“For example we concur with you that negative evaluation has its merits and -
.’ must remain a guiding principle at Douglas College. We further adhere to

 

DOUGLAS COLLECE LIORARY
REPLY TO JIM SELLERS A/iC)ilv £5

We ‘agree with much of what you said in your open letter of 16 September 1974.

the view that the hiring process leaves much to be desired. There are detailed .

* proposals currently being circulated--. Engineering Science--on the matter

of hiring processes; perhaps you are aware of these. No one would quarrel
with the view that professional development needs to be rational and democ-
ratically administered.

While in substantial agreement in some areas, we do disagree on two major points.

We think our disagreement with you stems from your self-confessed. ("...I have
never been a member of the Faculty Association; I can only speculate.") lack
of understanding of the negotiating process, the association and facts relevant
to both.

We cannot agree with the implied conspiracy or implied stupidity. This attack
on the integrity of the negotiating team is unconscionable particularly since
it is unfounded.

We further disagree that Article XII makes a change in the fundamental principle
of negative evaluation. Under this new section the probationary period has been
extended to a period of two years. Formerly, probationers had to be given a
three-year contract, a further probationary year contract, or dismissal after
having taught for only one semester. Two years simply gives us, as well as
administration, adequate time to judge the soundness of our initial appoint-
ment. Once a three-year contract has been offered, the only evaluation
procedure is that described as negative. Faculty evaluation of probationary
faculty prior to an offer of a three year contract seems to us to be a fairer
initial method of evaluation-- fairer for all people concerned.

Having stated our points of disagreement, let us examine some facts. First,
negotiations for the 1974-75 contract have yet to be completed; part two will
affect the application of part one. Similarly, all subsequent negotiations
may reopen examination of any or all articles. Then too, the Association
needs concerned and articulate members such as Jim Sellers. Unfortunately,
your comments on September 16th are a bit late to affect negotiations which
began in January.

We hope that you and your associates will joine the Faculty Association to

help in a cooperative, productive way to influence future negotiations and to
ensure that the rights of all faculty are protected.

DCFA, NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE
Sept. 20, 1974

/A.