M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Faculty Senate Executive Committee
FROM: Post-Tenure Review Committee (R. Douglas Elmore, Paul Bell, Karen J. Rupp-Serrano, Roger E. Frech, and Jeffery H. Harwell)
DATE: July 15, 2004
SUBJECT: Five year review of PTR
The Provost set up a committee to conduct the five year review of the Post-Tenure Review (PTR) policy as required in the Norman Campus Faculty Handbook (Section 3.7.6, I). This committee met on July 6, 2004.
The consensus of the committee is that the PTR process is useful for many faculty and Departments/Schools. In particular, PTR has become a useful instrument for faculty development. During the past five years very few faculty have been required to write a professional development plan and no one has been removed from the University because of the PTR process.
The committee makes two recommendations:
1) Under section B, paragraph 3(a) on page two of the document in the Faculty Handbook (Section 3.7.6, B) the second line after expectations should read “(i.e., 2.0 or less on a 5.0 scale)”.
2) The Committee recommends that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee eliminate the requirement for the five year review of the process (Section 3.7.6, I).
The five year review was originally placed into the requirements to protect faculty rights. There are several reasons, however, to remove the requirement. For example, there have been no serious complaints/problems with the PTR process. If problems were to develop, there are procedures in place which allow the Faculty Senate to request that the process be reviewed. It is worth noting that there is no requirement to periodically review the tenure process. The requirement for a five year review could also be perceived by some outside interests as an invitation to critique the process with the ultimate goal of eroding tenure rights.