[comments added here are bracketed; emphasis is added>

   Memoradum                                         Personnel Services


   6 May, 1992



Dr Partis, Acting Head, Division of Agriculture and Science has raised a number of issues regarding documentation and process for reviewing Dr Rindos' tenurable appointment. You have requested advice on the concerns and the appropriate course of action.

University policy on personnel files requires that the member of staff can view their file on application to the Director Personnel Services. There is only certain information which may be on the file which cannot be open to the member of staff and this would be removed before it is made available for viewing. The policy also requires that no statement about a staff member's unsatisfactory work performance (actual or alleged) may be placed on the file without it first being sighted and signed and a copy made available to the officer.

In this situation it is then understandable that Professor Bowdler's comments, Professor Taylor's comments and the "warning notes" would not be on file since they have not been provided to Dr Rindos.

In this particular case the issues are most sensitive and quite clearly personalities are involved. To place the Bowdler report and indeed Professor Oxnard's full report on Dr Rindos' file would of course mean that he (Rindos) would have every right to see them. In the particular circumstances I cannot see that doing so will in any way enhance the situation. However, those documents (and others) are relevant to the whole situation and must come into consideration.

With folio 155 - whatever the reason, right or wrong, it was a decision open to Professor Oxnard and he made it.

[folio 155 here refers to Professor Oxnard's positive evalution of 1991]

With regard to the one year extension of the "probationary" period - I am not aware of any formal (i.e., in writing) determination by the Vice-Chancellor. I was told that such an extension had been made. Whatever, we must -

1. obtain the Vice-Chancellor's formal approval to the extension;

2. formally communicate that decision to Dr Rindos (copy to Head of Division) (it is not too late to do that and it can be justified on the basis of the change in headship).

Where to from here?

Dr Partis, in his capacity as Head of the Department, should be aware of all the correspondence which has been received - including the "in confidence" memos to Professor Oxnard from members of the academic staff of the department (these cannot be put on Dr Rindos' file).

[see the cover-letter to these from Professor Bowdler to Head of Personel: April 1991]

Since the third "Activities Report" is due Dr Rindos should be formally requested to prepare and submit the document (it should be submitted no later than 13 May 1992 - one month before the current three year period of review expires).

Then, once we have officially informed Dr Rindos of the extension of probation, Dr Partis should interview him and advise him of any areas of concern - including reiterating the concerns expressed by Professor Oxnard (folio 155). Dr Rindos should be given clear information on what is expected of him and the standards required.

With respect to the point in your memorandum to me, about Dr Rindos' teaching load, I would question whether this is so in fact. In some of the documentation references are made to the lightness of his teaching commitments - especially in second semester. In addition, Dr Partis has indicated (to me) that the number of post- graduate students (six) is not considered excessive for his type of discipline area in this University.

Given all the surrounding circumstances it will be extremely important that the process of Dr Partis' review of Dr Rindos for tenure be carefully managed.

I have discussed these issues with Dr Partis.



Principal Industrial Officer