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.
- Secretive UO Foundation delays Hayward... (3)
- uomatters Can't say. – Saturday
- Licensed in Oregon Give Bill a break. If he'd written "Hayward Field money-laundering" then Weinhold would be threatening to sue him again. Say, any news on their IRS... – Saturday
- Pronoun preferences available on request Good way to write gendered, misogynistic titles. – Friday
- President Schill on UO, excellence (22)
- honest Uncle Bernie Here's an example just out of "bringing home the bacon": "UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco and Stanford University will join forces in a new medical... – Friday
- honest Uncle Bernie In my experience, it's as close to a "flagship" as Oregon has ever had or perhaps is ever likely to get. Perhaps it's impossible, having... – Friday
- honest Uncle Bernie I guess I have a different notion of a windbag. Even Churchill was kind of a windbag sometimes. Though he was far more eloquent and... – Friday
- Dog There are lots of metrics out there as most everyone just makes up shit. Here is a set of links that you can access and... – Friday
- uomatters I'm OK with excellence. Unlike the $3M that Coltrane paid 160over90 for that "What the F" slogan, Pres Schill picked up "excellence" for free. Hard... – Friday
- Inquiring Mind I just find "excellence" as a brand rather vague and uninspired. Doesn't provide context for UO's uniquene contributions. I am also quite tired of the... – Friday
- eugenenative Again with the "flagship" nonsense. How is the UO a "flagship" of anything. Flagship of the one campus University of Oregon system? – Thursday
- thedude I think Schill is great. But using excellent too many times starts to sound like the little train saying "I think I can I think... – Thursday
- No correlation between students' course... (6)
- Heath Hutto I spent three years on the FPC and only read student evaluations for the comments--I remember finding those generally uninformative, but more instructive than the... – Friday
- Dog agreed - I think that was my main point. Its not that studies haven't been done that have shown this, its that we, at the... – Friday
- honest Uncle Bernie It always struck me as goofy that academia would take student evaluations so seriously over several decades. They started as a cheap way to placate... – Friday
- daffy duck Of course, but this is hardly news. A summary of an earlier study below. http://www.psych.uncc.edu/pagoolka/Jmarres2009.pdf – Thursday
- Let's Do Something About it I'm not sure anyone ever really conceived of these evals as measuring "student learning". They are mostly satisfaction surveys. If that's what we want to... – Thursday
- Dog Its about fucking time that this kind of analysis be front and centered. Yes faculty that are entertaining or caring tend to produce higher student... – Thursday
- 30 ounces of Go Ducks! (1)
- Moonman Order two today and we will throw in for free a Waterford crystal miniature Heisman paper weight engraved with "Mahalo Marcus." No automobile dealer's desk... – Thursday
- President Schill's reorganization of Johnson... (2)
- UO Foundation's Jay Namyet beats... (1)
- Black-Scholes The standard 60/40 benchmark returned about 4.5% over this period. Namyet and crew only got 2.5% - and that's before you take out their salaries. – Wednesday
- UO provides safe space for... (53)
- LetsBeHonestForOnce I really cannot see any point in commenting on the IT-reorg. They (administrators) will do what they will, opinions from the trenches mean nothing. We... – Wednesday
- Are universities playing musical chairs... (5)
- just different Another way to boost the pipeline is to make a point of hiring faculty (or admitting PhD students) who may not be ethnic minorities or... – Tuesday
- Dog This is a good document about all of this - should compare the language here with the language in the UO documents http://www.ccas.net/files/ADVANCE/VCU%20Expand%20the%20Pool.pdf – Tuesday
- Patrick Phillips Programs like ANSEP in Alaska (http://www.ansep.net/) have found that they have to reach through all the way back to middle school to make a difference... – Tuesday
- Max Powers Higher Ed needs to work on creating more minority scholars. The rising cost is a serious barrier around the nation to minority achievement. Poverty lines... – Tuesday
- Anonymous Let's stop hiring based on merit and start hiring based on perceived "minority" status. What could go wrong? – Monday
- Academic Leadership Retreat (1)
- Dog Ah, UOmatters I think you got your headline slightly wrong here should read Retreat FROM Academic Leadership – Monday
- UO hires Matthew Carmichael from... (40)
- GetReal Good at what? What is he doing? Personal experience or merely self reflection? – Thursday
- outforjustice So, spoken from an insider, here is one of the biggest challenges facing the uopd and the new chief: dealing with (or the refusal to... – Wednesday
- Thom Aquinas Have an issue with Andre LeDuc much? He's actually really good at what he's doing. Personal experience. Maybe that division he caused is from starting... – Tuesday
- Being Real Good Luck to Chief Carmichael. He will have a difficult job dealing with a lazy, lying sleeping sergeant, a useless nincompoop for a security director,... – Monday
- Duck Athletic Department crushes Cavaliers,... (4)
- daffy Duck True enough. Few among the public understand that before the great decline in public funding, the ratio of state funding to tuition funding was about... – Wednesday
- Duckduckgo Somewhat related as a look into school finances: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-main-reason-tuition-is-skyrocketing/ It doesn't capture the recent uptick in state support, though. – Tuesday
- honest Uncle Bernie UO really @ 0% American Indian/Alaska Native? They are about 1.5% of Oregon population. Perhaps this reflects a deep alienation? The KKK renaming stuff seems... – Monday
- Dog just a small point for years UVA has lead all public universities with the highest 4 year (yes that's 4 year) graduation rate. – Saturday
- Finance and Facilities Committee —... (2)
- Lois Yoshishige Here is a recap of what I said at the Board of Trustees meeting about the Business Affairs Office move to the Thompson Building. We... – Wednesday
- NotMyMonkey Your summary of Lois Yoshishigi's statement is rather lean in detail. Lois works for Business Affairs Student Loans AND COLLECTIONS. Students who are in arrears,... – Monday
- UO Divest sit-in wins the... (21)
- justathought Many of these oil and gas firms are big investors in renewables. Seems counterproductive, no? – Monday
- VPSA Robin Holmes to leave... (1)
- AnonOA This isn't good news, it's great news! Schill is cleaning house. And we don't have to pay her to do busywork until her contract runs... – Monday
- Older »
- Secretive UO Foundation delays Hayward... (3)
- RT @brendatracy24: https://t.co/ue4hIjnJGU Thank you @Big12Conference for inviting a survivor to be part of the discussion. #survivorvoices, 6 mins ago
- RT @diane_dietz: Eugene NAACP leader advocates stripping name of Matthew Deady from University of Oregon building https://t.co/9RFWYoqRF4, 22 hours ago
- RT @AstroKatie: If we want institutional change, we have to change the incentive structures. https://t.co/F7iqWyJAel, Sep 23
- Secretive UO Foundation delays Hayward Field tart-up by a year: Rumor down at the faculty club is that the “t... https://t.co/E4VOlgX69X, Sep 23
- RT @bradwolverton: I love that this ad is on @dankanenando's latest series on the UNC scandal (which is excellent, by the way, you sho… https://t.co/M0OtbVwUzB, Sep 23
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 Uncategorized UO Administration UO Foundation UO Presidential Archives UO restructuring plan UO Trustees
- Secretive UO Foundation delays Hayward Field tart-up by a year 09/23/2016
- University Board may sue Foundation for refusal to provide public records 09/23/2016
- No correlation between students’ course evaluations and learning 09/21/2016
- Sen. Mark Haas’s “Oregon Promise” burns community college students 09/21/2016
- 30 ounces of Go Ducks! 09/21/2016
- President Schill’s reorganization of Johnson Hall moves on to VPSL 09/21/2016
- $16M donation for education scholarships 09/21/2016
- President Schill on UO, excellence 09/20/2016
- UO Foundation’s Jay Namyet beats market, at 2.5% 09/20/2016
- Are universities playing musical chairs with minority faculty? 09/19/2016
- The Next Generation of Higher Ed Management Fads 09/19/2016
- Academic Leadership Retreat 09/19/2016
- Tuition increases and state funding decreases 09/19/2016
- AG Ellen Rosenblum’s DOJ reverses Hardy Myers on public record fees 09/13/2016
- UO Divest sit-in wins the day, as Foundation’s Jay Namyet joins CO2 boycott 09/12/2016
- VPSA Robin Holmes to leave Oct 18, for UC-System 09/12/2016
- Duck Athletic Department crushes Cavaliers, and UO, 28% to 12% 09/10/2016
- First they came for our guns, and then …. 09/09/2016
- UO Board of Trustees denames Dunn, meets new admins, approves renovations 09/09/2016
- President supports free speech, fires Bias Response Team 09/09/2016
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 ...