>At 09:39 AM 4/26/99 -0400, Prof. Rushing wrote:
>
>>Here's what I see....  our faculty appointed committees of colleagues to
>>review issues...  and in one or two cases those faculty committees formed
>>sub-committees (also composed of faculty) to undertake research and to make
>>recommendations.
>>
>>(I was a member of one of those subcommittees -- the subcommittee charged
>>with helping incorporate the new Banner system into the world of UTC....
>>....I was not a part of the committee work to review and to develop a plan
>>to implement the new Board of Trustees mandated tenure policies -- but my
>>reactions and questions are the same for what's happening with both issues)
>>
>
>I have no opinion about the work of the Banner committee, but just to set
the record straight, the committee in question here was appointed by the
Provost from names submitted by the Executive Committee of Faculty Council
and presumably reported to the Provost.
>
>You will recall from the Provost's memorandum of 23. Sept:
>
>>To provide leadership to our efforts, I have appointed, from names
>>submitted by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council, a Performance
>>Review Committee to be chaired by Marilyn Helms, College of Business
>>Administration.
>...
>>The Board of Trustees will act on our plan at its June 1999 meeting.  In
>>order to ensure the widest and most careful on-campus review possible, I
>>have asked the committee to submit its recommendations to me prior to the
>>Thanksgiving break.  I will then make the recommendations available on
>>RAVEN, as well as forward them to the Faculty Council.  This will allow
>>opportunity for the council to have a preliminary discussion during a
>>December meeting.  The council will plan discussions with the full faculty
>>and will provide information at the appropriate time.
>>
>>The Performance Review Committee will hold a forum with the faculty on
>>Friday, October 2 from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. in the Signal Mountain Room.  The
>>purpose of the meeting is to hear your suggestions concerning the plan of
>>implementation. I encourage you to review a copy of the approved plan,
>>which has been sent to all full-time faculty.  I second the committee's
>>invitation to participate in the October 2 session and hope to see you there.
>>
>
>Having something of an interest in the issue myself, as Dean Tanner can
verify from conversations and meetings between the two of us last summer, I
had volunteered to serve on this committee a week earlier, after which this
exchange had taken place:
>
>At 07:04 PM 9/17/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Provost,
>>
>>At 05:25 PM 9/17/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Thank you for your interest in the UTC Performance Review Policy Committee.
>>> Your name was not among those nominated, and I have already named the
>>>committee.   I appreciate your interest.
>>>
>>>Bill Berry
>>>
>>
>>Thank you for your prompt response to my equiry.  Can you remind me of how
>>the committee was constitued and picked?  I must have lost the notices that
>>were sent to faculty about that, and instructions from the Trustees on how
>>to carry out the procedure, because I don't recall seeing anything about it
>>in either campus mail or electron mail.
>>
>>I would still be interested in attending the committee's meetings as an
>>observer.
>>
>As it turns out, the Helms committee held exactly ONE public meeting, late
on the Friday afternoon mentioned in Provost Berry's memorandum of Sep. 23,
and NO meetings open to outside observers.
>
>While Prof. Helms was kind enough to keep me advised of successive drafts
of her committee's work, numerous wording suggestions I offered, both to the
committee and later to Faculty Council, were ruled out of order because they
were judged to violate the desires of the Board of Trustees (i.e., not on
the basis of reasoned open debate and democracy, but by invoking higher
authority).
>
>It's true, also, that the Helms committee report was sent to the Handbook
Committee, which IS selected by the full Faculty Council according to the
process Prof. Rushing describes, but not until the end of January.  It was
reported out with a list of caveats that seem never to have been sent to the
full faculty.
>
>I offer all these details only because I took an interest in the process
over the past year. In general, I also believe in the committee system, but
as an ASSISTANCE to democracy, not as a SUBSTITUTE for it.  This is why I
wrote on April 14
>
>>Prof. Rice is to be commended, IMHO, for his efforts over the past few
weeks to organize a public meeting on short notice, to develop a petition,
to respond to suggestions on the petition and to generate interest through
this forum.  This  process should have been followed six months ago; or nine
months; or a year.
>>
>To judge from Prof. Rushing's rhetorical questions,  he might prefer a
system of government for the US in which the President appoints committees
comprised of members of Congress from his or her own party, then sends the
resulting bills to the full Congress fully expecting passage without any
further ado.
>
>Deans and department heads like Prof. Rushing will be gratified to know
that changes about to be made, democratically or otherwise, in the Faculty
Handbook will push UTC considerably in that direction, since the changes
will greatly empower them.
>
>BTW, anarchY and anarchISM are quite different, and the latter does NOT
imply the former.
>

Fritz Efaw,
Sacco-Vanzetti Chair of
Excellence in Edu-babble