A REPLY TO A REPLY

by Jim Sellers &

1. We are not in agreement on as many points as you suggest:

a) I sense a possibly significant disparity between your use of the term
"negative evaluation" and my understanding (as a member of the original
committee which drafted the “only negative" principle).

- b) When you say that no one would quarrel with the democratization and
rationalization of faculty development I assume you mean no one on
your committee, because the significantly split vote in Principal's
Council, the somewhat ‘heated’ subsequent meeting with some depart-
mental directors, and the currently cloudy status of the motion, all
suggest there are those who quarrel. (What has happened to this
motion should be of concern to your association.)

c) Since, in the statement to which you are replying, I specifically
mentioned the “hiring process" proposals "in the works", I wonder
about your phrase "perhaps you are aware of these."

2. As to your apparently bruised egos: I am somewhat disappointed by the
slightly hysterical tone of your reply. You have mounted the usual response
to criticism: i.e. to reply that the complainant lacks information and/or
that he is out to discredit you. To feel that I have impugned your
integrity is plain silly. I gave reasons for my criticism that you had 9
not acted in the best interests of the faculty--that you exercised poor ;
judgment. I implied that: if you knew the implications of what you were
doing you should be held to account; if you didn't foresee the consequences
then you might now see the necessity to reconsider your decision.

I allowed that your decision was probably a compromise which emerged from
negotiations. If you were a bit naive about the way negotiations would

be conducted, okay--you are a fledgling group. But to read insinuations

of "stupidity" and "conspiracy" in my remarks is patently counter-productive.
Nor do I see myself as some kind of avenging angel. I just happened to
think you goofed and I told you why. Please don't insult my intelligence

by first accusing me of attacking your intelligence and integrity, and

then stating that you need my "concern" in your association.

3. Now to your defense of the decision in question:

a) You clearly support the "double standard" which now exists regarding
contract renewals. Probationary faculty are now subject to a different
non-renewal process than permanent faculty. Probationary faculty are
now denied the checked/balanced, first informal, then several stages
of formal peer and committee adjudication for contract non-renewal or
termination. New faculty are subject now to an ad hoc “process”.
The "supervisor" will evaluate the performance of the new faculty
member--but no standards, criteria, or method of evaluation have been
specified--and then report to the Dean who will decide on the future
of the new faculty member.) 9°

ceeu/Con' t.

{3