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