a decision not to grant Dr
Rindos a permanent appointment," he said.