Having initiated what I hoped would be an open and honest discussion of
very important issues facing this campus, I admit to being concerned
yesterday with two missing items when we received the most recent
implementation plan.
First, I assumed that when a faculty petition to place an item on the agenda
is signed and delivered to the Faculty Council President three weeks before
the meeting, and a hard copy draft of the item (our resolution) is sent to
the President two weeks before, one might reasonably expect copies to be
distributed. Budget crunch?
But never mind; in case you did not keep a copy, this message will conclude
with the resolution and the two amendments. Please download it and share
with colleagues who may not be on Raven. Since it has been public on Raven
for three weeks, I hope you have decided already whether or not to vote for it.
Since there has been no public opposition or discussion of the resolution,
faculty are either indifferent or fully in support of it, but we shall see
next Tuesday. I urge all of you to vote for it as a statement of
principle, and perhaps our last chance at exercising academic freedom. Keep
in mind that as an indication of the will of the faculty, the policy
elements can be acted upon, since we are told that the handbook changes
almost every year.
We should have a secret vote, because I gather that some are in fear of
their department head, their deans, or both.
Provost Berry has told me he has no problem with a resolution, although that
should not be taken as an endorsement of our version. Verbie Prevost is
also on record supporting a resolution: at the last Faculty Council Meeting
the Executive Committee proposed a short resolution based on UTK's final
resolution (this after their implementation was modified) that apparently
made little sense since it referred to an implementation that we have not
voted on yet; I am told it was voted down, but we will have to await the
minutes.
Second. I hope that the odd omission of an agenda four working days before
our meeting does not indicate unwillingness to schedule our resolution for a
vote. It should logically come first before discussion of the implementation
plan. We will have a lot on the agenda, and I for one would like an early
vote to indicate faculty sentiment on the resolution before our numbers are
reduced due to attrition.
I imagine the game plan is to discuss and vote on the implementation at our
first meeting, and if the vote is positive, to adjourn and call a second
meeting so that the second reading requirement is met. Although this
subverts the reason for second readings (time to reflect and consider), it
may be necessary since there is a May 1st deadline set by Knoxville, and
none of us really want another faculty meeting during finals. Bad enough
now when we are all reading papers and doing other end of semester work.
Since the agenda is still apparently being set, I respectfully suggest that
the first thing after graduation candidate approval be the following resolution:
UTC Faculty Resolution on Tenure (to be voted on April 27, 1999)
I. Changes in the University of Tennessee Tenure Policy
We, the Faculty of the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, believe
that the Faculty Handbook existing before June 18, 1998, constitutes a
binding and actionable contract endorsed by our respective individual
letters of appointment. We urged the Board of Trustee before their decision
of June 18, 1998 to reconsider their unilateral decision to alter the
existing contract.
Whereas, as responsible employees of the State of Tennessee, we
recognize the need to act in a professional and constructive manner to
implement certain policies mandated by the University of Tennessee Board of
Trustees;
Resolve that compliance with that unilateral mandate does not change
our assertion that the Faculty Handbook existing before June 18, 1998 was a
mutually agreed upon contract between the University of Tennessee Board of
Trustees and individual faculty members.
Therefore, with the above understanding, we propose the following
resolutions.
II. Performance Pay
Whereas, the people of Tennessee deserve to have a university with
faculty who are recognized for excellence in teaching, research, and
service;
Whereas, The University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, continues to have
salaries significantly below the average salaries in our reference group
of similar institutions;
Whereas, The University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, has long been
plagued by problems of salary compression and salary inversion; and
Whereas, These problems make it difficult to hire and retain
faculty recognized by their peers as excellent;
Resolved, That the Faculty of the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga,
supports establishment of a reward policy, coupled with the annual and
cumulative performance reviews established by the Board of Trustees, which
would provide additional funds for permanent salary increases to all faculty
of all ranks whose performance continues to meet that which would ordinarily
be expected;
2. That said raises should be funded by annual increases in the salary
funds provided by the State of Tennessee to the University; and
3. That in order that the cumulative review be a positive incentive and
reward process, rather than just an approval of continuation or an occasion
for termination, the level of salary increases associated with favorable
reviews during a cumulative six year review should be at least 5 per cent,
rewarding continued success within the rank attained. Funding by the state
for these cumulative increases in the year of review should be on top of any
annual cost-of-living increases and any across-the-board increases
addressing the fact that the university is funded below comparable institutions.
III. Due Process
Whereas, Due process principles of clarity, objectivity and fairness
provide important protections to faculty and to the institution;
Whereas, The current Faculty Handbook of the University of
Tennessee, Chattanooga, establishes basic due process protections concerning
academic freedom, tenure, and resolution of grievances; and
Whereas, A new edition of the Faculty Handbook is being prepared
to accommodate the new policies on tenure and faculty evaluation adopted by
the Board of Trustees in June 1998;
Resolved, That existing due process procedures established in the
Faculty Handbook should be retained in the new Faculty Handbook, in
particular the procedures listed below;
1. That faculty should be judged on the basis of professional
work, for example, with respect to manner of interaction with colleagues
and students;
2. That the University must show during an adequate cause process
in which incompetence is alleged that it has offered significant
encouragement and help to the faculty member to improve his or her
performance;
3. That faculty members are entitled to timely notice of
misconduct charges.
4. That faculty members are entitled to a fair and objective
hearing before a committee of the peers in grievances related to
employment;
5. That faculty members who have earned tenure shall have
continuous employment with a presumption of competence until
relinquishment or forfeiture of tenure or until financial exigency or
academic program discontinuance, or until the institution has carried its
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the presumption of
competence is no longer valid or that the faculty member has engaged in
serious misconduct; and
6. That faculty have the right and responsibility to provide
through Faculty Council action a formal review of any changes in policies
related to tenure and evaluation of faculty;
7. That adminstration of termination of under-performing faculty
shall not in any case be done by the establishment of a quota system in any
form.
IV. Performance Standards and Evaluation Instruments
Whereas, The faculty of the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga,
should be involved in drafting and implementing tenure policies as they
apply at the department or unit level;
Whereas, Performance reviews, including the EDO and cumulative reviews,
should be fairly and evenly applied to all faculty within a department or unit;
Whereas, Performance standards and evaluation documents should be
the products of joint planning and discussion by faculty and
administration of a department with the intent of even application of
performance standards and evaluation methods across faculty within the
respective department or unit; and
Whereas, The nature of appointments and resulting performance expectations
varies greatly across departments or units at the Universty and should be
defined clearly for the faculty member;
Resolved, That department or unit bylaws incorporating standards
and procedures for faculty performance review must be approved by the
faculty of the department or unit;
2. That documentation procedures should be uniform and
standardized within each unit;
3. That performance standards and evaluation documents should be
publicly available;
4. That faculty assignments should be the written product of
planning between the faculty member and that unit head and should be
available for collegial and public review.
V. Timing of Performance Evaluations
Whereas, the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, Performance
Review Committee has recommended six year cumulative reviews are based on
data from annual reviews and no more than ten pages of narrative documentation;
Whereas, The faculty of the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, must have
sufficient time to enable reporting in their annual EDO reviews; and
Whereas, Performance reporting by the faculty of the University of
Tennessee, Chattanooga, should occur near the end or soon after the
performance reporting period to ensure timeliness of reporting and
evaluation;
Resolved, That results of the evaluation and assessment from the EDO
should be provided to the faculty member no later than ninety days after the
last day of the performance reporting year;
2. That department or unit heads must distribute appropriate
requests and reporting forms for annual performance reporting information
to faculty no less than two weeks before the deadline for reporting.
VI. Procedures for Performance Evaluations
Whereas, Faculty assignments vary greatly among and within units
and by rank;
Whereas, Performance reviews should accommodate diversity of
assignments while permitting comparison on faculty performances;
Whereas, Fairness requires that faculty assignments, evaluation
standards, and performances reviews be publicly available; and
Whereas, Performance reviews have the following purposes: to
promote faculty development, to ensure professional vitality, and to
enable fair personnel decisions;
Resolved, That the review process should be standardized while
allowing for diversity of creativity and research achievement by
establishing with faculty approval appropriate documentation, review
standards, and review procedures at the departmental level;
2. That the review of performance should include a narrative
describing strengths and opportunities for improvement;
3. That the review process of a department should be examined
during each academic program review;
4. That the teaching review process should integrate
contributions from the faculty member, a peer review, and students.
5. That the review of teaching should consider course design
including appropriateness to departmental goals, grading tools in the
context of instilling new knowledge and skills, and teaching methods in
terms of effectiveness; and
7. That a clear distinction should be made between assessment,
which is done during the self and peer review, to identify strengths and
opportunities for development, and evaluation, which is done by the unit
leader who rates the faculty members performance with a supporting
narrative.
VII. Accountability of Administrators
Whereas, An effective performance review must allow sufficient
time for performance planning, performance documentation, and performance
review;
Whereas, An effective performance review must result in thorough,
clear, and fair reviews with narratives which document the reasons for an
evaluation; and
Whereas, The new performance review procedures charge
administrators, especially department heads, with the responsibility to
review faculty performance and to make appropriate personnel decisions;
Resolved, That the Faculty Council appoint a Standing Committee, or empower
an existing committee, to comment on the thoroughness, fairness, and
timeliness of actions by administrators in evaluation of faculty performance
and in decision-making via the EDO process, particularly in regard to below
merit ratings and faculty development decisions, and also in cumulative
evaluations.
AMENDMENT ONE: [inserted in section I of the resolution as a third
paragraph or fourth if the following amendment is also adopted]
Whereas, the June 18, 1998 Trustees policy applies to the entire UT system,
we the faculty of UTC reserve the right to adopt any modifications of that
policy that have been granted to other units of the system.
AMENDMENT TWO: [inserted as second paragraph of section I]
Therefore, we endorse the position on post-tenure review approved by
the American Association of University Professors on June 6, 1998.
UTC Faculty Resolution on Tenure (to be voted on April 27, 1999)
I. Changes in the University of Tennessee Tenure Policy
We, the Faculty of the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, believe
that the Faculty Handbook existing before June 18, 1998, constitutes a
binding and actionable contract endorsed by our respective individual
letters of appointment. We urged the Board of Trustee before their decision
of June 18, 1998 to reconsider their unilateral decision to alter the
existing contract.
Whereas, as responsible employees of the State of Tennessee, we
recognize the need to act in a professional and constructive manner to
implement certain policies mandated by the University of Tennessee Board of
Trustees;
Resolve that compliance with that unilateral mandate does not change
our assertion that the Faculty Handbook existing before June 18, 1998 was a
mutually agreed upon contract between the University of Tennessee Board of
Trustees and individual faculty members.
Therefore, with the above understanding, we propose the following
resolutions.
II. Performance Pay
Whereas, the people of Tennessee deserve to have a university with
faculty who are recognized for excellence in teaching, research, and
service;
Whereas, The University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, continues to have
salaries significantly below the average salaries in our reference group
of similar institutions;
Whereas, The University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, has long been
plagued by problems of salary compression and salary inversion; and
Whereas, These problems make it difficult to hire and retain
faculty recognized by their peers as excellent;
Resolved, That the Faculty of the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga,
supports establishment of a reward policy, coupled with the annual and
cumulative performance reviews established by the Board of Trustees, which
would provide additional funds for permanent salary increases to all faculty
of all ranks whose performance continues to meet that which would ordinarily
be expected;
2. That said raises should be funded by annual increases in the salary
funds provided by the State of Tennessee to the University; and
3. That in order that the cumulative review be a positive incentive and
reward process, rather than just an approval of continuation or an occasion
for termination, the level of salary increases associated with favorable
reviews during a cumulative six year review should be at least 5 per cent,
rewarding continued success within the rank attained. Funding by the state
for these cumulative increases in the year of review should be on top of any
annual cost-of-living increases and any across-the-board increases
addressing the fact that the university is funded below comparable institutions.
III. Due Process
Whereas, Due process principles of clarity, objectivity and fairness
provide important protections to faculty and to the institution;
Whereas, The current Faculty Handbook of the University of
Tennessee, Chattanooga, establishes basic due process protections concerning
academic freedom, tenure, and resolution of grievances; and
Whereas, A new edition of the Faculty Handbook is being prepared
to accommodate the new policies on tenure and faculty evaluation adopted by
the Board of Trustees in June 1998;
Resolved, That existing due process procedures established in the
Faculty Handbook should be retained in the new Faculty Handbook, in
particular the procedures listed below;
1. That faculty should be judged on the basis of professional
work, for example, with respect to manner of interaction with colleagues
and students;
2. That the University must show during an adequate cause process
in which incompetence is alleged that it has offered significant
encouragement and help to the faculty member to improve his or her
performance;
3. That faculty members are entitled to timely notice of
misconduct charges.
4. That faculty members are entitled to a fair and objective
hearing before a committee of the peers in grievances related to
employment;
5. That faculty members who have earned tenure shall have
continuous employment with a presumption of competence until
relinquishment or forfeiture of tenure or until financial exigency or
academic program discontinuance, or until the institution has carried its
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the presumption of
competence is no longer valid or that the faculty member has engaged in
serious misconduct; and
6. That faculty have the right and responsibility to provide
through Faculty Council action a formal review of any changes in policies
related to tenure and evaluation of faculty;
7. That adminstration of termination of under-performing faculty
shall not in any case be done by the establishment of a quota system in any
form.
IV. Performance Standards and Evaluation Instruments
Whereas, The faculty of the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga,
should be involved in drafting and implementing tenure policies as they
apply at the department or unit level;
Whereas, Performance reviews, including the EDO and cumulative reviews,
should be fairly and evenly applied to all faculty within a department or unit;
Whereas, Performance standards and evaluation documents should be
the products of joint planning and discussion by faculty and
administration of a department with the intent of even application of
performance standards and evaluation methods across faculty within the
respective department or unit; and
Whereas, The nature of appointments and resulting performance expectations
varies greatly across departments or units at the Universty and should be
defined clearly for the faculty member;
Resolved, That department or unit bylaws incorporating standards
and procedures for faculty performance review must be approved by the
faculty of the department or unit;
2. That documentation procedures should be uniform and
standardized within each unit;
3. That performance standards and evaluation documents should be
publicly available;
4. That faculty assignments should be the written product of
planning between the faculty member and that unit head and should be
available for collegial and public review.
V. Timing of Performance Evaluations
Whereas, the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, Performance
Review Committee has recommended six year cumulative reviews are based on
data from annual reviews and no more than ten pages of narrative documentation;
Whereas, The faculty of the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, must have
sufficient time to enable reporting in their annual EDO reviews; and
Whereas, Performance reporting by the faculty of the University of
Tennessee, Chattanooga, should occur near the end or soon after the
performance reporting period to ensure timeliness of reporting and
evaluation;
Resolved, That results of the evaluation and assessment from the EDO
should be provided to the faculty member no later than ninety days after the
last day of the performance reporting year;
2. That department or unit heads must distribute appropriate
requests and reporting forms for annual performance reporting information
to faculty no less than two weeks before the deadline for reporting.
VI. Procedures for Performance Evaluations
Whereas, Faculty assignments vary greatly among and within units
and by rank;
Whereas, Performance reviews should accommodate diversity of
assignments while permitting comparison on faculty performances;
Whereas, Fairness requires that faculty assignments, evaluation
standards, and performances reviews be publicly available; and
Whereas, Performance reviews have the following purposes: to
promote faculty development, to ensure professional vitality, and to
enable fair personnel decisions;
Resolved, That the review process should be standardized while
allowing for diversity of creativity and research achievement by
establishing with faculty approval appropriate documentation, review
standards, and review procedures at the departmental level;
2. That the review of performance should include a narrative
describing strengths and opportunities for improvement;
3. That the review process of a department should be examined
during each academic program review;
4. That the teaching review process should integrate
contributions from the faculty member, a peer review, and students.
5. That the review of teaching should consider course design
including appropriateness to departmental goals, grading tools in the
context of instilling new knowledge and skills, and teaching methods in
terms of effectiveness; and
7. That a clear distinction should be made between assessment,
which is done during the self and peer review, to identify strengths and
opportunities for development, and evaluation, which is done by the unit
leader who rates the faculty members performance with a supporting
narrative.
VII. Accountability of Administrators
Whereas, An effective performance review must allow sufficient
time for performance planning, performance documentation, and performance
review;
Whereas, An effective performance review must result in thorough,
clear, and fair reviews with narratives which document the reasons for an
evaluation; and
Whereas, The new performance review procedures charge
administrators, especially department heads, with the responsibility to
review faculty performance and to make appropriate personnel decisions;
Resolved, That the Faculty Council appoint a Standing Committee, or empower
an existing committee, to comment on the thoroughness, fairness, and
timeliness of actions by administrators in evaluation of faculty performance
and in decision-making via the EDO process, particularly in regard to below
merit ratings and faculty development decisions, and also in cumulative
evaluations.
AMENDMENT ONE: [inserted in section I of the resolution as a third
paragraph or fourth if the following amendment is also adopted]
Whereas, the June 18, 1998 Trustees policy applies to the entire UT system,
we the faculty of UTC reserve the right to adopt any modifications of that
policy that have been granted to other units of the system.
AMENDMENT TWO: [inserted as second paragraph of section I]
Therefore, we endorse the position on post-tenure review approved by
the American Association of University Professors on June 6, 1998.
|
