Because I had a discount airfare that doesn't allow changes, I will
unfortunately miss the Faculty Meeting Thursday.  However, I have certainly
have had the chance to express my opinion and, indirectly,  the opinions of
faculty reluctant to go public.

Some argue that we should simply vote against any implementation.  While I
am sympathetic with that viewpoint, at this point armed with a disclaimer
(the Resolution Verbie Prevost will send to the Trustees), I think it best
to amend the PRC implementation plan, *knowing full well that Knoxville may
not permit us to make certain changes*.  We know this from the UTK
experience.  On the other hand, they did gain some ground.

The first reading vote suggests that the faculty, perhaps with reservations,
will approve an implementation plan., so trying to improve it is not an
empty exercise.  I am willing to concede that a middle ground on SOT may be
no ground at all to stand upon.  You be the judge and vote accordingly on
Thursday.

If I were there, I would suggest making the following amendments, which come
from our resolution and parts of the final approved UTK implementation plan,
which the administration has shared with me. Some would seem to be obvious
improvements, others are controversial and should really be discussed at
some length by faculty, which may not be possible given the timing of the
meeting and widespread fatigue.  However, the issues least likely to gain a
quick consensus (whatever that means), are also the most important to
constructing an objective, fair process of terminating non-performing faculty.  

I hope one of you will download this and offer them as amendments as a
package or in part if you agree with the ideas. Good luck!

3.6.2.1 (following the bold print at top of p.2):

"Such proposed extensions may also be initiated under the UTC parental leave
policy by faculty members."

Rationale: We need such a policy to avoid ad hoc situations.  The fact that
we currently do not have a policy should not deter us from adding this,
because much of the implementation plan is based on the assumption that we
will be revisiting in the future important policies and administrative tools
like the EDO.  It will be approved since UTK has one, unless we are going to
be treated as second class system employees…now is a good time to find out.
By the way, we have pretty much ignored probationary faculty in our
discussions; it is up to those of us with SOT to stand up for them too.

3.7.3 (p.8, middle of bold Annual Performance paragraph):

Add "Needs Improvement" to UTC EDO 

Rationale: There may not be time or energy to fully explore the merits of
adding a fourth level of "needs improvement" to our EDO categories.  I have
heard faculty make good points both for and against the idea, which UTK has
implemented. It could give heads more leeway to discipline faculty without
the drastic and probably litigious step of "below merit," but then it would
also help create the "history" of non-performance that a faculty member
could address unless they have a death wish.  It could possibly add a year
or more to the process of termination, because there would be an
intermediate step between merit and below merit.  This thorny issue might be
resolved later (see next item).
It will be approved by Knoxville if we decide we want it, because UTK did so.

3.7.3 (p. 8, first sentence following bold print):

Insert "current" before "EDO" in "The EDO document shall be the document
referred to above."

Rationale: We have been told that the PRC choose not to review the EDO since
it seemed ready-made for annual review, yet it is now a "trigger" for
termination. We have been told next year is time enough to consider the EDO.
There probably is a window of opportunity here, so we should at least
suggest that EDO is not cast in stone; if we do not consider it next year,
so be it.

3.7.3 (p. 8, inserted as item #8 in the UTC definition of evaluation:

"8.  Written EDO goals and the head's assessment of those goals shall be
available for collegial review to ensure even application of performance
standards and objectivity by department heads."

Rationale:  Now that EDO is critical, openness of the process and head
accountability is of utmost importance.  Those of us performing well should
not be reluctant to share goals and results with colleagues; after all, at
some point (every six years) portions may be part of the CPR process as an
option faculty might wish to exercise in the ten page report to the tenure
committee.  Secrecy in this case will only encourage heads who wish to
exercise personal agendas.  Less successful faculty, if they could see how
their peers are performing in EDO detail, will have something concrete to
emulate.  Admittedly the job of being an objective head will be more
difficult, but that is the point.  Remember, all our records are already
open to public scrutiny, it just requires paperwork.  So let's put all the
cards on the table in our department offices, so we will know we are playing
the same game.  For better or worse, UTK seems to have adopted this openness.

3.7.3 (p. 9, inserted after first sentence at top of page):

"These individuals will base their decision solely on written, objective
criteria established by their peers in the discipline"

Rationale:  Objectivity and fairness.  This addition by UTK was accepted, so
we can have it if we want. I can't think of any objection.

3.7.3 (p.9, added as last clause before part 2. That is, following the
sentence on leave or sabbatical):

"EDO results must be provided to the faculty member no less than 90 days
after the reporting period."

Rationale: In the past, due to the various administrative levels, it has
taken a long time to learn of the results, sometimes even the nest semester.
Without this clause, faculty will have less time to improve their areas of
weakness.  Timeliness also ought to apply to probationary faculty so they
will know as early as possible if their head has some reservations about
performance.  Administration won't like this one, but it is a reasonable
time. UTK has this clause.

3.7.3 (p.9, inserted between the two bold print paragraphs that set out
termination action:

"The head's recommendation to terminate shall include the history of efforts
to encourage and assist the faculty member to improve his or her performance."

Rationale: Fairness and abrupt changes in goals.  UTK added this for obvious
reasons. It has been accepted.

3.7.3 (p.9, second UTC paragraph under part 2):

Substitute "may" instead of "will" in "In this and all subsequent sections,
the Faculty Council President will assume the role..."

Rationale: We might want more flexibility in the future if we consider a
faculty review body such as suggested below.  For example, we might want to
establish a Termination Committee (see below) or we may want the head of the
current Faculty Administrative Committee to serve in the functions mentioned.

3.7.3 (p.9, inserted before the bold paragraph that begins, "If a faculty
member is evaluated by the Review Committee as unsatisfactory…" ):

"A standing Termination Committee shall be nominated and selected by the
full faculty to ensure due process has been followed by department heads,
reporting within 30 days their findings to the Chancellor to assist him or
her in deciding to terminate or develop a remediation plan."

Rationale:  This is perhaps the least likely to be approved by Knoxville,
but it allows an additional step in the "burden of proof" that the Trustees
have said still lies with the university.  We do not have such a committee,
and its composition and selection should certainly be widely discussed.  The
intent is clearly not to protect a faculty member who is underperforming,
but to be sure due process (called for in our resolution) is followed.  Due
to the importance (termination) I think this committee should stand apart
from the existing administrative relations committee.  I would interested in
hearing the nature of objections to such a step in the process. If you
agree, vote for it and let Knoxville show us where they stand on "burden of
proof."

3.7.4 (p.10, last line on the page, carrying over to p.11):

Substitute this sentence: "It will strive to reward at least a 5 per cent
increase in salary in addition to any across-the board increases in the year
of the cumulative performance review.'

Rationale:  This reflects our resolution which would, if implemented,
address the compression issue.  Of course current and perhaps future budget
restraints may make this impossible, but that is not a good reason to ask
for what is actually a very modest recognition of achievement over the
years, and the dollar amount would not be that much in any given year.
Also, the "strive" part, as others have pointed out, lets the university off
the hook anyway.  At least a specific reward sets a goal.  The university
may well wish to give us "a variety of other rewards," but that should not
deflect us from the real need to improve compensation to the level of
comparable institutions.  Do not forget that somehow UTK has come up with
$320,000 for each of the next two years.  As their best faculty are
rewarded, let us at UTC at least wish for similar recognition for our
achievements.  Given the "strive" escape clause, and the fact that real
rewards are going to be made at UTK, I can't imagine Knoxville cutting this
clause, but let's find out.

Some of you have correctly pointed out there are many other parts of the
plan that we have not addressed, but this is about as much, maybe more, as
we can consider at this point. While we cannot create a silk purse, perhaps
we will get a slightly better sow's ear.

Richard Rice
History