Peter,

I would not give up so easily on the current PTR policy statement. Reread it, keeping in mind, perhaps, 4 key issues that could easily be resolved in a revision:

 
• 1. brief reference to relevant OARs and IMBs dealing with PTR, disciplinary action, etc;
• 2. brief statement on dynamics of career paths;
• 3. something brief on implementing an actual reward system, even as simple as requesting that the Provost be responsible for designing and implementing a system by a date certain.
• 4. 3/6-year cycle. Introduce the 3/6-year cycle, with the 3d-year reviews not requiring too much energy and based primarily on annual reviews with brief statements by department head and the individual.

Joe 

• Index of documents relating to post tenure review maintained on the senate web page
• Senate Executive Committee documents on PTR
• Main web page of the University of Oregon Senate