Colleagues:

I have now had a chance to read over the Performance Review (euphemism for
post-tenure review) statement.  I did not have a copy in my hands until
Wednesday of this week, which is too short a notice for such an important
document.

I have been here nearly thirty years.  This proposed new policy ranks as
potentially the most easily abused that I have seen over the years.

There are least four reasons to oppose it: 1.  It breaches a contract that
the UT system now has with its tenured faculty.  2.  It is a threat to
academic freedom.  3.  It will make a very poor recruiting tool for new
faculty.  4.  It gives too much power to heads.

Having said all that, I know that the policy will likely pass in the
faculty meeting.  If allowed to do so, I therefore intend to propose the
following amendment: " The process of remediation, possibly leading to
dismissal of a tenured faculty member, can begin only with the concurrence
of the Rank & Tenure Committee of the department or academic unit
involved."

My rationale for this amendment is that there have been malicious
department heads at UTC.  I would not want anyone put in a position to be
attacked by a head with the power created by post-tenure review.

Mike Russell