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.
- $600K a year and Rob... (3)
- honest Uncle Bernie In many ways, Schill is turning out to be not so great news. The complete botch of case of the law school blackface professor, with... – Saturday
- Just wondering Good as always to post about athletics, though I do find the article bad for having no evidence whatsoever about the 17 who supported the... – Saturday
- honest Uncle Bernie What, me worry? – Friday
- Duke effort to reform undergrad... (4)
- dog dog's don't insinuate - we don't even know what that means. How about - waste teaching time (I don't care who teaches these useless courses)... – Friday
- NTTF dog, are you insinuating that nttf are not faculty? Your comment about "wasting faculty time (and nttf time)" with "nttf" in parentheses sends a message.... – Thursday
- Captain Nemo I will venture some heresy here and risk being burned at the stake. The European "Matura", "baccalauréat", the "Abitur", the "A-Level" have all offered the... – Wednesday
- dog GenEd of course is in bad need of reform, but I don't think any institution is actually willing to commit to this because it wall... – Wednesday
- UO increases racial diversity but... (5)
- Ka-ching Ka-ching. This is all about the money. You just can't squeeze enough out of the poor kids to pay the "excellence" bloated salaries of Schill... – Friday
- jackmccoy Hmm, so is this a trend specific to Eugene, or the consequence of free community college statewide, or higher state tuition?? – Monday
- Captain Nemo All the more reason for the UO and for the faculty to support the SAIL Program. – Monday
- UO Matters Nope. The percentage of students at 4-year publics getting federal grants has increased from 27% in 2001 to 38% in 2014. See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_331.20.asp – Monday
- jackmccoy Is this because there are fewer eligible students for pell because incomes have gone up? Not necessarily bad news... – Monday
- UO spending on racial diversity... (2)
- I may be reading that wrong, but doesn't that indicate that the money hasn't been spent, therefore consultants have not been "cashing in?" – Thursday
- honest Uncle Bernie I suspect the actual diversity expenditures are a lot higher, when you count everything. Way back when in the last diversity battle -- was it... – Monday
- Expect mild noise as crews... (4)
- Fishwrapper The last time I saw a sign saying "Wet Paint," I did. The fellow with the paintbrush was not amused. – Wednesday
- UO Matters "Trickle-Down" painting. It sounds very economical. – Wednesday
- Old Grey Mare If they started at the top, they could let the paint trickle down through the cracks and the places where the floors are separating from... – Wednesday
- dog Indeed, stubborn screws are the bane of my existence ... – Wednesday
- Duck coach Dana Altman grants... (15)
- Eugenenative By that standard we all come up short. Not just Dana Altman. – Wednesday
- UO Matters You're right, Altman is no Lincoln. – Monday
- honest Uncle Bernie UOM, comparing the situation of free athletes to slaves is stupid, and comparing Altman to a slaveholder is vicious and stupid. And the implied comparison... – Monday
- Organized That was a few years back. There have been more recent talks with athletes at UO about organizing. It has been by a close margin... – Monday
- balling Some football players did inquire about organizing. I'm not a sports buff, but i think it was back when a player had some problem about... – Monday
- Fishwrapper I'd like to see them organize... – Monday
- eugenenative Maybe the college athletes should boycott? There is nothing preventing them. – Monday
- President Schill announces $4.5M in... (43)
- Dog Give me a fucking break - and look at history it has never been about the Money this is all about cultural incompetence - how... – Tuesday
- honest Uncle Bernie Prospective Mom -- my advice too would be to let him make up his mind, and don't worry about it too much. We often learn... – Tuesday
- honest Uncle Bernie "the UO is simply incapable of dealing with salary compression" dog, I just don't buy it -- the amount of money we're talking about is... – Tuesday
- dog professor accessibility varies considerably from school to school and department to department. But most professors are quite accessible if the student makes an effort. Hell,... – Tuesday
- Slightly Less Concerned Prospective Mom Thank you, dog! No, he is not considering either of those schools, but he is considering BU, Chapman, Lewis & Clark and University of Denver.... – Monday
- Concerned Prospective Mom Thanks! I am trying to leave it up to my son, but I just want him to be aware of the negative aspects of a... – Monday
- dog I will be serious here (in contrast to most dog nonsense) 1. The main advantage to going to a smaller private school is a much... – Monday
- UO Matters This blog contains a lot of complaints about UO. That's because we're mostly faculty, we mostly love this university, and we're mostly trying to make... – Monday
- UO's minority tenure track faculty... (12)
- UO Matters Whoops, thanks. – Tuesday
- color blind Even though I'm color blind I noticed you colored the CAS sciences TTF entries for represented and available green, but that should be red. – Tuesday
- Oryx See above. – Tuesday
- Oryx However, the heading at the top of that column says "Under-represented" above the subheadings "women" and "minorities," so I think that "under-represented" applies even to... – Tuesday
- UO Matters If it helps, the AAEO Director who wrote this report is no longer employed by UO, and the search for a competent replacement is underway. – Tuesday
- Report Reader That may well be the case in some instances, but the referenced data here is from an AAEO document that refers to "minorities" not "under... – Monday
- Asian American Professor I conclude that from the AAEO report. In the table that UOMatters screenshotted you'll see that there's a superscript 5. If you go to the... – Monday
- Older »
- $600K a year and Rob... (3)
- RT @DailyEmerald: The SOJC is attempting to cut $1.9 million from next year's budget. https://t.co/fmrOyNSkXs, 5 hours ago
- $600K a year and Rob Mullens can't even give UO a clean volleyball program? - https://t.co/Qo993FxOeo, 19 hours ago
- RT @kennyjacoby: Ex-volleyball players allege body-shaming, ridiculing by former UO coaches Jim Moore and Stacy Metro https://t.co/H4uY3A11LM, 19 hours ago
- RT @UOVP_Dr_T: .@uoregon .@CallMeADuck Just finished a great day with our High School Advisory Board--TERRIFIC leaders & colleague… https://t.co/6fOQugC1i9, Apr 28
- RT @fienien4ever: New Libertarian way to tip..... https://t.co/LYpzZT7lJD, Apr 28
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
- $600K a year and Rob Mullens can’t even give UO a clean volleyball program? 04/28/2017
- Expect mild noise as crews drill out and replace stubborn PLC faculty 04/26/2017
- Duke effort to reform undergrad curriculum dies 04/26/2017
- USC runs SAIL pipeline on steroids, boosts low SES enrollment & graduation 04/26/2017
- UO increases racial diversity but low-income undergrad enrollment drops 04/24/2017
- UO spending on racial diversity triples since 2011, consultants cash in 04/23/2017
- UO’s minority tenure track faculty are in proportion to available PhD’s 04/23/2017
- March for Science today at Noon at Memorial Quad 04/22/2017
- Duck coach Dana Altman grants player release from indentured servitude 04/21/2017
- UO students just not that into the whole neo-Nazi thing 04/20/2017
- President Schill announces $4.5M in budget cuts 04/20/2017
- UO’s 100 most excellent faculty 04/20/2017
- New Oregon public records law leaves truck-sized deadline loophole 04/18/2017
- UO hires Barran & Liebman’s Shayda Le, pleas for more time on Freyd lawsuit 04/17/2017
- UO Trustee inspires her husband to promote government transparency 04/17/2017
- Teaching Effectiveness Program: Reimagining undergrad education 04/17/2017
- Cornell wants to discipline student for leaking memo, faculty object 04/17/2017
- State dials back on poorly designed free community college plan 04/17/2017
- Stanford caves, lets professor use Trump image for Title IX conference poster 04/17/2017
- Assoc Dean Bruce Blonigen blog post: Funding Risks and Planning 04/17/2017
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 ...