Although my experience tells me that "lurking" on e-mail lists is often
much safer and more productive that is responding to message after message,
I do have a question about the issues now before our faculty... questions
for which the answer may give us some better insight into what's "really
going on" with our faculty and these controversial issues now before us....
At the last university faculty meeting, after a fairly one-sided "debate"
several motions were defeated... ...and I wonder what those defeats
really mean.
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)
After a number of meetings... (in some cases far too many meetings)
...after much research, discussion, and review of issues, review of
policies and procedures... these faculty subcommittees reported to their
parent committees.... those parent faculty committees then reviewed,
debated, and analyzed the subcommittee reports and recommendations....
...and in some of those subcommittee reports were included multiple
recommendations with an analysis of the possible consequences of following
each of the recommendations... --consequences both pro and con--
...and after review, debate, and analysis the full committees made their
own committee reports to our faculty council.... ...there, in council,
more review, more debate, more analysis... and eventually recommendations
to go before the full faculty for a formal vote.
My question is -- if we are going to have so much preliminary research,
analysis, debate, reporting and recommending -- from faculty colleagues --
colleagues who have devoted time, energy, and resources to making the best
decisions possible -- why then can our full faculty, after only ten or 20
minutes of (at times very ill-informed debate and at times actual
monologue) reject and discard the recommendations of months of serious and
comprehensive analysis and reflection?
I just do not see how our UTC faculty can function as a "committee of the
whole." Maybe in the old days of the University of Chattanooga such a
luxury was possible... but... in my opinion, for whatever one person's
opinion may be worth, we absolutely must give credence to the dedicated
work and recommendations of our colleagues. My understanding of the
committee system is that is what the committee is supposed to do....
namely, the work that is impractical for the full body.
Frankly, and honestly, I have confidence in our committees. I know many of
the members of the committees. I have at least some confidence in the
collective wisdom of our committees and our faculty leadership.
If we are to reject the recommendations of our faculty committees -- then why?
If we are to reject the recommendations of our faculty committees -- what
are the consequences?
How can our UTC faculty function if not by the committee system?
If we are to reject the committee system -- committees composed of our
colleagues -- what are the alternatives?
I believe in our system of faculty governance. I believe it works. I'm
not certain anarchy is a reasonable alternative.
--kit
____________________________________________________
....................................................
|
