Peter,

I do believe that you should use the Senate Conference Committee document as your starting document. You should revise only those sections that it is absolutely necessary to revise. But which sections are these? I didn't hear anyone (except Hurwit and Joe Stone) object to any provisions in the Conference Committee Document. So which sections will you work on?

Specific suggestions. If you find it necessary to bring up the matter of salary reduction (against the advice of the Senate as per the straw vote) you MUST put in wording to the effect that all the OARs will govern the whole process. Reductions will only be made for cause as defined in the OARs and the formal process outlined in the OARs will be in effect. I have such wording on my school machine should you want it.

Keep the reviews as local as possible. Departmental review committees are best, whenever possible. Reviews and recommendations are to be made by peer committees, not by dept. heads or Deans. Bring in the administrative bosses to decide dollar amounts.

Now it seems that it really wasn't necessary to introduce 3rd year post tenure review. The only "mandate" for such was the NW Comm College Accredidation body (or some similar name) and they have accredited other places (like UW) with far less careful PTRs than we are proposing. Eliminate the 3rd year review or make it as uneventful and untime-consuming as possible.

Marie A. Vitulli Phone: 541/346-5633 Fax: 541/346-0987 Prof. of Mathematics & Chair of Graduate Admissions Dept. of Mathematics
e-mail: vitulli@math.uoregon.edu
1222 -University of Oregon URL: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~vitulli Eugene. OR 97403-1222
Note: The Women in Math Web site has moved! The new URL is http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~wmnmath

• 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