I don't really understand my friend, Prof. Ingle's, viewpoint.  Those
of us who are supporting the proposed changes in the Handbook regarding
implementation of post-tenure review, are not doing Knoxville's bidding.
We are following a mandatory directive of the Trustees of the University.
I do not agree with that directive but if we ignore it the University will
impose its own implementation on us.

   Our plan, in response to suggestions from people like Prof. Richard
Rice, has evolved since the first version.  For example, the department
head will be a non-voting member of the Review Committee convened in the
event of two consecutive unsatisfactory annual performance reviews (p. 9).
Furthermore, a tenured faculty involved in termination proceedings is
entitled to at least an academic year's salary following initiation of
these proceedings (p. 15)  This extends to tenured faculty the same
protection provided untenured faculty in the third and subsequent year of
the probationary period.

  It has also been proposed that the present 3 categories of EDO merit
be expanded to include a 4th, "needs improvement" (a faculty "D") but
this change has not been made yet.

   If the present situation is viewed in terms of "us vs. them" them is
the Board of Trustees, not fellow UTC faculty who support the form of the
required changes.

   In the interest of disclosure I am on the Handbook Committee that
worked on the proposed changes.


James W. Hiestand
ENGR

(423) 755 4355 work
(423) 755 5229 FAX