Over the last few UUP chapter presidents and vice presidents’ meetings, there have been lively discussions about whether letters of review of research made by academics from outside the campus should be a requirement of the tenure process. Such “outside letters” are standard at some research universities around the country, but are much less common at the college level. But should these outside letters be an integral part of the peer review process within SUNY? Unfortunately, that is not an easy question to answer. What is important to note is the evaluation of an employee is a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law and a campus cannot impose a change in policy on evaluations without first negotiating with UUP.

Discussions over the use of outside letters for evaluations are not new, particularly at the universities. Past discussions have focused close attention on whether or when the employee can see the outside letters. In fact, several early rounds of contract negotiations in the 1970s and later negotiations between the state of New York and UUP addressed a candidate’s access to a written evaluation or recommendation. Article 31 of our contract memorializes the collective bargaining negotiations. In past decades, the members of negotiations teams used the descriptor of “solicited letters” for these materials. Often times, heated discussions occurred on the argument that a candidate had a right to face an evaluator and must have access to the document to prepare an adequate reply for the evaluation file. Healthy debate continues on the aspects of whether a candidate’s access to an evaluation or recommendation prejudices the author of the evaluation and restricts the scope of potential commentary.

Before a campus changes its procedures— and I am not recommending that changes occur, UUP needs to review any procedure changes and consider the effects. This is an important part of UUP’s role in protecting members’ rights. Equally important is that the details of any specific procedural change needs to be equitable and fair to those involved. The contract addresses the evaluation process along with the rights of members to appeal, and any changes in procedure would have to be consistent with our negotiated agreement. One final note on this subject: Article 33 of our contract details relevant procedures regarding job security reviews.

In thinking about a procedure change, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate for all SUNY campuses. The type of campus and its mission within the SUNY family must be part of any proposed solution. In fact, the status quo procedures arrived at after many years of practical experience at a given chapter may be the optimal procedure for that campus. Yet, any good solution will look at the costs and benefits of a change in procedure. It will clearly explain the change, the steps involved, and how its implementation will occur fairly. It will set out all due process rights and a procedure for appeal.

This issue also raises some practical considerations. How will letters be solicited and by who? What will happen when a reviewer’s letters never arrives? Will there be a review of the letters by a neutral party representing our member’s interests if they cannot see the letters affecting them? A good procedure not only works when everything goes right, but also considers potential problems and ensures fairness before problems arise.

What may look like a simple issue at first blush is actually very complex and that is why there has been so much discussion among chapter presidents and vice presidents. Before any procedure is negotiated, all the affected parties must be brought into the discussion of the issues, and workable, fair and equitable solutions need to be arrived at, preferably by consensus.