Question: Why do we need a PTR policy and procedures motion different from Oppenheim's motion and also different from the FAC proposal?
Answer: The requirements for post tenure review as stated in the current contract contain some potential to weaken academic freedom. They could be used to exert undue or unfair influence on the faculty unit employee, and on the review process itself.
This policy proposal attempts to improve on the other motions by providing more protection for the employee and for principles of academic freedom. In particular:
5.1. It states specifically that faculty unit members will be given the opportunity to respond in writing to any and all reports that may be placed in their PAF's in connection with a post tenure review. It also states that the members will have the option to place any or all of the written responses in the PAF. This is important because notwithstanding any criteria and procedures for PTR passed by the AS, it is possible that the administration may add more kinds and levels of review. Indeed existing contract language mentions the possibility of reports from the peer review committee, department chair, other faculty unit members, students, academic administrators, the President, and even mentions indirect input from arbitrary other persons "identified by name." (cf. MOU 15.2)
5.2. It helps to insure fairness to the faculty unit member by specifically stating that "Every report resulting from the review shall contain coherent rationales for all conclusions. This includes, but is not limited to, the reports of the post-tenure review committee and the dean."
In conclusion, the idea of this alternative motion is to include all the contract requirements, contract safeguards, and appropriate assertions of faculty concerns, while still achieving an overall design that is as "minimalist" as possible.