A committee on campus proposed a tenure bill of rights. My responses are indicated.

THE TENURE BILL OF RIGHTS

1) Right to know why one was denied tenure - full explanation in writing.
Seems reasonable. The main problem is that the explanation is unlikely to be satisfying. More important, it is vital that the explanation in writing not be circulated since it will hurt the candidate. We might also provide explanations of why someone was awarded tenure, with an indication of weaknesses that might be addressed.

2) Right to see redacted outside letters
Seems reasonable. But you have to have a proper norm here. Letters rarely are apparently negative. Rather they hint and suggest, use words like "solid" etc. So what you need is not the letters, but other suites of letters that were successful. Moreover the best letters discuss the work in detail, even criticize it a great deal, and then often say the candidate is terrific. One issue is whether letter writers will dry up...

3) Right to know content of chair's letter
Again is reasonable. Issue will be what you mean by "content" Almost all letters begin with praise, but then put in counterweights. The real issue is whether the dean's letter fairly represents the dossier.

4) Right to know outside scholars that candidates are compared toThis will require that the university insist that such a comparison list be formed. Not all letter writers provide such comparisons. Places like Harvard actually make up such a list internally. I think this Harvard procedure would be an improvement. Their comparison list includes the most eminent scholars in the field, realizing that the candidate is not yet there, could not yet be there.

5) Right to know results of quantitative analysis (eg: cohort analysis, citation count, etc)I imagine that this is publicly available information. In many fields citation counts and cohort quantitative analysis are unhelpful.

6) Right to know vote/deliberations at departmental level
Vote is easy. Deliberations may get sticky, since department members may end up deliberating sub rosa. Moreover, discussion may have perverse influence on votes. That is, what others consider positive may well be interpreted as negative. That someone mentions a consideration does not mean anyone else considers it relevant, and if that mention is invidious (gender, race), often the response is to politely ignore the remark.

7) Right to know vote/deliberations at college level (including dean's assessment)
Similar as in 6.

8) Right to a clear decision by commencement
There are university rules that such a decision MUST be provided or tenure is automatic. I don't know of exceptions, but perhaps you do.

9) Right to a clear appeal process
I don't know about this. There is a process in the regulations.

10) Respect for departmental decisions. Any decision counter to a departmental vote should be given a full explanation to the department in writing. Actually, the provost is making the decision at the university level, often comparing quality of candidates from different units. Some departments are much weaker than others. There is some reason in those cases to be skeptical of departmental decisions. Put differently, many departments or schools do not deserve as much respect as do others.

11) Right to know who sits on the university tenure committeeThis is not a big secret. I think the purpose is to prevent people from being lobbied outside the process.

12) Faculty senate appoints tenure committee - not the administrationI believe the Senate does recommend candidates. But this is not likely to go far. The tenure and promotion committee is the provost's committee, advisory to the provost. If the provost does not trust the committee it will have little influence. At least at my university, the buck starts and stops wtih the provost. Everyone else is advisory.

13) Right to see statistics on tenure outcomes, including methodology and data sources (provided confidentiality is ensured)
I am told these are available. What's important is that the outcomes vary among units, some almost always succeeding, others having a much harder time.

I WOULD ADD:
A: Proactive mentoring throughout the probationary period, and for associate professors. Much clearer indications of when candidate might be better off elsewhere. Early warnings, in writing.
B. Put differently, much more aggressive advising of probationary faculty, indicating at year three just where they stand. If it looks like things won't work out, help the candidate find another job.
C. No "excuses letters" from the committees. Almost always excuses for lapses end up making the candidate look weaker. One might account for problems with actual reasons. Or acknowledge the problems pointed out are real, but are balanced by other scholarly considerations.
D. Probably tenure standards need to be raised somewhat. If we asked, as some institutions do, whether the candidate is outstanding, or is among the top 3 or 5 in the cohort and is likely to rise to prominence, we would make fewer tenure decisions in which the candidate ends up languishing. Higher standards would also make the likelihood that a candidate who is strong but is facing negative forces (due to irrelevant factors) would be assured of a positive decision.