Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:23:03 -0900

To: "Senators, 98-99"

Subject: senate98-99: Post-Tenure Review: Explaining Myself

Senators:

As the next meeting of the Senate fast approaches, I thought it might save some time (and possibly some tempers) if I explained how and why my proposal on Post-Tenure Review differs from the Conference Committee's. Senator Vitulli has performed a great service by creating a hybrid document where excisions are struck-out and my additions or changes are italicized and in color (cool!) and I thank Vice-President Gilkey for putting this and other related documents on the web.

The principal changes I have made (beyond minor changes of wording or syntax) are as follows:
 

1. Under the excellent Preamble (written by the Senate Ad Hoc Committee last fall), Section B (The Responsibility of Educators, Academic Freedom, and Tenure) I have inserted a new Paragraph #5 (the Dynamics of Professorial Careers). This paragraph originally appeared in the Faculty Advisory Council proposal of last spring--it is here only slightly changed--but was left out of the Conference Committee's proposal, despite earlier advice that it be included. I believe it needs to be here, since it adds flexibility to criteria for PTR and recognizes that the focus of a career may shift over time. Its purpose is to assure that faculty are not held to some fixed and invariable standard, but may decide to re-direct their energies as they shift their interests. PTR should recognize and acknowledge the special dynamics of our kind of work.

2. Under Procedure, generally, the Conference Committee's proposal speaks in terms of "administrative units" as the principal locus of PTR. I find that language vague, since an "administrative unit" may be a department, a program, a division within a college, or a whole school or college itself. I think that the principal locus of PTR should be the department or program, and so I have generally changed "administrative unit" to "department or program."

3. Under Procedure, Section A (Procedures of Individual Administrative Units), I have tried to stress that this PTR policy is a basic or minimal policy, and that individual departments have the right to institute additional criteria or procedures should they so desire. So, for example, departments may if they so choose create internal PTR committees to manage either or both of the 3rd-year or 6th-year reviews. The Conference Committee's proposal states that "each administrative unit will establish procedures for developmental post-tenure reviews." But that is the function of this university-wide policy itself . Individual departments should simply adopt the general PTR policy, but could tailor it to satisfy their own special needs if necessary, so long as the basic principles or guidelines are not violated. I have also inserted an expectation that each faculty member submit an updated c.v. annually as the first level of developmental review. I believe most if not all departments already expect this of their faculty, and I think it is a no-brainer.

4. Under Procedure, Section B (Role of the Department Head and Faculty Review Committees), I have entered new language that seeks to clarify and simplify the 3rd- and 6th-year reviews and minimize faculty workload in the process. I conceive of the 3rd-year review as basically an internal department matter, with the individual faculty member submitting material to the head for review or, in the case of larger departments that desire one, to a departmental PTR committee. In the 6th-year review, I conceive of the faculty member submitting material to an elected school- or college-wide PTR committee, with the assistance of the department head (or in the case of larger departments, a departmental PTR committee). In both cases the purpose is to reduce the workload of tenured faculty who otherwise might be almost constantly engaged in reviewing one another, at both the 3rd and 6th years. Now, again, different departments may wish to establish different procedures within these general guidelines. A department of 30 faculty might find a departmental PTR committee desirable, while such a committee might make little sense for, say, a department of 5 or 10 members, where only half are tenured. The goal is flexibility without the vagueness. I do envision a new set of elected PTR committees at the school and college level, and we all know how difficult it is to get faculty to stand for election to such committees (I find it interesting that while the faculty prides itself upon the tradition of "faculty governance" it is nearly impossible to find enough people who actually want to govern! Just ask the Committee on Committees, or Gwen). But I think it will represent less of a burden to elect one committee per school (or within CAS per division) than to elect or appoint lots of PTR committees within every department. But again, if a department so wishes, it may create such a committee.

5. Most of the changes in Sections C (The Annual Review), D (Third-year Review), and E (Sixth-year review) follow naturally from those in Section B.

One exception is Section E, #7 (Mediation process). The Conference Committee's proposal establishes a new mediation/appeal/grievance process separate from and parallel to processes of appeal and grievance already in existence. I see no compelling reason why we should do this, especially when in many ways existing policies are more lenient to faculty than the proposed ones (for example, by allowing 45 days to initiate grievance/appeal instead of the 30 days proposed).My proposal simply refers to existing procedures found in the Faculty Handbook and in the OARs.

6. Under the next section ("Schedule of Reviews," labelled E in the hybrid version, though it should be F), the Conference Committee proposal sets forth guidelines concerning the scheduling of reviews once the new policy is adopted. I have no problem at all with these guidelines, but since they are a one-time deal--meant to accomodate a special circumstance, namely the institution of a new policy--I do not believe they should be part of the policy itself, intended to stand the test of time. I would urge all departments to follow the Conference Committee's guidelines, but these are matters of implementation, not policy. I have also substituted language that once again attempts to add flexibility (e.g. #3, acknowledging that there may be deviations from the normal 3 or 6-th year schedule under certain circumstances).

7. Under "The Use of Reviews," Section A ("Reward for Performance"), Paragraph #1, I have quoted the OARs and the IMD with which we must comply. In Paragraph #2, I have simply proposed that our reward system be in compliance with the OARs and IMD by increasing the salary of faculty who have negotiated the PTR process successfully and by entertaining the possibility that faculty who have not done so may actually suffer adjustments downward. I am not happy about this, and, frankly, I doubt that it will happen very often, if at all. But it seems to me to be what the OAR says we must consider. Incidentally, the $2000 figure for a salary supplement is not written in stone; it is just a number that has been batted around a lot by various committees over the past few months (on analogy with distinguished teaching award amounts). And I would suggest that if the up-side is limited to a $2,000 increase, so the down-side should be limited, too.

8. Under "The Use of reviews," Section B ("Faculty Resource Support") the Conference Committee and I are in agreement that PTRs may lead to additional funds/resources placed at the disposal of the faculty member. The Conference Committee's proposal, however, compels the provost to allocate funds for this purpose in advance to "administrative units". I propose that the appropriate dean request such funds on an individual basis from the provost after PTR. The difference is, once again, flexibility. If the provost is compelled to allocate funds at the beginning of a year (and, again, to what "administrative units" would he be compelled to allocate them--to individual departments? to the deans of colleges? It is not clear.), those funds are fixed: once they run out, they run out. Individual requests of support for individual projects seems to me the better way to go, so long as there is a commitment from the provost to reserve funds for this purpose.

9. Finally, Under C (Career Support Program), I again quote the relevant IMD, which, as I read it, stresses that problem cases should be treated "humanely." The very last section, virtually the same in both proposals, also stresses that the faculty member should be protected, in the sense that no action regarding his/her status can be taken until and unless he/she has been given opportunities to improve and an additional PTR (we should perhaps specify a 6th-year PTR) is conducted.
 

First, the PTR policy proposal that the Senate sends forward to the administration--and let it be clearly understood that whatever policy we adopt is a *recommendation* to President Frohnmayer, who is the true promulgator of such policy and who in turn must submit the policy to the State Board for its review and approval--must be as clear and as sparing of faculty time as we can make it.

Second, we should adopt a policy that is flexible and primarily developmental, not punitive, and that rewards faculty whose performance merits reward and that establishes procedures to help faculty who need help to improve. On this I hope we all can agree, though we may differ on details.

Third, we are required to adopt a policy that complies with specific OARs (Oregon Administrative Rules) and IMDs (Internal Management Directives) regarding post-tenure review, and that clearly links our policy with OARs and IMDs. Should we adopt a policy that is vague is this regard, there is the very real danger that the State Board will reject it. This is an embarrassment that, I believe, it is my responsibility to try to avoid.

Some may think that I have exceed my authority as president by offering an alternative to the report of the Conference Committee, which, after all, I appointed myself. But what seems like "exceeding authority" to one person may seem like "exercising leadership" to another. Whatever I did, I did so simply because of the need to put what I consider an acceptable policy before the Senate in a timely manner (last week!). Sending the proposal back to committee would have taken more time than I think we had, and would not have given senators ample opportunity to consider the policy carefully before the meeting of April 14. To the members of the Conference Committee I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for all the hard work they have expended in this process, and I hope they realize that their labor was not in vain. It should not be forgotten that my proposal is a revision of theirs, and is in many passages very similar if not identical. Moreover, I am perfectly prepared for the possibility that the Senate may prefer that proposal to mine. But I have tried to lead the Senate where I think it should go, by being jealous of faculty time, by simplifying the process, and at the same time by meeting obligations imposed upon us from the State Board, like it or not.

I ask that you carefully read all documents (they can be "accessed" through the Senate homepage).

I also ask that we keep the debate on Wednesday more measured and calm than some of the e-mails I have seen.

And, frankly, I ask for your support.

Jeffrey Hurwit, President University Senate, 1998-99