####
 I don't think we could have had a better introduction to the
topic than the comments Jane and the Chancellor have made already to you about
it. The main purpose for my being here, along with some members of our Committee,
is to hear from you, to get your reactions to and suggestions about the draft
that you received along with the Agenda and that also was published in The
Gazette. But before I make a few comments about the draft, I want to acknowledge
the other members of the Committee who are here. This has been a real Committee
task, and everyone on the Committee has contributed to it, so I won't read
through the list, although I'll ask you to take note of that, but I would like
the members who are here to stand up and identify themselves. And Jerry, can you
start? Jerry Folda, the Art Department. Bernadette Gray-Little, Psychology. Paul
Debreczeny, Slavic Languages. Gil White, Medicine. Stirling Haig, Romance
Languages.

Before I invite your comments, I want to talk briefly about four aspects of the
draft, and if there's anyone who ended up without a copy, I have some extras with
me to pass around. The four things I'd like to mention are: the context in which
this draft was written; second, the current status of the draft; third, and
related to that, opportunities for your continued input into what the document
says; and then, finally, what I think the Advisory Committee viewed as some
underlying principles, guiding principles, in going about the task of putting the
draft together.

First, as already has been noted, the context in which we set about to draft
these principal features of a meaningful system of post-tenure review was
President Spangler's directive to all sixteen campuses to develop such a
statement and submit it to General Administration. So, whatever we submit will be
one of 16 such documents that go to General Administration, and that a
System-wide committee there will then work with to develop whatever position
General Administration will take. We're really fortunate to have Professor
Stirling Haig as this campus's representative on that committee. And he, I'm sure
would be willing at some point to answer questions you have about what that
committee is doing or will be doing. I'm especially glad he's on that committee
because he's reported to us that he's one of very few faculty members on the
committee. Most campuses sent administrators to represent their campuses, so
we're especially grateful to have Stirling in that role.

Second, in addition to the context, I'm going to tell you about the status of the
draft. The Committee already has received some comments from faculty members. 
We've heard from the deans, both in Academic Affairs and in Health Affairs, and
from the members of the Executive Committee. Based on those comments in the time
we've had to look at the draft, if we were setting out to write it again, we'd
write some parts differently from the draft that you have in front of you. And we
will revise it, but we don't want to do that without also having the benefit of
your comments and suggestions about it. And later, if you want, I'd be glad to
summarize the gist of the main concerns or comments we've had from the people we
have heard from. Next Wednesday the Committee will meet to revise the draft, and
then it's due to General Administration by next Friday.

Third, and related to that, I want to tell you about continued opportunities for
input, as those of us who are here from the Committee will stay after this
meeting, and if you don't have time to have your say during the time that we have
right now. In addition, we'd be happy to hear from you by any means between now
and the end of the day Tuesday, so that we'd have the benefit of your suggestions
before we sit down to draft the final. And then, most importantly, even after
this draft is given, the document is given to General Administration, I encourage
all of you to keep in mind Stirling's role as a member of the System-wide
committee for any input you want to have, not just about this document, but, too,
directly to General Administration about what they do with this and the other 15
they'll receive.

Finally, the things that I think were the Committee's guiding principles, and I
also think these are consistent with what the Chancellor said when he spoke about
this topic. Because this is going to General Administration, presumably for use
in development of the directive that then will come from General Administration
back to all the campuses, the Committee deliberately kept this draft on a fairly
general level. We wanted to encourage General Administration to leave each campus
the room and flexibility that it needs to devise a post-tenure review system that
recognizes the needs and uniqueness of each campus. And, similarly, we hope when
it gets to the campus level that that same recognition of uniqueness and special
needs be given to every department on campus. So, there are a lot of details that
one would want to talk about if you were having a comprehensive discussion of
post-tenure review that are not in this document. They're not there deliberately,
because our Committee didn't want General Administration to provide all the
details. Rather, we hope there will be a large tent within which we will later be
comfortable filling in the details about what post-tenure review should be here. 
Second, the Committee wanted to encourage a process that is supportive of tenure.
 I know that some people think that what really is going on is an attack on
tenure. So we felt it very important that this draft be written in a way that is
supportive of tenure. We wanted to encourage and to emphasize the faculty
development aspect of a post-tenure review process, and that is consistent, in
fact, with what President Spangler says in his letter asking the campuses to do
this, that. And, finally, we wanted and tried to envision in general a system of
post-tenure review that is both compatible and consistent with existing review
procedures. As the Chancellor said, we donít want to add a layer to all the
things people have to do already, but hope, we would hope, pulling those things
together. Next, we hope to have a procedure that is compatible and consistent
with existing standards and procedures for disciplinary action and dismissal. So
we don't view this, and hope General Administration won't view it, as either
contradicting or replacing the standards and procedures that already exist for
disciplinary action. So, as a Committee, we really invite and want your reactions
and suggestions about the draft. We want to know whether those are the correct
guiding principles to use to put the final draft together, and if they are, how
this draft could be improved to reflect that. So let me ask first if there's
anything Committee members would like to add to what I've just said, and if not,
I would invite whatever comments or questions you have.

####
 Can I come in on that? I wish I had brought with me a written
comment I received from a professor who said, "Dear Professor Mason, I'm sorry I
don't have time to comment more fully to your draft, but I am too busy" and then
he went on for half a page with the things he's too busy doing to comment. Now I
think that concern is broadly shared.

####
 A chair of a department on our Committee who raised the same
issue, and he said he didn't know whether he was a faculty peer, so that's a
piece of this. We've gotten a number of other comments on that, both what is a
faculty peer and what a number of people perceive as our failure to adequately
address the role of administrators. So, I'm not sure we had a uniform assumption
about what a faculty peer is. Would you like to, would anyone like to propose how
this might read to clarify that issue?

####
 Right. I think at the very least we need to work on what the
fact, acknowledged fact, that obviously department chairs and deans have a role
in this process, which I think we took so much for granted that we didn't say it.
 I'm not sure, I think there's general agreement that faculty, that this does
have to include an aspect of peer review. And I don't know whether we need for
General Administration to say more than that or whether we prefer to say that
when we get to the level of providing the details. Thank you.

####
 There is a Grievance Committee that has broad jurisdiction to
entertain grievances on almost anything except something involving the grant of
tenure or promotions. Denial of tenure or promotion.

####
 I think we assumed, and maybe we need to state, that we're
talking about, at the very least, the three main areas of faculty activity:
research, teaching, and service, and view this not focusing on only one or two of
those, but on all three. As far as what the standards are, again, I think our
position was those should be developed at the campus and in the detailed way at
the departmental level. And I'm not sure I'm responding to your question.

####
 I think that's a very important question, but a different one
from what this is designed to do.

####
 I agree, and that's certainly the Committee's view, and I know
that in Stirling on that System-wide committee we have a strong advocate for
exactly what you said. In fact I think he already has made a difference in their
conversations for emphasizing the need for flexibility and local determination of
those standards. I don't view this, and I don't know what other people are
thinking, but I don't view it as something that's going from here to General
Administration to the General Assembly. At least, I hope not. I hope it's going
from here to General Administration, where it will be worked on, come back to
here and the other 15 campuses, and that what we can give the General Assembly or
anyone else who has concerns in this area is a "look, this is what we're doing." 
And that test will come in our performing well at that next level of setting the
standards and filling in the details. And the risk is if we don't do that.

####
 That's true. President Spangler's letter said that he had
promised a report to the Board of Governors in May.

####
 I think our view, and Committee colleagues help out if I get this
wrong, our view is that much of what you just asked about is, and remains, in the
hands of the department chair or other administrator that has supervisory
responsibility. There are two questions we've had before today that relate to
that. One is how does this relate to salary policy procedures, and how the other
is whether we have dealt adequately with possible negative consequences. So I
think we can do a better job of tying this together: one, by making it clear that
the department chair and other similar administrators are key players in this;
that not, we sort of said they "deliver" the results, and we don't mean that
that's all their role is. Clearly, they're the ones responsible for seeing that
this is carried out in their departments, and for using the results; possibly, as
well, in creating the results. But at the very least, using the results as part
of what is weighed in decisions about salary, work assignments, other things,
other kinds of decisions that administrators make. In the early part of the draft
we were very intent on saying that this is separate from and does not abrogate
either the standards or procedures for disciplining a faculty member. What we
failed to say, though, is that certainly the outcome of a review would be
relevant. I don't think this needs to be spelled out, but if someone is a
candidate for being disciplined or dismissed, it's just incredible to think that
the results of any review process, this or any other, wouldn't be part of what
are looked at there. So we, I think, assumed more than we spelled out those kinds
of connections.

####
 Is that something you think should be different from the more
structured and formal is needed than what exists now? Because one thing we kept
running into in thinking about this whole issue is we have review. We have
pre-tenure and post-tenure review. We have reviews every year before salary
decisions are made. But do you think because we're talking about a more
consistent, formal process that we also need a more formal.....

####
 I'm not sure that's all it is in many departments.

####
 Of the survey results that was much more typical in Health
Affairs than in other areas. But a number of them have a strong component of
self-assessment. Other comments, questions?

####
 Stirling, would you be willing to come up and talk for a little
bit about both, not just the composition but the process of that committee?

####
 That, no doubt, is someone's agenda out there somewhere. Our
approach to this has been to assume that this is not what this is about, and
that's why, again, why we made the statement that it is our view that a system of
post-tenure review should be separate from and shouldn't affect or abrogate the
standards and procedures for discipline. And I view a loss of tenure as one more
in a range of kinds of discipline short of dismissal. So my view would be if
people are concerned about kinds of sanctions that are available, whether they're
applied when they ought to be applied, that needs to be dealt with the Trusteeís
tenure regulations and that we need to try to avoid contaminating review
processes by either having that be the reason that we're doing them, or having
them too closely linked. We may have gone too far in the other direction in this
document trying to stress the developmental side, partly because we were reacting
to concerns about going the other direction. But, you know, if you look at the
Trustees' policies, you've got it already. Grounds for dismissal are misconduct,
unfitness to continue on the faculty, failure to perform, and incompetence. Now,
those are pretty conclusive. And if we're not using them, I don't think it's
because we don't have a post-tenure review system. And I would just hope people
who want to address that kind of issue would do it in the right place and not
tack it on to this.

####
 Well, it sounds like several of you are saying that a list of
principal features should include a review or appeal process, without going the
next step and saying what that looks like, but that at the very least we should
say that that should be a feature. I think that's, we'll add that. Any other
comments or questions?

####
 Stirling would need to answer that. I assume that do since they
are documents for specific institutions, but ..

####
 Can I just add to that, because I think fairly consistently we
have taken the position that everyone should be reviewed sometime. And you could
make, you can change the outer limit - every five years, every six years. But one
point some of the comments we received made is that this should not be just, you
know, a checkup to make sure people are working hard enough, but it also should
be a basis for documenting and rewarding extremely meritorious work. So, in that
sense, I think our Committee felt that some periodic review, maybe not with the
same frequency for everybody, but at some point for everyone, was important, and
it would be, I think, quite possible to say that a certain kind of outcome or
concern would trigger a speedier next review.

####
 Do you think that idea is doable within the draft we have. If
General Administration sent us this draft and said, develop your process, would
there be anything in these general principal features to keep us from doing that?

####
 Thank you. That's consistent with some other comments. But one
thing I hope we'll do is to in the Preamble and throughout, put much more
emphasis on how much review already occurs, and how we hope parts of that will
suffice and be part of this.