Meeting of the IFS 5-6 June 1998

Provost Powell: Provost Powell welcomed Senators to the Southern campus. She spoke briefly about current initiatives at SOU: the fund drive underway for a new building that she characterized as a major undertaking for a small school; the internal discussions on post tenure review and efforts to rewrite the post tenure review policy and faculty evaluations; and the revisions in general education requirements that now mandate a freshman year colloquium. Provost Powell also stated that, if the legislature grants higher education additional revenue, Southern must clearly articulate what it would do with additional resources.

K. Yates reported that post tenure review is again an issue in Academic Council where the provosts are drafting a report. They've looked at what's happening nationally and at the Board's charge which says only that there will be some post tenure review. The Board has asked Vice Provost S. Clark to report on post tenure review; the provosts are intending to present their report to the Board before fall. S. Clark stated that resources available for review are an issue; the provosts are not enthusiastic about collecting data. The information they're collecting will appear as a report rather than policy change. Discussion on post tenure review followed. B. Danley noted that the surfacing of the issue is related to a national movement to do away with tenure. S. Witte remarked that it's also related to retirement; if you release someone it's cheaper than paying retirement. J. Cooper stated the real attack on tenure is through the hiring of fixed-term people in place of tenure-track hirees. U.Westfall asked if post tenure review is only a peer review or is there an administrative component. She further questioned whether those should be combined as they appear to have different objectives. M. Turner expressed the view that in higher ed. administrators often don't "administrate"; terminating someone is tough and requires a huge amount of documentation. C. Wollner urged that faculty get control of the process before an external body does. P. Simonds remarked that the Board should not separate tenure review and post tenure review; the 6 or 7 year process of tenure review weeds out the inadequate folks before tenure is given.

Meeting of the IFS 2-3 October 1998

 Kemble Yates reported the State Board's Governance restructuring committee is considering more frequent evaluations of institutional presidents using new standards. Institution governing boards are on the committee's agenda; approval of such governing boards is expected but no mechanism for their appointment has been delineated nor have their powers been listed. Post tenure review is still at the Academic Council. Shirley Clark will make a report to the State Board later in the fall on the issue. Kemble Yates has expressed concerns to Shirley Clark about signed administrator reviews and the possibility of retaliation. There are legal requirements for such reviews. Maurice Holland summarized: there are no OARs regarding administrator reviews that distinguish them from faculty reviews except on criteria. There's an absolute prohibition on anonymous input for both. So the chance of retaliation does exist but that may be outweighted by the need to prevent anonymous input.

Meeting of the IFS 4-5 December 1998

Vice Chancellor Shirley Clark: Dr. Clark provided Senators with background on the post-tenure review (PTR) issue, saying we're operating in an environment demanding accountability. She provided senators with a draft copy of the report the Academic Council prepared for the State Board (see appendix). PTR is a topic of conversation at many Academic Council meetings, she said. The State Board was reminded that PTR has been "on the books" since 1973. However, there's no money to support the faculty development the policy requires. She also noted the importance of tenure in protecting faculty positions; she cited two instances: a breast implant researcher ran "afoul" of a major firm because of her work and a salmon researcher's work was impugned when it didn't agree with outside agencies' work. Dr. Clark also gave each Senator a copy of the State Board's revisions of the Administrative Organization and Procedures Internal Management Directives (see appendix).

President Yates asked if Senators wanted to respond in any way to Shirley Clark's report on post-tenure review. Discussion followed in which several points were made:

• There's no written position description for professors so how do you measure performance? Could a position description be changed so a person couldn't get a positive review?
• Administrative faculty should also be reviewed.
• The "cut-in-salary" aspect of the report is worrisome; there are contractual agreements for salary. Docking pay plays into the hands of critics and provides administrators with a threat and saves them from having to fire someone. If a tenured professor's salary can be cut, then salary and tenure aren't tied and tenure means nothing (can a tenured professor be paid nothing?). Docking pay is a way of circumventing tenure.
• Peer review is not strongly supported in the report; that should be enhanced in the final report.
• Contracts at some institutions require due process for sanctions - there's no need to add more process.
• All professions are facing the accountability issue, but unlike most where sanctions are the same across the board, in academia, sanctions vary widely; the report addresses that.
• There are no progressive sanctions at non-union schools; could there be some range of sanctions short of firing?
• The profession will be in trouble if there's legislative action on post-tenure review. A policy is needed; it should be supportive but must get rid of "deadwood".
• The Academic Council draft is for "outside of academia" consumption; it's meant to keep tenure alive.
• Should a bill on post-tenure review come out, the State Board, the Chancellor, Shirley Clark and others should be strongly urged to fight it.
• The value of tenure must be shown; indicate what tenure protects.
• It's difficult to find anyone who's been fired due to post-tenure review.
• Three-year reviews are too frequent; five-year reviews seem more reasonable.
• The process shouldn't be a way to get rid of older faculty before retirement.