DOUGLAS COLLEGE LIBRARY

r, reine
ARG avinw

(A Reply To A Reply by Jim Sellers con't.)

b) You believe it is possible "to judge the soundness" of a new faculty
appointment. How? (Or, are you satisfied to let the unspecified
supervisor and the Dean worry about working that out?) If a new
faculty member is not renewed under this procedure, you suggest
your conscience will be clear.

It was these very two points that prompted my initial criticism.
And, now we are thrown into the contradiction I specified.

Let me explicate my understanding of “only negative evaluation":

It was agreed taht we assume we have hired competent and responsible
faculty, and that there would be no evaluation for purposes of contract
renewal. (The lack of evaluation that so upset Mr. Bowcott.) In other.
words, probationary and a permanent faculty would automatically receive
new three year contracts, UNLESS a complaint which had failed to be
resolved at an informal level was “in process", or the complaint had
been adjudicated as justified by the Board of Reference and declared to
warrant non-renewal or dismissal (thus the expression “only negative
evaluation.") No complaint could be formalized until the department
director and Faculty Evaluation Committee chairperson were satisfied
sincere informal attempts at resolution or remediation had failed. Thus,
no person would suddenly and unexpectedly find formal proceedings being
enacted. If the faculty association is concerned to allow for more time
for this two-phase safeguard system in the case of new faculty then by
all means extend the probationary period, e.g. two year probationary
contract, or two or three one-year contracts initially, then a three-
year. But don't deny new faculty the support of the "no evaluation/
automatic renewal"/"negative only" principle.

 

The principle and system were designed to instill confidence and
encourage face-to-face informal resolution of deficiencies and disputes.
New hiring procedures would be our first line of defence in securing
excellence in teaching and a workable blend of personality, sex, age,
and philosophy.

Finally, recognizing the continuing need to improve our teaching skills
and maintain our studies it was proposed that faculty be made responsible
for designing, organizing, and participating in a multitude of development
programs. Faculty would be encouraged to seek different ways of evalu-
ating their own teaching, not for contract security purposes but because
of a dedication to the teaching profession and an interest in personal
improvement.

We strive to create a non-threatening, supportive, multi-faceted, growth-
oriented environment for our students. Have we provided this for new
faculty, and ourselves? Or, do we, the teachers, contradict ourselves?

Proposal

a) In the next round of negotiations rescind all of "Article XII Probation-
ary Period" and replace it with: "The sequence of contracts will be
one-year, one-year, one-year, followed by subsequent three-year contracts."

/f ,ew/ton't.