Since I haven't had feedback recently, and we need time to think about these
important issues, I now offer two amendments to add to our March 26
resolution draft, to be voted on by the full faculty on April 27th. This is
our version; the recent short resolution shared with us by Verbie Prevost is
UTK's response to the changes made in their own implementation plan. I'll
say more about that later.

The following apply to our implementation planning only in so far as the
various committees think them worthy of adoption. Of course, we can always
propose amendments from the floor, and Verbie Prevost has told me that an
open meeting might be in order to share ideas before the full faculty
meeting. I hope she can arrange that, because there is little time and a lot
of important issues facing us as employees of the UT system. Between
principle (our resolution) and practice (the implementation plan mandated by
the Trustees) can lie an ocean of difference, but that should not deter us
from supporting whatever we really believe is fair and worthy.

I was reminded of this at the last Faculty Council meeting when absolutely
no one, faculty or administration, was willing to argue that a Review
Committee including the department head who had twice rated the target
faculty as below merit, was a good idea. And yet our PRC has included the
head in our plan, anticipating, I suppose, what we will be actually
permitted as we shape our "own" implementation plan. The PRC and other
committees now know exactly what UTK got away with (seven members on the
review in this instance), so maybe there is no point in drafting a fair
plan, but I would prefer that the administration be given the task of
supporting the un-supportable elements of the Trustee mandate.

Here are the suggested amendments since our resolution meeting for you to
think about before the faculty meeting.

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.

RATIONALE:  This is a "most-favored nation" provision.  It ensures that we
will not end up with a more rigorous or less generous policy than other
units.  There is ample precedent for this fair system-wide treatment.

For example, UTC actually was the first unit to implement more rigorous
entrance standards, and we were asked to modify them slightly so that other
campuses, especially Knoxville, would be able to adopt the same standards to
aid high schools in preparing their students for UT, regardless of campus.
The system came around to our plan in this case.

Another case is not documented, but I notice that almost the exact working
of our EDO is used in the Trustees document: exceptional merit, merit, and
below merit. This is understandable, because UTK did not have such a formal
ranking, and of course they asked for and got new wording and a fourth
category (needs improvement) in their final implementation. More about that
later.

Obviously, it is not fair that a system-wide policy have uneven effects on
different campuses, hence our justified concern here that UTK has financial
resources to add positive incentives. I applaud the recent announcement that
a rewards system is being discussed at UTC.

As expressed earlier, many of us are concerned about our failure at UTC to
have sufficient time to think about our implementation; we are told already
that we can change essential elements like the EDO in the future.  Perhaps
we were not astute enough to attend committee hearings last fall, but if
there was a lack of faculty input, then why did it take until four days
before the vote to get a draft to the faculty, instead of, say, January? Why
weren't trial balloons floated via Raven?

For example, Betsy Darken's General Education Committee gave early notice
about what was being debated and considered the second year of their
deliberations, and alert departments were able to respond suitably. Those
that did not, apparently hoping that the whole thing would be defeated, have
been caught off balance.  Unfortunately, we cannot ignore the implementation
process.  Provost Berry has made it clear that we WILL HAVE A PLAN (his
emphasis, not mine), and I agree on that point.  That is eactly why we need
NOW a crash program and OPEN DISCUSSION of current thinking by the PRC and
others.

In Japan, this process is called nemawashi (root-binding). Since we (all of
us, detractors and supporters of the ill-fated implementation plan) messed
up, let us not get trapped in a plan we may regret.  Therefore, let us say
up front that due process provisions gained by other campuses should also
apply here. I hope the committees will include something like this amendment
in their discussion so we don't have to argue everything from the floor.

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.

RATIONALE:  This is the statement posted earlier on Raven, but if you missed
it, it is on the AAUP web page.  It points out the generic dangers, the
strong possibility of much greater litigation, and argues that such reviews
"may significantly less the burden of proof on the institution to show
adequate cause." Check the April 2 Chronicle for another generic view.

Remember, our resolution is not binding, but a statement of principle which
contains significant policy positions that our PRC can, if it chooses,
include into our implementation. To a certain extent they have already done
some of this in the last revision statement, but more needs to be done.  Now
we all know what was rejected at UTK, we can at least include important
points that were sustained. The AAUP has thought long and hard about
post-tenure review.

I hope you will express any other ideas or reservations on Raven so we all
can consider them before the meeting.

Richard Rice
History