I am a bit puzzled by the recent warning from the PRC: if we don't vote for
their implementation, they in Knoxville will do it for us in a vindictive way.
I thought that the UT administrators were the "good cops" in all this,
protecting us from the "bad cop" Trustees by not only affirming tenure, but
making it even more difficult to get rid of the deadwood among us.

I thought I heard someone back there say that our leaders can be trusted
since they have our best interests at heart.   Golly, it was only those
misled trustees who were causing all the trouble.  Didn't I hear Joe Johnson
hisself saying something like that during his last visit?

So now we have a bad cop, bad cop scenario.  And that really is  too bad,
because there are actually improvements in key parts of the revived PRC
plan.  If  I were going to win over the faculty, I would first point out the
changes in the review committee, especially the unconscionable part about
the head being a member (Trustee mandate) without a vote (PRC improvement).
Also, the PRC should repeat their point that the cumulative review will be
an occasion to reward faculty for six years of meritorious service with
hoped-for financial incentives, which in turn will address salary
compression issues.  By the way, how does the PRC know that its plan will be
approved?  A lot of the Knoxville plan was rejected, wasn't it?

I applaud the improvements of the PRC, but there are other ideas expressed
in our resolution that I will present as amendments to the implementation
plan should it survive the first reading. Perhaps the second reading should
be first thing in the fall, after we all have gotten over implementation
fatigue.

The most important addition is one I will share with you right now so you
can think about it: a Termination Committee (I suggest that name in honor of
George Orwell) chosen by the full faculty that will have one,  and only one
function: to review the due process of the suggested Review Committee, to
allow true peer review.  It won't have much work, since termination will be
a "rare and unusual event." I don't know how this should be constituted or
what their exact role will be, but we are told to wait until later to look
closely at the EDO process, so this is not unprecedented.  Remember,  while
we cannot change the Trustee language significantly, we can certainly add to
the handbook.  Or try to.  Maybe those Knoxville cops aren't so bad after all.

Richard Rice
History