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 public records from Dave Hubin
Recent Comments. Deleted if (content + humor)/nastiness < Euler’s number. Please use a screen name.
- Prosecutor and Trustee says university... (8)
- 'dead duck' Reuters [link below] has more on this subject, and on the efficacy of such forces. My point, given above, remains unchanged: If we have to... – Friday
- awesome0 This particular case is not the exception. Read about this case where a university cop tried to give someone a DUI ticket and ended up... – Thursday
- tweetie This is a shocking and frightening situation: a young campus cop stopping someone, off campus no less, for a minor traffic offense and his first... – Wednesday
- The Truth "UOPD are as detached as the athletic department." This is hardly surprising when the main purpose of the UOPD is to insulate the athletic department... – Wednesday
- 'merica UOPD are as detached as the athletic department. Something about the police distance strikes me as even worse, though. – Wednesday
- Daffy duck Agreed, perhaps as a lawyer with academic experience on multiple campuses, our new pres will quickly see the need for a transparent review and oversight... – Wednesday
- 'dead duck' I have made these comments several times on UOM, on the FAC and in emails to the various presidents. Until the public safety officers get... – Wednesday
- Good luck filing a complaint against UOPD or having your case independently reviewed: http://www.kezi.com/news/Op-Ed_Piece_Cites_a_Lack_of_Oversight_within_UO_Police_Department.html – Wednesday
- Finalist #1 for GCVP: Kenya... (3)
- XDH Bad dog! Her application was sent one month before the dumba$$ at UC shot the guy. – Friday
- Grumpy Wow! Robin Holmes ALONE represents the entirely of Student Life. What's with "Administrative leaders"? This seems to be a catch-all, unified only by "chiefs-of-staff" Why... – Thursday
- that effing Canis again Hmm, University of Cincinnati - hmm, haven't we read about that elsewhere on this blog ? – Thursday
- Oregon grad student admits to... (4)
- Will "Around the O" retract... (8)
- Outsider "I have to think about people outside the University and what they must think or would think if they heard UO tenured faculty whining —... – Wednesday
- honest Uncle Bernie "And I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a person to expect their earnings to increase at a rate higher than inflation, as they gain experience... – Wednesday
- uomatters There was excellent buy in from the administration for the 2008 Senate White Paper Update. In fact, the goal of 100% of AAU publics was... – Wednesday
- honest Uncle Bernie The fact is, there has been a vast improvement since the 2000 white paper, look at the numbers on both salary and total compensation. In... – Wednesday
- just different Don't underestimate the penetration power of the voice of authority wrapped in nice packaging--just look at the quantity of misinformation the university was able to... – Tuesday
- Old Grey Mare You mean someone actually reads "Around the O"? – Monday
- confused... Can anyone explain how aroundtheo gets the averages they list in the original salary survey (http://around.uoregon.edu/content/new-aau-salary-survey-data-shows-uo-compares-well)? First, they use a ratio of 35% full/30% assoc/30%... – Monday
- that effing Canis again At virtually all levels in my experience or perhaps experiment at the UO, revisionist history tends to dominate a lot of future decision making. This... – Monday
- Acting Provost Frances Bronet to... (14)
- Skip Heaton Though no CalTech, IIT (Illinois Tech) is a very solid school but has some financial difficulties that it is now working through. It's maybe like... – Wednesday
- Bargaining session XVII: Administration still... (5)
- awesome0 I spoke to a member of U Conn union and he said their contracts usually give the deans up 15-20 percent of the merit pools... – Tuesday
- Heavily subsidized Duck coach has... (14)
- numnum don't forget.... publicity is not always good when it comes to college athletics.... that the stands at low attendance sports are usually filled with friends... – Tuesday
- Michigan Duck Duckduckgo, I applaud you for trying to raise the visibility of the problem, but it has been an issue for so long it really seems... – Monday
- Duckduckgo Michigan Duck, the question of faculty salaries is not just personal. Some of us realize, like you, that faculty can and will leave for better... – Monday
- Michigan Duck There is definitely a market for winning volleyball coaches at Division I universities. Does the AD need to pay the coach that much? Maybe not,... – Monday
- Fact check? Dividing the program's overall net loss by the number of scholarships is not how you calculate expenses per scholarship. Baffling that someone posting on university... – Monday
- Sports Fan What did the baseball players ever do? Besides becoming fixtures at Taylor's (up to, including and especially the under-21 set) and consistently failing to meet... – Monday
- uomatters These numbers come from the UO EADA reports to the NCAA and DoE. Follow the links and learn. – Monday
- The Truth That's all well and good, and I agree about the volleyball players themselves as students. Why should the head coach for a non-revenue, money-losing sport... – Monday
- Faculty union and CAS Dean... (1)
- Boon Thank God for UO Matters. Keep at it until the ship turns around, because it must. – Monday
- University fund-raising hits record despite... (7)
- Oryx Anon's point is excellent, and the context about OSU is valuable. The most likely way to provide the community with balanced information, though, is exactly... – Sunday
- Duck Athletic Department threats: Price... (6)
- Old Man They are riding the football tiger. Ditto with MKA. – Sunday
- Observer Interesting that the line is (under Football Performance), "Financial forecasts project continued high level performance." In other words, "Our finances are based on the requirement... – Sunday
- uomatters Thanks. It's odd how Dana Altman didn't make their "Bowl of Duck Threats" list. I'll keep looking, maybe he's on the 2015 version. – Saturday
- tweetie Who? The fan base who thinks UO has arrived. Just ask 'em! The 2012 football season was Kelly's last year as head coach and fans... – Saturday
- Dog Good example of UOmatters being a journalist. It's one thing to continue to use heresay, anecdotes, and other kinds of blog farts to paint a... – Saturday
- Older »
- Prosecutor and Trustee says university... (8)
- Finalist #1 for GCVP: Kenyan Mann Faulkner: Info on initial failed search here. New official search website he... http://t.co/emVsgWjA59, Jul 30
- Prosecutor and Trustee says university police force should be disbanded: The NYT has the sad story, here: A Un... http://t.co/gGU8UWFjyq, Jul 29
- Oregon grad student admits to faking data in four neuroscience papers: The Retraction Watch blog has the repor... http://t.co/2oo4jjHQ9A, Jul 27
- Will “Around the O” retract claims re Senate Salary White Paper?: The administration’s economic counterproposa... http://t.co/X3H497zu8J, Jul 27
- Heavily subsidized Duck coach has 10 year plan to break even: No, of course I’m not talking about basketball c... http://t.co/Jarosq6Aqp, Jul 26
TagsAAUP-AFT Union? Academic Freedom administrative bloat Athletics athletics subsidy Beangrams Dave Frohnmayer: UO President Dave Hubin Diversity EMU Faculty pay Faculty Union (United Academics of UO) Jamie Moffitt Jim Bean: UO Provost Jim O'Fallon jock box Lariviere Firing live-blog March 8-9 rape allegations Martinez's (Diversity VP) 2nd $150K job 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 Rob Mullens Scott Coltrane Senate Sharon Rudnick Students Uncategorized UO Administration UO Foundation UO Presidential Archives UO restructuring plan UO Trustees
- Finalist #1 for GCVP: Kenya Mann Faulkner 07/30/2015
- 20 days after request, Doug Park produces Burnside AAEO contract 07/30/2015
- Prosecutor and Trustee says university police force should be disbanded 07/29/2015
- Bargaining session XVII: Administration still lowballing faculty 07/28/2015
- Oregon grad student admits to faking data in four neuroscience papers 07/27/2015
- Rogue archivist terrorizes legislature 07/27/2015
- Will “Around the O” retract claims re Senate Salary White Paper? 07/27/2015
- Faculty union and CAS Dean Marcus criticize UO’s spending priorities 07/26/2015
- Heavily subsidized Duck coach has 10 year plan to break even 07/26/2015
- Duck Athletic Department threats: Price elasticity, NCAA, and professors? 07/24/2015
- Has President Schill found a replacement for Doug Park? 07/23/2015
- VSU pays $900K for violating student’s 1st Amendment right to mock Univ. President 07/23/2015
- University offers faculty 3% ATB and 2% merit, spread over two years 07/22/2015
- UO President Michael Schill is the one person who can make it happen 07/21/2015
- President Schill makes yet another sensible decision 07/20/2015
- UO Foundation releases some good fundraising data 07/20/2015
- University fund-raising hits record despite winning athletics program 07/17/2015
- Bargaining XVI: Union responds to admin’s real wage cut proposal 07/17/2015
- President Schill’s youtube message about week 1 07/15/2015
- RG columnist raises questions about UO graduate student 07/14/2015