11 May, 1992
DR D RINDOS - EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF APPOINTMENT SUBJECT TO REVIEW
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. His main concerns were that the personal file was incomplete because reports from Professor Bowdler and Professor Taylor, and memoranda from Personnel Services which referred to certain issues relating to the process of reviewing Dr Rindos, were not on file.
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.
Professor Oxnard, from the information available to him in 1991, determined that it was appropriate to assess that Dr Rindos' performance was satisfactory.
The continuing problems in Archaeology would indicate that there are grounds for questioning Dr Rindos' suitability for tenure. As the initial three years of his appointment, which under our Tenure and Dismissal Regulations is "subject to review", is due to end on 13 June 1992 it is necessary to confirm tenure by that date or to extend the period of review (by up to one year).
I understand that you have verbally indicated that Dr Rindos' period of appointment subject to review is to be extended by a period of one year (i.e. to 13 June 1993).
I also understand that the reason for the extension is to enable Dr Partis to properly assess Dr Rindos. This would, of course, be fair to Dr Rindos.
[see the letter to Dr Rindos extending his review period]
Can you formally confirm this extension and the reason. It will then be necessary to write to Dr Rindos and advise him accordingly.
R J SLATER
Principal Industrial Officer