Below please find Melinda Grier's comments on the report issued by the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Post-Tenure Review. Clearly, we must be careful to take Melinda's comments/critiques into account as we discuss and craft a new PTR policy. Be reminded, also, of the AAUP-Senate Forum on PTR to held Wednesday, Feb 3, at 3:00, in 100 Willamette.

On other fronts, I want to let you know that I have just appointed ANOTHER Senate Ad Hoc Committee, this time to review the decennial program review housed in the Graduate School. The members of the committee are Van Kolpin, Kate Nicholson, Roger Haydock, Ian Duncan, and Marjorie Woollacott. I greatly appreciate their willingness to serve and to report their findings to the senate in the spring.
 

Jeffrey Hurwit, President University Senate, 1998-99

---

Discrepancies Between the Requirements of the Proposed Administrative Rule and Internal Management Directive on Post-Tenure Review and The Draft Report by the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Post Tenure Review

For purposes of this analysis, I've referred to various sections of proposed Internal Management Directive (IMD) 4.002. I have used the language proposed to the Board of Higher Education at its December 18, 1998, meeting. For ease of comparison, I have quoted the language with my comments below. The area of greatest concern is with the requirements for institutional guidelines found in paragraph (3) of the IMD. It reads:

(3) Institutional guidelines shall include, but not be limited to:
• (a) a statement of post-tenure review objectives;
• (b) a statement of criteria to be used in evaluations, the nature and kinds of data that will be accumulated, and the methods of data collection;
• (c) a designation of persons making evaluations;
• (d) a designation of the frequency and regularity of evaluations;
• (e) a description of the institutional plan for relating post-tenure reviews to the faculty reward system, so that salary-adjustment
• (f) a description of appropriate formative opportunities (e.g., professional development plan, faculty career support program [IMD 4.001];
• (g) a description of the institutional plan to deal firmly but humanely with situations in which a faculty member's competence or vitality have diminished to such an extent that formative opportunities are unable to sufficiently stimulate or assist the faculty member's return to a fully effective state.

• a. a statement of post-tenure review objectives While the preamble suggests purposes and there is some greater definition in "Collective Professional Responsibility for Faculty Development," page 3, they are vague. The objectives should be more in line with those proposed in the amendments to the Board's Administrative Rule on Post-Tenure Review, OAR 580-021-0140(2).
• b. a statement of criteria to be used in evaluations, the nature and kinds of data that will be accumulated, and the methods of data collection A statement of criteria must be in the university's guidelines rather than being done at the departmental or individual level. Except for a self study by the faculty member, and in the sixth year, classroom visits, the draft does not identify what types of data will be accumulated.
• c. a designation of persons making evaluations The draft proposes the third year review will be conducted by colleagues from the same administrative unit (the faculty peer committee) and the administrative head of the unit. For the sixth-year developmental review, the draft proposes a faculty peer committee, but I did not note participation of the administrative head of the unit. This meets the requirement set out in the IMD, but because the review involves recommendations regarding resource allocation and salary recommendations, it is important for department heads and deans to be involved in the process.
• d. a designation of the frequency and regularity of evaluations The draft appears to satisfy this requirement.
• e. a description of the institutional plan for relating post-tenure reviews to the faculty reward system, so that salary-adjustment decisions will reflect the results of performance evaluations I couldn't find anything in the draft to meet this requirement. Also, the possibility a review would end without conclusion, as possible in the "Mediation" component of the sixth-year review, would preclude a salary adjustment based on the outcome of the review. The proposed amendment to the Board's administrative rule on post-tenure review also requires remuneration to be linked clearly to performance, OAR 580-021- 0140(2)(c).
• f. a description of appropriate formative opportunities (e.g., professional development plan, faculty career support program [IMD 4.001] Other than "Faculty Resource Support," which is part of the sixth-year review, the draft does not describe other formative opportunities which might be used to help a faculty member improve performance.
• g. a description of the institutional plan to deal firmly but humanely with situations in which a faculty member's competence or vitality have diminished to such an extent that formative opportunities are unable to sufficiently stimulate or assist the faculty member's return to a fully effective state There is no description of a plan to deal with situations in which a faculty member's competency has diminished so that developmental activities won't result in an acceptable level of performance.