The current proposed post-tenure policy is designed specifically allow comprehensive evaluation of the performance of tenured faculty, many of whom have been in academe for over 15-20 years, that may result in a development plan. This is a far different intent than the first proposed policy, which had at least a semblance of pro-active concern for faculty, and had some amount of relation to bettering departments. The current policy is clearly geared to faculty as individuals. By doing so, it

1. sets the stage for dismissal of tenured faculty who are found to be substandard by whatever the committee of peers values at the time.

2. Encourages negative and frictional relations among faculty within a department, caused, for example by resentment at being "told" what to do by those who have little idea of what you're doing, or by recommendations to leave an area of funded research for unethical reasons (e.g. a committee member wants more of the $$$).

3. Has an enormous potential to stifle academic freedom; by, for example, forcing a faculty to conduct research or teaching or outreach activity not consistent with his/her belief of what is best pursued, in order to avoid consequences such as dismissal. Along these lines, the statement in the current policy that says that the policy in no way infringes on academic freedom is in fact speculation. Speculation has no place in a policy of this type.

4. The policy has total disregard for the value of post-tenure review in terms of making departments and ISU better. Given the above points it is possible that it could make things much worse. A properly fashioned policy could make ISU a leader in integrating faculty, directing research and education, and supporting the concept of tenure and all it has done for institutions of higher education.

5. The policy was crafted by a committee whose charge was to recommend to the FS how the FS should respond to the Regent's request. That such a committee could and did take it upon themselves to craft a document without ANY regard for either the previous document, or more importantly for all the faculty concerns expressed in relation to the same, is an insult to all. When the question of the committee's charge in relation to constructing a document was raised prior to the election of individuals to serve on the committee, it was specifically stated that their charge was NOT to craft a policy, merely to recommend a response to the Regents. Thus, the faculty ones again had NO SAY in who would serve on the committee with the charge of developing a document.

6. The manner in which the policy was ramrodded through the FS at the last meeting was a total embarrassment; as reflected in the fact that even the chair of the committee did not realize that what he had just voted for was the passage of the poliicy. There was NO written policy to vote on when the vote was taken- only a partial one, along with scribbled transparencies and a verbal addition. The FS as an assembly demonstrated extreme disregard and incompetence in this respect.

Such a policy should NOT be a replacement for systems of annual review (suggesting that DEOs are not doing their jobs, and/or that such review procedures are fundamentally flawed)