Probably all of those who were present at the last Faculty Senate meeting on January 20 were surprised by the tie vote that greeted Bryan Cain's motion to strip all references to post-tenure review from the celebrated promotion and tenure revision document. There were a number of very strongly felt, and also carefully nuanced, sentiments on both sides of the controversy.

One thing that is important to note is that the Senate leadership seemed almost uniformly to favor retaining post-tenure review language, while from the vote outcome it is clear that there was strong support for the opposite perspective among "rank and file" members of the Senate. It may be worth noting, too, that all three of the candidates for Faculty Senate president-elect openly expressed their support for retaining peer review.

These circumstances give rise to the possibility that communications from Senate leadership may diverge from other opinions that are not as well reflected among the elite. As there will be only a single faculty vote on rejection or approval of the document as amended--owing to actions taken by the Faculty Senate Executive Board--it is quite likely that faculty who are unsure about the virtues of post-tenure review may be forced to vote against the entire document in order to express their concerns about post-tenure review. It is possible that the faculty thereby may lose whatever benefits may exist in the amended document otherwise, if a majority feel compelled to vote down the entire document because of their disapproval of post-tenure review language. Much could be lost.

When invited by my friends at AAUP to comment on the January Faculty Senate meeting, I was unsure where to start. Bear in mind that since the draft document was released about a year ago, I have been thinking, talking, and writing op ed pieces about this almost constantly. I have come so see so many facets to the question that I sat down and without a break wrote over two thousand words only to realize that I was not particularly close to closure on the questions raised by periodic (or "post-tenure") reviews of faculty. Permit me to give you the trimmed down version of some of the reasoning that went into my decision.

Let me add that it probably is a good thing to consider outside the balance of the P&T document the most controversial portion, so from that perspective Senator Cain is to be thanked. It could simplify the balance of the process. However, I cast the deciding vote on the Cain amendment that would have deleted all reference to periodic (or "post-tenure") reviews of faculty for essentially the following reasons:

Experience. Like Senator Hraba, I too come from a department where such reviews have been in place for decades (we are, fact, in the same department), but I do not interpret the process as being overly that time consuming or threatening. That is, we all retain a constant "file" of materials for annual evaluation, even if that file is nothing more than a desk drawer into which we toss things. The periodic review merely requires one to aggregate those annual review materials, presumably already on a word processor, and prepare a cover memorandum. Senator Hraba suggested the need for maintaining some sort of written log of activities, something I have never known anyone to do save consultants.

Closure. To leave such an emotional issue up in the air with a tie vote could complicate matters further. It would be, it seemed to me, unclear what a tie vote indicated and what was the final status of the motion. That is to say, was the original motion still on the floor or would it require a new motion or amendment? What steps could be taken next?

Process. My vote presented a clear message in that it meant that there are known parliamentary procedures in place for reconsideration of motions, for the introduction of new motions and so forth, which means that anyone wanting to again raise any issue dealt with by a legislative body can readily do so.

Quorum. A vague word in parliamentary procedures, it sometimes means the proportion of total members present, the proportion of those present qualified to vote, and in some usages to the idea that the voting majority might not reflect the will of the external constituents. There were 52 senators out of 84 in attendance, or some 61.9% of the Senate membership. If it is the will of the entire body to pass the Cain amendment, then it will be a simple matter to do so at the next meeting. I should add, parenthetically, that I have come to realize that one gets considerable heat either when canceling to not canceling meetings for weather reasons.

There are other reasons relating to the impression of the Senate and of ISU faculty given to a larger audience by this proposed action. It may be, however, that I am alone in fearing that the long run cost of opting out of a responsible system for documenting accountability by our peers will be too high. The old saying is that "I am but one vote." The fact is that the condition presented by the tie vote on January 20, 1998 represented the one and only time when a sitting Faculty Senate president does even represent one vote. Thus, the key point is not why one vote was cast as it was, but indeed by what process did the twenty-six votes on each side array themselves before I was presented with the choice? My point is that for all the passion and heat generated on this issue I do not feel that there exists a clear mandate for action. It is for this reason that the coming debates in the Senate are important, but perhaps not as important as those discussions which should be taking place in offices and departments. I hope that departments are holding meetings to discuss this document and that faculty have taken the time to read the revised form of it, for it is very likely that within two months every faculty member will, as the saying goes, have one vote.

The proposed every-fifth-year reviews would be very costly. Reviewers from departments which having been doing such reviews give differing estimates. One reports that it consumes an entire week--not just all the discretionary time in the week e.g. when not teaching--rather every working hour. And that because of that, it is done in a vacation week, taking the entire vacation. Another reports of spending 20 hours in a semester in committee meetings and of having a large box of many file folders of material to digest beforehand for each case. There are the additional preparation costs to the person being reviewed. There are also costs in emotions and collegiality. TQM prominently criticizes personnel reviews for their pernicious effects. Why should we fly in the face of that advice and ask for more reviewing?

These reviews do NOT have AAUP approval. The AAUP is against such reviews. The AAUP has developed some advice for situations in which such reviews never-the-less must be done. The proposed reviews were designed with that advice in mind, but they are NOT approved by the AAUP.

The proposed policy would impose these reviews on the entire faculty. No colleges, no departments, no individuals would be excepted. If this proposal in rejected, every department and individual who is comfortable with reviews of this type, which they are already involved in, can continue that involvement, and those that wish to have them may lobby for them for their own department.

There is little enthusiasm for these reviews. It is not believed that there will be ample resources to effect the faculty development which is their stated goal. Instead of hearing faculty say "I can't wait until we have the new reviews" or "These new reviews will improve us" one hears the reluctant, apprehensive "If we don't do it to ourselves, someone else will." Dread, perhaps even fear, is the main argument for the reviews. I think criticizing tenure is having a vogue and it will pass if it doesn't find a series of flagrant examples to feed it.

When the P&T proposal goes to the faculty, there will be a single up or down vote. There will be no chance to vote for the new scholarship definition and against these reviews. It is the senate's job to vet the proposal of undesirable parts before this vote on the package.

The proposed new P&T Document for ISU Faculty includes a section on comprehensive peer review, which would be obligatory for tenured faculty. In the Sociology Department we have had post-tenure review for a couple of decades. Based on my experience, I have two problems with this specific proposal. These problems do not concern post-tenure review in theory but in its implementation. First, the goals of post-tenure review for either faculty or other parties is not specified in the proposal. This must be done prior to implementing such a process, for the shape and substance of any post-tenure review procedure should be informed by its objectives. It is not enough to claim that external agents will force post-tenure reviews on us if we do not force them on ourselves. That claim may be a false premise.

Secondly, the proposal appears not to recognize the collective costs of such reviews. At the very least, potential costs and rewards are not specified in the proposal. The costs include but are not limited to faculty time taken up with a review process covering multiple years, not only the preparation (with continuous bookkeeping) of the faculty being reviewed but also the time of the review committee as well as pertinent others. As for rewards and sanctions more generally, there is no mention of the potential consequences of the reviews for those being reviewed. Will the peer review committee (not the DEO) also determine the resource flow to the faculty member for the next five years? My fear is that these reviews will have only shallow consequences, or none at all, making them potentially meaningless for any faculty development. This suspicion stands in sharp contrast to that of those who believe the tenure system is under attack. If I am right, the we must ask why we should duplicate annual reviews of tenured faculty with a periodic comprehensive review.

In addition to the high cost, post-tenure reviews essentially would destroy tenure, replacing it with a series of five-year contracts that would be renewable at the pleasure of the university administration. This system could easily and insidiously be used to remove professors that take unpopular or unfashionable positions. Professors would no longer feel free to challenge statements, ideas, and positions of other professors, students, and administrators. The fear of the loss of one's position would set the stage for the management and control of a professor's teaching, research, and ideas. This would produce a drastic threat to free inquiry that is the hallmark of the university.

There is another factor. Post-tenure reviews could be and too often would be confrontational. This would produce divisions and resentments between professors and between professors and the university administration, giving a poor working environment with low morale.

It is quite evident that the committee has taken extreme care to couch the proposed post-tenure review component in a pro- developmental framework. For that, they are to be commended. But time and time again discussions on this have included the claim that "if we don't incorporate such a post-tenure review, then it will ultimately be imposed upon us". So It would appear that the proposed document does indeed have a dual purpose, namely to be pro-developmental and non- threatening, on the one hand, and to simultaneously appease those powers who would otherwise impose something less desirable upon us. But this dual purpose, which seems to be implicitly accepted on the part of many, then poses a number of questions:

Even though the document entirely avoids consequences for not accomplishing, or even agreeing to proposed development plans, is there, in fact, no increased possibility of consequences, in lieu of the document? As an example: I disagree with my DEO on the need for a teaching plan, since I believe that, in spite of poor reviews, my students actually derive significant benefit from my approach (often realized after they've long since left ISU). Currently, while this may affect annual review rewards, it would be extremely difficult for him to prove incompetence. But under the proposed document, since it is stated that such a plan must be developed (albeit mutually agreeable) there is now the opportunity to make a valid claim that I am exhibiting negligence and/or incompetence, to the extent that I am not fulfilling my professional duties per the document. Ergo, I can be dismissed for professional incompetence. While this may be viewed as stretching the meaning of that phrase, I think it is a viable stretch.

Without explicitly stated consequences, can those powers that be, who are demanding greater accountability, be expected to be satisfied by the document as it stands? Unless there is some form of reassurance from those at ISU who have the ultimate say in interpreting the document (e.g. as in the example above) I doubt that the document in its present form will suffice.