Remember the open meeting to edit and amend the Knoxville resolutions on
Friday, March 26, from 2:00-5:00 in the Raccoon Mountain Room. I have
already received some ideas to think about which are listed below, and if
you cannot be there or are reluctant to come forth on Raven, forward your
suggestions to me and I will post them.

AGENDA

1.  Read through the Knoxville resolutions to identify clauses to keep
intact, checking     off items for discussion and amendment or exclusion.
2:00-3:00.

2.  Discussion of items identified above for further reflection. 3:00-4:00

3.  Discussion of additional UTC-specific points related to our mission and
position     within the system, including addressing long-standing issues.
4:00-5:00

Note: This schedule may be optimistic, so we may have to reconvene on
Tuesday, March 30, in Brock Hall 201 from 2:00 on.  However, it is my
assumption that the months of deliberation in Knoxville refined many points,
the purpose of each point usually being clear in each resolution. Also, I
hope you will have time this week to consider carefully the document and
post any additional points so that we keep deliberation to a minimum.
Although this may seem hasty, remember that any resulting document will have
to pass the scrutiny and vote of the full faculty twice.

A resolution, like the Trustee statement, is not an implementation policy,
but it can serve equally as a general guide, and even address systemic
dysfunctions. Remember, not only is tenure as traditional defined under the
gun, so is the principle of faculty governance. Those who would cooperate in
dissolution of tenure risk losing, to quote the AAUP, "faculty claims to
academic freedom, a share in campus governance, and respect for the
importance of research and teaching..."

ADDITIONS

We will consider in order received our own concerns. At UTC we should not be
reluctant to demand fair and equal treatment in accordance with our mission.
I will number additions for ease of reference in our discussion. I include
some of my own ideas that would benefit from constructive criticism.

1. Post-tenure review, unless an individual requests otherwise, should begin
no earlier than 2007-2008 to allow faculty to respond. In no case shall the
post-tenure review be retroactive.

RATIONALE: Since the probationary period is seven (or nine) years, tenured
faculty deserve as much time to redirect their energies, if necessary, into
scholarship and publication: these are traditionally easier to measure than
teaching and public service, and will make a stronger case for continuance.
There may be years when funding is available to entice our strongest members
to be considered earlier. Let us not compound the exceptional merit in dry
years problem we have had for a long time.

2. We, the faculty at UTC, believe that the Faculty Handbook existing on
June 18, 1998, constitutes a binding and actionable contract endorsed by our
respective letters of appointment. However, we recognize the need to act in
a professional and constructive manner to implement certain policies
mandated by the UT Board of Trustees.

RATIONALE: Many faculty do not wish to support a resolution and subsequent
implementation policy that would compromise future individual or class
action legal recourse should the new policy be administered in an arbitrary
or unfair manner. This clause may prevent the administration from arguing
that the faculty, and not the Trustees, had voted to change our tenure system.

3. Monetary rewards should be spread evenly among all faculty except those
who receive below merit rating.

RATIONALE: Such a policy would affirm the postive idea that most of us are
effective, conscientious professionals deserving of recognition. Also, it
would alleviate the issue of some rewards going to those who curry favor.

4.  Since the new policies regarding rewards and punishments (termination)
are mandated by the Trustees system-wide, fairness dictates that they be
administered without prejudice to any unit.  Therefore, the UTC faculty pay
must be brought into line, in a five year period, with faculty at UTK in
similar positions.

RATIONALE: Now that we have a system-wide mandate, the legally supported
principle of equal pay for equal work must be applied. It would be
reasonable to ask an across-the-board raise at UTC of 20% of the difference
from professors teaching in similar departments. It might be argued that
research is more important at UTK, but if teaching (our mission?) is not
rewarded at the same level, this sends the message that the traditional
research institution is the model and goal here too.

This is all I have time for now.  Send your ideas in for posting/discussion.

Richard Rice
History