Peter,
I left the Senate meeting thoroughly confused about the procedural situation. Don't we still have a motion extant to adopt the Conference Committee document? So what is the status of the writing that the executive committee is doing?
My sense was that the Senate would have been able to act, given a reasonable amount of time to discuss such an important item (that is, the majority of the two hour meeting time). I feel deeply concerned about the continuing problems with any kind of representative process for Faculty consideration of this business. What I'd like to see, then, is a document from the executive committee that works from the Conference Committee report, proposing (if necessary) amendments to that in the form of strikeouts and additions to the document, so that the Senate can easily track what's being proposed. Then, at the next Senate meeting, I'd like to see priority scheduling given to this matter so the Senate can properly discuss and decide it. If other business is scheduled for the May meeting, then let's have the PTR discussion first, and let the other business have to wait for a second day, if it proves to be needed.
Now, a central question with respect to PTR appears to be: what is 'necessary'? I'm happy that the 'straw votes' today endorsed a PTR that does not include strong links to sanctions and does not mandate central committees (or any specific structure). I think we should be flexible and minimalist.
But in truth, I'd like not to have a third year review at all, and today's discussion seemed at times to suggest that that isn't really 'necessary' either. We on the PTR committee wrote under the impression that it WAS necessary (even though other NW accrediting agency institutions don't have it--e.g. UW and OSU). What's the truth? If we retreat back to the existing PTR rules, there's nothing in them about a 3rd year review. If we can do that, LETS. I'm really amazed that after all this time spent studying this issue, I should suddenly find myself back at this starting point. What's the truth?
Finally (this point is a criticism of all existing proposals and reports), I do think the issue of work load is the other big problem, besides protecting tenure and due process. As I read it, it looks as if the third year review is likely not only to involve committee time, but also to require a full report of peer teaching reviews, all published materials from the faculty member, etc. This amounts to a huge amount of classroom visitation and material for someone to read and review. Do we mean to do that???? Is THAT necessary?
Thanks for your hard work, Suzanne