Peter, you may put this on the Web page. -- John

I was on the Senate faculty committee on post-tenure review last fall, headed by Mike Russo and doing a thorough job of making revisions to post-tenure review procedures that the University faculty could live with, while recognizing the pressure the University is under from outside to make professors more accountable.

Our report was submitted December 2 to the University Senate. It was somewhat, but not significantly, modified by a second committee this winter, and put into the format of a University Policy Statement. Both versions were intended to minimize bureaucratic oversight, while providing support for the few who might have problems to do better.

Yesterday an entirely NEW draft, not prepared by any committee, was sent to that second committee of three persons. The new draft returns in full force to the "managerial" document put forth by the University Administration a year ago. Along with that draft was a message explaining why the Senate President had substantially revised his committee's work.

After receiving it, I wrote to Senate President Jeff Hurwit, asking for a strike-out and italics version, or something comparable, showing the changes. I also asked where in the University some of the changes came from. In reply, Jeff wrote:
 

``[G]iven the pressures of time, I felt it was in the best interest of the Senate for me to do as I did. I told Mike last week that I would not let a policy come before the Senate at this point that I did not believe did the job.''

In my view, for the Senate President to say that he "would not let a policy come before the Senate" that has been drafted by a committee he appointed sidesteps the kind of openness and faculty governance that should be a hallmark of our University.

The earlier message is provided here, with my comments inserted at various points. This only hints at the many changes made in the committee's work, most of which are not summarized in this cover memo at all.

John Bonine Professor of Law

Again, I would like to thank the three of you for the hard work you've put into devising a new Post-tenure review policy, both as members of the special "conference committee" and as members of past committees (FAC, Senate Ad Hoc Committee) involved in the process.

I think the document I received from you last week went a long way to resolving many of the technical issues you, Lorraine, and I discussed weeks ago. However, in some ways the document failed to address issues that, frankly, needed to be addressed.

Comment: Some of these issus do NOT need to be resolved in the way that this latest proposal does. [J. Bonine}

SComment: someof that language is not harmful. But the draft goes beyond recognizing that there may be shifts and talks of setting goals and expectations "for" individual faculty members. Although it says that this will be a joint effort, it is a significant change to have a document in this University asserting such a power.[J. Bonine}

Comment: Note: This is a return to post-tenure review conducted NOT by a faculty committee. This is a significant change. Our committees preserved the principle of faculty committee reviews. [J. Bonine}

Comment: It is not clear why all suggestions must be followed. As for submitting updated C.v.'s every year, it seems to me that leaving this to the judgment of individual departments and professional schools is a no-brainer. [J. Bonine}

Finally, the document, in my view, does not satisfactorily link the review process to remuneration, as OARs and IMDs instruct us to do. The document would establish a new mediation process different and separate from processes already established and in force (under the Faculty Handbooks and relevant OARs) that actually in some ways benefit the faculty member more (by allotting 45 days for an appeal rather than the 30 you suggested). It is cumbersome to establish a new mediation procedure when one already exists.

Comment: Note: Two faculty committees chose to have a "developmental" (that is, supportive and non-threatening) post-tenure review process. I see no reason to delete the concept of "developmental" reviews and throw out a mediation procedure that we developed specifically so that the individual faculty member would be listened to carefully. In the place of "cumbersome" mediation, we will have only a quasi-judicial appeals process. And I offer this criticism as a lawyer! [J. Bonine}

Comment: Note: Anything may be placed on the agenda, I suppose. But I would expect the work of the faculty committee of fall and the "Conference Committee" of this winter to take predominance over a last-minute, extensive revision by any one person. I recognize the legitimate interest of all in doing a good job -- but that includes those who worked collegially, in multi-member committees. [J. Bonine}

Comment: Note: In my view, those contributions deserve more of an airing than current agenda plans apparently contemplate. They should, in fact, be the basis (along with last fall's work) for any motion on which amendments are to be offered. [J. Bonine}

Comment: There is always a choice. One choice is to make sure that each amendment proposed to the Conference Committee's revision be discussed, justified, and voted upon separately. Any motion to replace last Fall's report by substituting entirely President Hurwit's report should be tabled, and instead a motion to replace it with the Conference Committee revision should be voted upon. [J. Bonine}

Comment: Personally speaking, I do NOT consider the task of elected University Senators to be merely "to comment on" or "object to" changes that "I have made." I believe that each change itself needs to be offered and discussed. The basic document for discussion must be one that has been drafted by a committee. [J. Bonine}

Jeffrey Hurwit, President University Senate, 1998-99

In my view, for the Senate President to say that he "would not let a policy come before the Senate" that has been drafted by a committee he appointed sidesteps the kind of openness and faculty governance that should be a hallmark of our University.

John E. Bonine School of Law, University of Oregon ejohn@igc.apc.org or jebonine@law.uoregon.edu