FLAGSTAFF - Friday, the Arizona Board of Regents renewed its previous call for public input in the post-tenure review process.

In January, the board requested that each of the state's public universities study their tenure system.

Friday, at the board's meeting at Northern Arizona University, the Task Force on Conditions of Faculty Service presented the status of its study on modifications to be made to the current system, including additional reviews of faculty performance evaluat ions, improvement plans for faculty judged unsatisfactory by peer evaluation, and a "just cause" standard for faculty dismissal.

Missing from the recommendations was the request from the board that evaluation committees include nonuniversity members of the public.

"The faculty needs to be accountable to more than just the faculty," said Regent John Munger.

Political science Professor John Schwarz, representing the University of Arizona, said public participation in personnel issues was not warranted at this time, because faculty members are trained to have high standards.

"Where there is a mechanism to work with, faculty will apply those high standards," Schwarz said, citing cases in which faculty deny tenure to fellow instructors. "What is missing is the mechanism in tenure review."

Schwarz said while it is healthy to have input from those outside the university system, the effective place for it is in program review and development, not personnel issues. Munger said involvement of the public is very important to him. He said the pub lic needs to be involved in the post-tenure and program review process.

"From the public's point of view, there has to be nonacademics brought into the process of personnel matters to make sure any necessary adjustments occur," Munger said. "If we don't make the faculty, at some point over a long period of time, accountable t o someone besides the faculty, then we have a problem."

He recommended annual reviews involving administrators and faculty. He said the public should be involved in "major" reviews of programs and faculty every five to seven years.

He said faculty behavior on and off campus should be considered in the analysis. Issues of moral turpitude such as sexual harassment should be grounds for dismissal because it puts students at risk, he said. Convicted child molesters should be dismissed.

"The process has to have some power without the administration and without regard to the faculty," he said. "I, as a regent, am not satisfied that something like that exists so we can protect the people of the state of Arizona from lawsuits."

Thomas McGovern, Arizona faculty council to the Board of Regents, said the task force was also concerned with that issue.

"You may be ill at ease," Munger said, "but the board is liable."

The regents offered the task force suggestions on how the tenure review process could be improved. Regent Donald Ulrich pointed to the provision in the task force report stating that the university must prove a tenured faculty member's performance is unsa tisfactory. He said the individual should have the burden of proof.

Regent Hank Amos III said with certain offenses, such as stealing, termination should be immediate. He said he objected to the lengthy appeals processes that exist.

"There may be two or three appeals," Amos said. "The appeals process is too drawn out, too long and it needs to be shortened."

Amos said annual reviews should always include student ratings of instructors because "if students don't like (professors), then there is a problem."

Student Regent Mark Davis said current student evaluations are done in the last 10 minutes of semester when students are ready to leave. He suggested having a junior- or senior-level student within the discipline accompany faculty members in the observati on of instructors and to assist in peer evaluation.

"I think it would be an interesting supplement and complement to the process," Davis said. "The student can see the ability of that professor to relay difficult information to students."

UA President Manuel Pacheco said he liked the ideas being offered by the board, but he was concerned with the lack of personnel available to commit to such review processes. He said due to budget constraints and downsizing, the process needs to be cost ef fective.

"We are downsizing rather dramatically, as you know, so we don't have a lot of personnel available for additional things," Pacheco said. "We are at the point now that when we select something in addition to what we are doing, we have to decide to not do s omething else."

Dan Landers, a representative of Arizona State University, said major reviews every five years could become very expensive and complicated.

"These people are not going to take a lot of their time to come in free of charge," Landers said. "If they are really good and really know their stuff, they are going to want to get paid."

Regent Kurt Davis said,"If you look at what is going on in the private sector and many aspects of the public sector, a 360-degree review is the norm," Davis said. "It is not that complicated."

Davis said he valued student ratings, but said they are often a product of the grade the student will receive. He said evaluations done a few years after the class would give a better perspective on the effectiveness of past instructors.

Munger said nonuniversity evaluation of personnel and programs will give the public more confidence in the university system.

The task force will present additional reports at regents meetings in November and December.