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 go to buy G&T’s
Recent Comments. Deleted if (content + humor)/nastiness < Euler's number. Please use a screen name.
- UO provides safe space for... (50)
- anonymous my experience on UO committees: Admin will do exactly what they want, either by manipulating the committees (head/membership) or by ignoring them if they don't... – Wednesday
- anonymous It wasn't going to be "anonymous" originally. I recommend commenting from a public access computer and be careful that your choice of words don't give... – Wednesday
- Scared and sad Is anyone else terrified to leave honest feedback, even anonymously? Look at the memberships of the committees. How could anyone feel safe submitting transparent criticism... – Wednesday
- Anas clypeata Indeed. That is why I used the word "functional" in my comment. There are many places where there is no functional IT support organization. The... – Monday
- anonymous Exactly. "consolidation" of the widgets, after all -- one IT workers are pretty much interchangeable, maybe with a $200 of "professional development". But make sure... – Monday
- Punishing the competent? It is great that you enjoy strong personal relationships and that it is easy to get problems fixed by walking down the hall but based... – Sunday
- uomatters Please give some specific examples of unsupported recommendations that are incompatible with innovation and academic excellence. – Sunday
- Dogmatic Ratios The report is riddled with harmful assumptions, obviously held in advance by the administrators and their consultants. It's easy to demonstrate that these unsupported recommendations... – Sunday
- UO Business School seeks buzzword-free... (5)
- Anon Uh, I'm going to go with A on this one. – Wednesday
- University of Chicago warns students... (12)
- M Here at UO, we have a policy of coddling students--so long as those students create revenue for the university. What is the Jaqua Center if... – Wednesday
- I'm Curious ... The burden of proof? Not sure I'm following, or that you understand what I saying. In what specific circles is basic courtesy and respect incompatible... – Tuesday
- just different Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who maintain that academic rigor and academic freedom are incompatible with basic courtesy and respect for (increasingly... – Tuesday
- I'm Curious ... What was your conclusion about the big drama and what it *really* is about? I enjoyed Mane's essay and it seems she tries to pull... – Tuesday
- Exposing Ordinary Meanness Another insightful analysis is by philosopher Kate Mane. She ends her essay this way: "Would that everyone were as capable of wanting better for other... – Tuesday
- Co-opting the language of "academic freedom" to protect Power? Two responses to the University of Chicago letter worth reading: I’m a black UChicago graduate. Safe spaces got me through college. http://www.vox.com/2016/8/29/12692376/university-chicago-safe-spaces-defense UChicago's anti-safe spaces... – Tuesday
- uomatters And now it turns out the Chicago dean who wrote that "no safe space" letter forgot to mention that he has supported safe spaces. He... – Monday
- uomatters Our Bias Response Team has checked this link, and endorses it as appropriately sarcastic. It does wander a bit towards the end, but not as... – Sunday
- Duck physicists lose bidding war... (3)
- just different But there's always something shady going on in Salem that never sees the light of day. – Tuesday
- Tycho Mark my words, this eclipse will cast a dark penumbra over Oregon. And you think the energy tax credits are a shadowy business. – Tuesday
- NationalEclipse.com You readers are invited to visit NationalEclipse.com for more information on the 2017 eclipse. – Tuesday
- UO student Emily Olson writes... (60)
- M Mr Boyd, This is now the fourth time that you have characterized my position as claiming that you, Mooney, Coleman and Bartlett are racist, despite... – Monday
- Alec H. Boyd M, Two points require reply. First, you ask: "Do you think that the level of controversy is causally related to cultural (NOT your personal!) biases... – Monday
- BC Deady Hall is not "litarally [sic] a monument built to honor a man whose actions directly disenfranchised people of color." It was named Deady Hall... – Saturday
- M There's an underground garage "just over the Key Bridge in Rosslyn" where we can do the cup exchange. Place a flowerpot with a red flag... – Friday
- uomatters Thanks M, for showing that anonymity does not mean irresponsibility. Ben Franklin - whoops, I mean Silence Dogood - would be proud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_Dogood Sir, It... – Friday
- M Mr Boyd, This is what I was looking for, thank you. I have a MUCH better understanding of your position now. The distinction, if I... – Friday
- uomatters Thanks for your many interesting comments on this Mr. Boyd, and your excellent arguments. A bit of history, and some documents on the Grayson Hall... – Friday
- Alec H. Boyd M, This is my last attempt. I really think you are abusing your anonymity and using abusive rhetorical tactics. First, your attempt to put words... – Friday
- Chronicle reports on "The New... (1)
- David Espinoza I applaud the university for taking action on an issue that has been on the radar for some time now. For several years now there... – Monday
- Duck football player under investigation... (4)
- thumbelina A fumble out of bounds. – Monday
- Huh. So the survivor reported to EPD and it made it in the papers, I wonder what would have happened if they tried reporting to UOPD... – Monday
- thumbelina Yeah, and here we go into the murk again. Coach comments from Thorburn's updated article today: "We've been beyond proactive, beyond transparent and beyond cooperative... – Saturday
- honest Uncle Bernie As a UO release put it in the days of Dave Frohnmayer, "The good news just won't stop." – Saturday
- Celebrity lawyer Alex Spiro calls... (3)
- uomatters A competent attorney would know the preferred nomenclature is "utes". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu8tX2BAD1k – Sunday
- honest Uncle Bernie Oh boy. I think maybe I get it now. They are suggesting that those players were treated like "boys" by UO. As in "you boys... – Sunday
- Moonman "Who you calling boy?" comes to mind reading this disturbing report. I suppose he intends to accent his client's youth and inexperience. But you'd have... – Saturday
- Provost Search Committee named (8)
- Double A Ron is the staff person on this search, but you would have been correct for any of the last 10 major searches on campus. – Friday
- Just Words Actually, they do. Whining is exhausting. Whining over inaccurate statements is even worse. – Friday
- anonymous I see they have zero classified staff on that committee. No big surprise there. – Friday
- Duck Sports Performance Center tastefully... (5)
- Obi Wan Awesome! – Friday
- Older »
- UO provides safe space for... (50)
- UO hires Matthew Carmichael from UC-Davis as new Police Chief: 8/31/2016: UO has successfully completed an op... https://t.co/KCaogYvmnV, 2 hours ago
- UO Business School seeks buzzword-free diversity advisor to help students: Unfortunately our VP for Student A... https://t.co/gFXEp78d3P, 16 hours ago
- RT @oregonianstump: Steve Duin: The bookstore bandit https://t.co/7NOOaLkATL, 17 hours ago
- RT @edercampuzano: #VeteransForKaepernick took to Twitter tonight to support the @49ers QB's protest. https://t.co/TyF2Hr3CvB, 18 hours ago
- Nothing dirtier than Oregon’s clean energy: Jeff Manning has the latest on just one of the many clean energy ... https://t.co/sIwybuJKHe, Aug 30
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 Robert Berdahl Rob Mullens Scott Coltrane Senate Sharon Rudnick Students Uncategorized UO Administration UO Foundation UO Presidential Archives UO restructuring plan UO Trustees
- UO hires Matthew Carmichael from UC-Davis as new Police Chief 08/31/2016
- UO Business School seeks buzzword-free diversity advisor to help students 08/30/2016
- Nothing dirtier than Oregon’s clean energy 08/30/2016
- Duck physicists lose bidding war to Beavers for lucrative 2017 Solar Eclipse 08/29/2016
- University pres sues students for posting details of secret deal with allegedly abusive prof 08/29/2016
- Chronicle reports on “The New Cheating Economy”, UO’s CAS fights back 08/29/2016
- UO provides safe space for anonymous comments about IT reorganization 08/27/2016
- Celebrity lawyer Alex Spiro calls Dana Altman’s black basketball players “boys” 08/27/2016
- Duck football player under investigation for alleged assaults of female student 08/26/2016
- University of Chicago warns students there is no safe space from new ideas 08/26/2016
- Duck Sports Performance Center tastefully honors modest Marcus Mariota 08/25/2016
- Psychology 607: Everything is Fucked. Mon 9:00 – 10:50 08/24/2016
- Vanderbilt denames Confederate Hall, and what I learned about my 7th grade Virginia history textbook 08/23/2016
- UO student Emily Olson writes sensible op-ed on Deady and Dunn denaming 08/23/2016
- Darci Heroy appointed permanent Title IX coordinator 08/23/2016
- New VPRI David Conover arrives, wants more communications 08/23/2016
- Oregon Law Review prints Frohnmayer festschrift 08/22/2016
- Provost Search Committee named 08/22/2016
- University sweetens Harbaugh’s retirement deal 08/20/2016
- Sorry, Millennials just not that into Olympics or Duck sports 08/20/2016
On the mandatory reporting policy before the Senate today:
- Strongly support (10%, 8 Votes)
- Support (8%, 6 Votes)
- Neutral (20%, 16 Votes)
- Oppose (30%, 24 Votes)
- Strongly oppose (33%, 26 Votes)
Total Voters: 80Loading ...
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 ...