1 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 UNITED ACADEMICS PROPOSAL
3 ARTICLE 12
4 NTTF EVALUATION and PROMOTION
6 Section 1. All departments and programs that employ non-tenure-track faculty must have
7 a faculty-approved evaluation and promotion criteria policy for their NTTF. This policy
8 shall be made available to faculty and must be published on the Academic Affairs
9 website. Revisions to these criteria may not be applied so as to materially harm a
10 currently-employed faculty member’s progress toward promotion.
12 While the details and structure of NTTF evaluation are the responsibility of the
13 immediate academic unit in which the appointment is made, evaluations must follow
14 some general guidelines:
16 1. NTTF should be evaluated every 18 courses taught or 3 calendar years, whichever
17 comes first, but NTTF can request more frequent evaluations.
19 2. NTTF in instructional appointments are expected to have student course
20 evaluations offered for all courses with 10 or more students, and will undergo at
21 least one peer review of teaching each year. NTFF must be provided notice of the
22 standards for teaching on which he or she will be evaluated. The academic unit
23 shall identify the standards to be applied to such evaluation, and shall establish a
24 time frame for notification to the faculty member before a peer review is
27 3. NTTF in research appointments will be evaluated for the quality of the effort
28 expended and the outcomes of their contributions to the research program.
30 4. NTTF will be asked to discuss their efforts and performance with their immediate
31 supervisor at least once each evaluation period.
33 5. NTTF will submit a 3-5 page personal statement developed by the faculty
34 member that describes his or her conceptual, theoretical scholarly orientation,
35 productivity, service work, and impact. This personal statement should
36 correspond to the structure and general content expected of the statement that will
37 be required for promotion.
39 6. NTTF can only be evaluated on his or her professional development activities that
40 require funding in relation to the access they have had to professional
41 development funding from their department.
422 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 Evaluations of NTTF are for the purpose of determining if the faculty member is meeting
2 the standard of excellence appropriate to a major research university. They should be
3 designed to help the faculty member grow as a scholar, identify areas of strength, and
4 identify areas that need improvement. If the faculty member is a Career NTTF, the
5 evaluation must indicate if the faculty member is progressing toward promotion. If the
6 faculty member is not progressing toward promotion, the evaluation should identify
7 specific areas for improvement.
9 Section 2. Only Career NTTF are eligible for promotion. Career NTTF will be eligible
10 for promotion to the first senior level after accumulating eighteen (18) terms (consecutive
11 or not) of service, accrued at no greater than three (3) terms per academic year.
13 Section 3. Promotion is elective and does not involve an “up-or-out” decision.
14 Candidates wishing to be considered for promotion should notify their appropriate unit
15 head in the year prior to the year when promotion is sought, or equivalent FTE, in rank.
16 Career NTTF who do not wish to be considered for promotion may continue employment
17 at their current rank as long as eligible to do so under Article 9, Contracts.
19 An accelerated promotion review can occur in a meritorious case or when credit for prior
20 service at another institution has led to a contractual agreement to this effect at the time
21 of hire. The terms of hire should make clear where on the timeline an individual faculty
22 member stands; from that time on, subsequent advances in rank will be awarded
23 according to established promotion procedures. In all other cases in which credit for prior
24 service at another institution is agreed upon, scholarly work completed by the faculty
25 member during those years will receive full consideration during the promotion process.
27 Should a faculty member who has agreed to an accelerated review at the time of hire
28 choose to delay that review for the full six years of full time service, scholarly work
29 completed prior to arrival at the University of Oregon will be of secondary consideration
30 during the promotion and tenure process and consideration of scholarly achievement will
31 focus on work completed during the six full time years of service at the University of
34 Section 4. For faculty members holding multiple or joint appointments, a Memorandum
35 of Understanding will be entered into at the time of hire or assignment between the
36 different employing units specifying the expectations for promotion and tenure review.
38 Section 5. The Family Leave policy can affect the timing of promotion by “stopping the
39 clock” for a pre-specified and contractual period of time. Faculty members considering
40 such leaves should consult Article 24, Leave and the Office of Human Resources Leaves
41 Website. Faculty members should discuss the timing of leave and its relation to the
42 promotion decision with the department head who may also consult with the dean and the 3 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 provost to ensure that there is appropriate and clear written documentation of leave
4 Promotion Review
5 Section 6. Academic and research units must have on file and provide to their Career
6 NTTF statements of criteria for evaluation and promotion of Career NTTF. A unit’s
7 promotion review process will commonly include a review committee, and this
8 committee should include NTTF at or above the rank sought by the candidate in addition
9 to any tenure-track faculty. At no point in the review process can a faculty member be
10 evaluated by any standards other than those on file and provided to the faculty member.
12 Each unit, with appropriate communication with the appropriate dean/director, should
13 determine whether or not external review will be included as part of the review and
14 promotion process for Career NTTF. If external reviewers are included, reviewers should
15 be those who can present an unbiased, knowledgeable, and objective evaluation of the
16 candidate and his/her qualifications. Eternal reviewers must base his or her evaluation
17 and judgment on the criteria in use by the academic department or program.
19 Internally, it is to be expected that those serving in supervisory roles to the candidate
20 (e.g., department head for Instructors, research mentor for Research Assistants, etc.) –
21 will provide letters of evaluation.
23 Required elements of a promotion file include:
25 Statement of duties and responsibilities
26 A candidate’s statement
27 Letters of evaluation.
28 Candidate may propose names of qualified outside referees, some of whom will
29 be contacted, if necessary
30 Statement of waiver, partial waiver, or non-waiver
31 Conditions of appointment
32 Departmental criteria for promotion
33 Memorandum(s) of Understanding between departments in the case of joint
35 Teaching evaluations and supplemental teaching materials
36 Evidence of professional activities
37 Department committee recommendation
38 Department head’s evaluation and recommendation
39 Dean’s Advisory Committee recommendation, where applicable
40 Dean’s evaluation and recommendation
41 Voting summary4 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 Section 7. Faculty members may choose to waive in advance their legal right of access to
2 see the evaluative materials submitted by all referees in conjunction with their promotion
3 and/or tenure review. Such waivers shall not, however, preclude redacted versions of
4 these documents may, however, being used during the denial of promotion appeals
5 process described in Article 14, Tenure Denial Grievance.
7 Section 8. Faculty members shall receive at least three (3) days notice of any meeting or
8 hearing related to the promotion process and an agenda for the meeting. Faculty members
9 have the right to have a Union representative or colleague present at any such hearings or
12 Section 9. Following the unit’s review and evaluation of the promotion file, the unit
13 head or director will prepare a report on the merits of the promotion case, including a
14 voting summary and his/her independent recommendation. If the unit chooses to have a
15 unit-level review committee prepare a report and recommendation, this report should be
16 included with the unit head or director’s report.
18 The file will then be sent to the dean of the academic unit in which the department is
21 Section 10. Individual colleges may or may not choose to include a review by an
22 advisory committee prior to the dean’s recommendation. If they do, it will be necessary
23 for that college to constitute an appropriate NTTF Dean’s Advisory Committee (NTTF-
24 DAC), comprised primarily of tenured or tenure-track faculty, but also including
25 members who are themselves NTTF.
27 The dean (or other appropriate administrative head, for those units not reporting through
28 an academic dean) will prepare a report on the merits of the promotion case, including a
31 The file will then be sent to Academic Affairs.
33 Section 11. The Provost will review the file, with input from Academic Affairs and/or the
34 Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation, and make a decision as to
35 whether to grant or deny promotion.
37 This notification will be provided in writing to the candidate by June 15.
39 Section 12. If, at any point in the promotion process a faculty member receives a
40 negative vote or evaluation, he or she will be notified, provided an written explanation of
41 the negative vote or evaluation from the appropriate supervisor (i.e., department head,
42 dean, Provost, or President), and the opportunity to submit rebuttal material within ten
43 (10) days.5 December 13 and 14, 2012
2 Section 13. Successful candidates for promotion will assume their new rank beginning
3 with the following Fall term, or the nearest next term of employment should their
4 contract not begin with the Fall term.
6 Successful candidates for promotion will receive a salary adjustment of at least 10%,
7 effective simultaneously with assumption of the new rank (see Article 20, Salary).
9 Section 14. Faculty who are denied promotion may appeal the decision through the
10 procedures in Article 14, Tenure Denial Grievance.
12 Unsuccessful candidates for promotion will remain employed at their current rank, as
13 long as their failure to achieve promotion was not for reasons that warrant termination
14 (see Article 9, Contracts or Article 18, Discipline and Termination). Career NTTF who
15 are terminated will receive timely notice and a terminal contract. If NTTF have served
16 three (3) or more years at .50 FTE or greater, they will receive the same timely notice as
17 tenure-track faculty (i.e., a year’s notice of non-renewal).
19 Career NTTF who are unsuccessful at securing promotion may be considered for
20 promotion again after accumulating an additional nine (9) terms (consecutive or not) of
21 service at .50 FTE or greater, accrued at no greater than three (3) terms per academic
23 Section 15. NTTF holding “affiliate,” “adjunct,” “visiting,” “fellow,” “postdoctoral” or
24 “emeriti,” appointments are not eligible for promotion. All faculty, however, shall have
25 the right to petition for rank reclassification if they believe that their work was
26 misclassified at the time of first hire or their position has evolved to more closely
27 resemble a different classification.
28 Adjunct NTTF who believe that their positions should be Career NTTF appointments,
29 can petition for reclassification after completing their second year of appointment and/or
30 evaluation as described in this Article (see also Article 2, Academic Rank).
Google Ads – all profits for single malt
Recent Comments. Deleted if (content + humor)/nastiness < Euler's number. Please use a screen name.
- UO hires new Law Dean,... (2)
- Nevertheless, she persisted (36)
- readthepaper I was told specifically by my dean that I needed an outside offer to get any type of decent raise. So I did. And I'm... – Sunday
- Leporillo Spousal hires reek of nepotism. I've worked on campus almost 30 years and have seen more problems with this type of hire (read sinecure) than... – Sunday
- prof from another school My comment was about the [interesting to me] content of the lawsuit, as viewed by a retired prof, not a lawyer, and most certainly was... – Sunday
- dude Football is a market. Maybe not an inefficient one. But we're in a labor market. The fact that you want more resources instead of more... – Saturday
- dog the may 2011 CAS raises, I think, were the right way to address this through equity raises with comparators (not necessarily AAU). The union raises... – Saturday
- dude What the alternative instead of market you would suggest? Do we all get paid the same? Do we base it on how hard we work... – Saturday
- Anas clypeata Depends whether the idiots are male or female, apparently. – Saturday
- dog well I can provide numerous examples of outside offers generation retention raises, I can not cite a single example of a significant internal raise based... – Saturday
- UO lobbies legislature for $100M... (20)
- no thanks If UO wanted that money they shouldn't be squandering the money they already had. 60 for a going away present for a DUI during a... – Sunday
- Fishwrapper Amen. – Saturday
- honest Uncle Bernie I can see why the state might not be in a rush to finance this project -- the Governor wants to do it over three... – Saturday
- honest Uncle Bernie FS -- the big difference is that UO had a plan to pay for the arena out of private funds. My understanding of this Knight... – Saturday
- honest Uncle Bernie Uh, the document you link to shows a healthy balance in the athletic fund for decades into the future. I don't know if the projections... – Saturday
- Big time donor Yeah, I've heard on good authority that most major donors use the "give" button on the dev lopment site. Hopefully someone in IT gets on... – Saturday
- UO Matters OK, so ticket sales might be a wee bit below Pat Kilkenny's irrationally exuberant forecasts, but there's still $60M left in the reserve, the Ducks... – Friday
- Fishwrapper So true. The state has only so many millions of dollars available in bonding authority. Fortunately, a very tiny percentage of the cost of the... – Friday
- UO Law slips from #78... (5)
- honest Uncle Bernie btw, a story in the weekend WSJ says that American single malts are challenging the Scotch -- as this is your specialty, what you think,... – Saturday
- honest Uncle Bernie Gee, the Knight Law School is mediocre and slipping. Phil must be thinking, Is this what I get for my money? Little wonder if he... – Saturday
- Gone Girl I've got zero pity for the law school. – Saturday
- UO Matters Sounds like you know something about the Jock Box operations. Any more details? – Friday
- not your money Separate budget silos, even separate academic records. If a regular academic advisor tries to pull up records on athletes it gets blocked and logged. On... – Friday
- "no need for panic" (14)
- Old Man T. Hager's characterization of basic science is exactly right for a university that is Liberal Arts oriented. It is the communal seeking of understanding that... – Friday
- Thomas Hager "research is eventually supposed to be applied" Disagree. Basic (or pure) scientific research is done solely to increase our understanding of the natural world. If... – Sunday
- Poli Sci professor dissects former... (19)
- Hire Ed Yes, I am wondering if anyone is going to have the courage to revisit this thread, walk back their condemnations of Professor Stahl, and acknowledge... – Thursday
- false flags and phone calls Another article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-23/israeli-teenager-arrested-over-phone-threats-jewish-community-centers – Thursday
- So yeah, about that... "Israel's Cyberattack Unit Arrests Israeli-American Teen for 'Hundreds' of Bomb Threats Against Jewish Institutions Worldwide" http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.779087 – Thursday
- This UO professor has my... (4)
- honest Uncle Bernie nitric oxide availability! – Tuesday
- UO Matters Jamie Harper in Art History is the PI on that - I hope he got the NIMH R01 in on time. – Tuesday
- honest Uncle Bernie UOM, that is not all! Research shows that soaking in a hot tub with an ample supply of red wine is even better. Maybe you... – Tuesday
- Dog why the hell do you think Dogs use hot tubs? Of course it is therapeutic. Have you ever seen a dog with high blood pressure? – Tuesday
- Duck student-athletes not to talk... (15)
- UO Matters "I know that tennis player personally, and she said her point was that she didn’t have advanced enough knowledge to comment." I don't believe you,... – Tuesday
- Agree, the First Amendment is a pretty important rule. I know that tennis player personally, and she said her point was that she didn't have... – Tuesday
- UO Matters How do you explain Altman's response to the #BlackLivesMatter protest, or the tennis player's response to Diane Dietz that she she couldn't speak about the... – Tuesday
- "keeping control of the athlete’s ability to speak freely has been “a long-standing policy” for the athletic department for years" This would be the straw-man... – Tuesday
- UO Matters Amen. – Monday
- New general counsel is too smart to get fired over athletics shit, like Grier and Geller did. – Monday
- UO Matters You are making a straw-man argument. So far as I can tell no one is saying that athletes be required to talk to the press,... – Monday
- The fact that this is brought up as a free speech issue, is embarrassing for this blog and this school. This policy does protect student... – Monday
- Older »
- RT @gordonrfriedman: Lax conflicts of interest rules let Oregon lawmakers keep quiet about their ties https://t.co/nXoEF7QXqx #orpol #orleg, 9 hours ago
- RT @ByBerkowitz: AM RT: Oregon coach Dana Altman gets $100,000 bonus as Ducks defeat Kansas to reach men's Final Four. He has $215,000 in bonuses so far., 11 hours ago
- RT @jackstripling: My final story from #spaniertrial, a fascinating proceeding unlike anything I've seen in a career covering highered. https://t.co/M2lrR3RQXX, Mar 25
- RT @MarshallYoum: Academic freedom for univ faculty, not administrators: why & how? https://t.co/7UkyRWWirq @BrianLeiter in CHR . RECOMMENDED., Mar 25
- RT @timeshighered: Drug deals: cannabis provides a pot of gold for university scholarships in Colorado https://t.co/8Okv7fVtAH https://t.co/55TfHmLGlL, Mar 25
TagsAAUP-AFT Union? Academic Freedom administrative bloat Athletics athletics subsidy Beangrams Dave Frohnmayer: UO President Dave Hubin Diversity Faculty pay Faculty Union (United Academics of UO) free speech Jamie Moffitt Jim Bean: UO Provost Jim O'Fallon jock box Lariviere Firing Lorraine Davis March 8-9 rape allegations Melinda Grier Michael Gottfredson NCAA NCAA violations new partnership plan off topic OUS Board and Chancellor Pernsteiner PERS Public Records Public Safety Randy Geller General Counsel Research money Richard Lariviere: UO President Robin Holmes Rob Mullens Scott Coltrane Senate Sharon Rudnick Students Track and Field Championships Uncategorized UO Foundation UO Presidential Archives UO restructuring plan UO Trustees
- UO Law slips from #78 to #86, Willamette, Lewis & Clark far below. 03/24/2017
- UO lobbies legislature for $100M in Knight Campus bonds 03/23/2017
- How does Tom Hart do “cyberspace surveillance” of Duck athletes? 03/23/2017
- UO just can’t find public records on gender discrimination complaints? 03/22/2017
- Nevertheless, she persisted 03/21/2017
- This UO professor has my vote for the Nobel prize in medicine 03/21/2017
- International students flee Trump for Canadian universities 03/20/2017
- Duck student-athletes not to talk to reporters without permission 03/20/2017
- NCAA’s revenue “student-athletes” less and less likely to be first generation 03/17/2017
- “no need for panic” 03/16/2017
- UO’s non-tenure track faculty to take generous $45K buyout offer 03/15/2017
- Pres Schill sends out letter of support for UO transgender community 03/15/2017
- Adjunct CC prof wins $125K judgement in free-speech case 03/15/2017
- UO hires new Law Dean, Marcilynn Burke from Houston 03/15/2017
- Poli Sci professor dissects former Bio professor’s “false flag” letter 03/14/2017
- General Counsel Kevin Reed exaggerates cost of providing public records 03/13/2017
- Prosecutors investigating bribery allegations in 2021 IAAF Tracktown bid 03/13/2017
- Altman to lose NCAA tournament to Creighton in round 2, on academics 03/13/2017
- Hardworking Duck basketball players earn $25K for NCAA tournament bid! 03/12/2017
- UO paid Ta-Nehisi Coates $11,500 more than OSU, got half the time 03/11/2017
UO Board Chair Chuck Lillis's grade so far
- A (10%, 30 Votes)
- B (5%, 15 Votes)
- C (13%, 39 Votes)
- D (23%, 66 Votes)
- F (49%, 142 Votes)
Total Voters: 292Loading ...
President Mike Schill's grade so far
- A (23%, 113 Votes)
- B (29%, 140 Votes)
- C (17%, 80 Votes)
- D (12%, 56 Votes)
- F (19%, 92 Votes)
Total Voters: 481Loading ...