We all remember the story of the worthy Dr. Jekyl who was transformed into
the infamous Dr. Hyde.  Supporters of the implementation plan we are asked
to vote upon tommorrow have resurrected this imagery in their arguments.

First, we are told not to worry about words like "consensus" in situations
that may well lead to termination.  We are told not to ignore problems in
our "trigger mechanism" of the EDO,  such as how many of the three areas
evaluated must be "below merit" before termination becomes a reality.  We
are told that  we can easily change that later.  We are told that
termination will be "rare and unlikely." In fact, all worries must be set
aside in the belief that the UT administrators are objective, fair,  and
worthy of our trust.

On the other hand, if we don't support our PRC version, reasonable and fair
Dr. Jekyl suddenly becomes the loathsome Dr. Hyde, intent on punishing us
with lawerly vindictiveness.  I did not buy this argument until last Friday
morning, when we were presented with a perfect example of how easily we can
be manipulated.

As the most vocal proponent of a faculty resolution protesting our treatment
by the Board of Trustees, I admit to being duped by those who do not want
the faculty to even consider such a motion, or to marginalize it at best.
Unwittingly, my failure to get the resolution on the agenda only proves the
point that we cannot trust the integrity of those in power.

Knowledge is power, and I did not have the arcane knowledge that determines
how a faculty petition should be handled.  No wonder there has not been a
single public rebuttal of our resolution:  by waiting until I broached the
agenda issue on Friday morning, our leaders, who were elected to represent
faculty viewpoints, not to deflect them, showed that they never intended to
entertain the idea of a resolution.  The unusual delay in publishing the
agenda was a ploy.

Trustingly, I sent to the Faculty Council President a petition, and later a
final resolution, as well as using Raven as a forum.  I had a personal, and
what I thought was an honest exchange of views with the President of the
Faculty Council in early April, at which time she did not tell me I sent the
petition to the wrong person.

Yet on Friday morning I began to hear talk of a "maverick" faction and of
willful violation of due process. By not revealing that procedure until as
late as possible, our leadership has demonstrated a lack of honesty and
candor.  In a recent article, "Objectives Visions," in Science News (Dec 5,
1998), Bruce Bower concludes: "In science, as in political and
administrative affairs, objectivity has more to do with the exclusion of
personal judgement and the struggle against subjectivity than with truth to
nature." I submit that personal judgement and agendas are all too obvious in
the handling of the resoltion.

No doubt I will now be accused of ad hominim attacks as a diversion from the
issues we are facing, but at the heart of the entire review process is the
importance of open, objective measures that are evaluated with honesty and
integrity.  Personal integrity  in management becomes central to the process
of fair treatment of employees.  We are not making widgets here with
measurable sales goals, but dealing with ideas, some of which may not be
accepted by management.  Character matters more than ever with the new board
mandte.

When I announced in March an ad hoc _open_ meeting for all those interested
in framing a faculty resolution, I did not exclude administration and those
who now appear were dead set against the concept all along. In fact, they
were allowed to speak and their ideas were actually incorporated into the
resolution.  For example, the large section on evaluation was dropped at
their suggestion that we already had the EDO here.

We have not been working behind the scenes, urging department heads to rally
the troops, lobbying in special meetings, and so on.  In fact, using Raven
as a public forum, we have set forth ideas so that faculty would have time
to consider them.  I note that the PRC has again presented us with a
document three working days in advance of the vote, and did not have an open
meeting some of us thought might expedite matters.

I have been told that the Chair of the PRC did not even read our resolution
on Raven.  I find this difficult to believe, but if it is true, think about
what this reveals about their supposed search for faculty "input." After
working all year on a plan and then seeing it defeated 112 to 78, the PRC
then did not even read a document that included several important policy
suggestions?  By choosing not to even consider or address in a public forum
these ideas, do they not reveal a death wish for their plan?  Unlike the
PRC, at least the Handbook Committee can articulate some reasons to support
the latest version.

Perhaps the PRC is arrogant, but I think the real reason they do not support
their implementation plan with reasoned argument instead of fear is that
they already know it is a fait accompli.  We can vote for or against it, but
we will get it.  We have heard this over and over.  I have a hunch that the
"Knoxville lawyers" have been working hand in hand with the PRC all along,
so why would they not impose their own plan?  Because Dr. Jekyl may be Mr. Hyde.

Richard Rice
History