The PRC Committee, we learn from Faculty Council minutes, decided early on
not to look into the EDO process, even though, as Herb Burhenn puts it, it
is the "trigger" for the new SOT process.  We are now urged to approve an
implementation plan whose utility revolves around the EDO.  "We can always
change the bylaws," and "wait until next year," are arguments for proceeding
without looking at the EDO. Yes, it will be difficult with so much riding on it.

When Verbie Prevost and I discussed this issue in a non-confidential meeting
(Provost Berry and I also had a discussion under similar ground rules: I'm
not very good at keeping secrets, but that should be obvious by now). I
suggested (input) that an expedient to ensure that the whole EDO issue be
examined at the earliest possible time, is to build into our implementation
plan an "escape clause" that says up front that our annual evaluation
instrument, the EDO is currently under revision to reflect its new role in
SOT.  Everyone I have spoken to seems to admit the need for revision, so why
not mention it in the plan?  Some of us may be more supportive if this is done.

What is wrong with our present EDO, a process that was difficult to agree
upon in the first place? Why open this can of worms? Didn't UTC have an
advantage in having this formal annual review process already in place?
Doesn't the Trustees language reflect our process?

At first, I too thought we could simply rely on our tried and "true" EDO
process to save a lot of time and hassle, and I guess that was the reason
the PRC and others have chosen to ignore it. Maybe too this is why the
faculty have pretty much ignored the PRC as it was working on a UTC plan for
implementation.  Perhaps many of were laboring under the mistaken assumption
that the six year cumulative review would be the trigger for rewards and
termination. I think one of the best ideas coming out of the PRC is to make
this an occasion for rewarding faculty who have persevered, and I hope Bob
Levy will approve their position.

But the annual determination of a faculty member's acceptable performance
now places a lot more emphasis on the EDO; an instrument designed for other
purposes, it is now not up to the very important task we are asking of it.
Allow me to mention a few issues to support this view.

While we have a tradition of awarding (limited to 20%) exceptional merit to
those who excel in two out of three areas (teaching, research, service), how
will this "trigger" mechanism deal with termination? Will it be feather
light, requiring only one unsatisfactory area to begin the year and a month
process of termination? Will it require a firmer pull on the trigger, two
areas of failure, a mirror image of the present rewards (when there are
funds) system? Or will a faculty member have to fail miserably in all areas?
These are important and critical questions to ask of the EDO.

Will we revise the EDO to reflect the new emphasis on teaching that is being
discussed as our real mission at UTC? Do we really want to have just three
categories? Grant writing has been discussed as an important faculty
activity, but it falls somewhere between research and public service,
depending on the grant.

I am not sure of all the ramifications, but we need to consider if UTK gave
themselves a better system when they _changed the bold print_ folks. They
were unencumbered with our system, so they had no tradition to overcome when
they designed four evaluations, adding the "needs improvement" evaluation.
Besides giving a department head more constructive flexibility in telling a
faculty member how to improve (written documentation is now required there),
without triggering the almost inevitable litigation that must follow an
unsatisfactory review. It also would actually build up the "history" of
remediation called for in the Trustee mandate. I am not sure one year is
enough time for us to demonstrate improvement in teaching (only fall
semester could be used as evidence, assuming student evaluations are speeded
up), certainly not enough time to publish more, and maybe even public
service might take more time to demonstrate an improved track record.

In short, the UTK implementation (it has been approved) offers at least the
possibility of a two year warning period for termination, and perhaps longer
if the faculty member shows improvement. This seems both worthy and wise,
but we do not seem to have time now to get into such issues at UTC, hence
our need to make it absolutely clear and on record that we will revise the
EDO next year.  Both Verbie Prevost and Herb Burhenn agree on the need, so
let us include our intentions in the implementation plan itself. Let us say
that we are in the process of reviewing the EDO process.

Richard Rice
History