Faculty members met yesterday to discuss a promotion and tenure proposal they said could ultimately squelch their academic freedom.

The proposal, now in its ninth version, was drafted by the Conditions of Faculty Service Task Force, a subcommittee of the Faculty Senate made of faculty senators, faculty members and administrators.

It attempts to answer Arizona Board of Regents questions about faculty members performance and tenure, said John Schwarz, chair of the Faculty Senate and political science professor.

The proposal calls for a faculty-elected peer review committee to develop a rating system that would determine whether a professor's performance is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

Karen Anderson, history professor, summed up many of the faculty members' fears when she described her worries about the vague term "unsatisfactory" and about whom would be held accountable and who would make decisions on faculty performances.

How "unsatisfactory" would be defined and who would make that judgment has not yet been determined.

Marlys Witte, surgery professor, said the proposal challenges the faculty's academic freedom.

She said the more outspoken faculty members will be targeted. Faculty who fear a bad evaluation may feel compelled to censor what they say in and out of the classroom, she said.

Witte said she thought the proposal was also extremely dangerous to tenure and said she planned to take her suggestions and questions "to the highest mountain and tell faculty, 'hold onto the tenure you have.'" Witte said there is a climate of governing boards and administration wanting to abolish tenure university-wide.

Schwarz said years ago the board of regents asked the three state universities to create guidelines for promotion and tenure because it believed too few faculty were dismissed in a two- to three- year period - one or two out of the UA's 2,000.

He said the task force will consider faculty suggestions and redraft the proposal. About 60 faculty members attended yesterday's discussion in the Senior Ballroom.

Joseph Humphrey, head of the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, said he was not sure faculty input would have any real impact.

"I don't think faculty have any decision in the matter, but we have to participate in discussion," he said.

James Halpert, professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, said, if implemented, the plan could be abused and misused, agreeing that the language was vague.

If the plan is adopted, instructors would receive an annual rating. Low ratings would suggest improvement is needed. Termination would come after two low ratings within a four-year period if there are no signs of improvement.

But faculty members said they did not need a proposal that would put them under a microscope.