The Faculty Senate discussed wording, numbers and definitions for an hour and a half last night without coming to a final decision on the latest draft of the post-tenure review policy.

Meeting at the College of Law, the Senate looked at draft 11 of the proposal. The issue of an overhaul of the post-tenure review process came about following an Arizona Board of Regents retreat in July 1995.

Some senators found even discussing performance evaluations of tenured faculty unacceptable.

Miklos Szilagyi, senator and professor of electrical and computer engineering, said the review was an effort to control and harass the faculty.

"The only measure of satisfactory performance will be getting grants, not teaching," he said. "Hire the best people and leave them alone."

Szilagyi said the Senate should refuse to discuss the issue and view any attempt by the regents to impose its own plan of review as "a hostile attack against the university."

Provost Paul Sypherd said more harm would come to the status of faculty by refusing to address the proposal.

"This document is designed to protect faculty," he said. "This is our own request to look at this issue, not something imposed on us by the regents."

John Schwarz, Senate chairman and member of the Faculty Council to the regents, said, "(The proposal) improves current deficiencies in the review by affording more precise appeals."

The changes to the policy include a review by the unit head or a peer committee if a faculty member is found to be unsatisfactory.

If the faculty member is still found to be unsatisfactory, an improvement plan will be set up by the faculty member, the unit head and the peer committee.

The faculty member's performance within the plan must be evaluated again after no more than one year. If the member fails to reach a satisfactory level in three years, or refuses to enter into an improvement plan, it will be considered grounds for termination.

Faculty members with a satisfactory or better performance will be eligible for merit increases and other rewards as defined by their unit.

All of the evaluation standards will be set by the individual units, said Larry Schooley, chairman of the Faculty Senate Academic Personnel Policy Committee and professor of electrical and computer engineering.

"It would be hard to set a standard for the entire university to follow," he said. "We thought that should be left up to the individual units."

Schooley said the involvement of students in the review process would also be an area left to the unit to decide.

"The faculty are professionals and they should be responsible," Schooley said. "It is only fair to the customer, the students. It is a methodical way to review with a positive focus on rewards."

President Manuel Pacheco said the proposal will not please everyone, but he said it was a good proposal.

"We have a (board of regents) that have expressed interest in compensation for faculty members," Pacheco said. "The current (regents) are seriously looking at it and I am encouraged."

Sen. Sheila Pitt, assistant professor of art, said she felt protected by the proposed changes.

"It takes away the power struggle in the process," she said.

The Senate will discuss the proposal again at a meeting scheduled for next Monday.

---

Daily Wildcat News Opinions Sports PoliceBeat Comics