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.
- Fans lose interest, Dana Altman... (2)
- simplicius simplicissimus Bah - If I was a student at the UO today, I would also focus on my studies, considering the tuition (keep in mind recent... – Sunday
- Tagore Smith I was an undergrad at UMass when coach Cal and Marcus Canby were there. There was pretty much a riot when we lost in the... – Saturday
- Today: Chicago Prof Geoffrey Stone... (30)
- Tagore Smith Well, I'm not personally in the business of monitoring, and certainly not of restricting the wearing of blackface. The general thrust of my comment was... – Sunday
- honest Uncle Bernie Did anyone go to the Stone talk? – Saturday
- just different So what was Prof. Stone's analysis? Can someone provide a summary? Given the way he framed the issue in the lecture announcement, I expect that... – Saturday
- José I think the problem is that you are looking too far backwards. Yes I understand the use of blackface has been historically racist and malicious.... – Saturday
- dog @ Jose 1. All comments on blogs are "stupid" this is what blogs do - can't change that - remember its all Fake News 2.... – Saturday
- DADvocate "students often demand censorship, and universities, afraid to offend their students, surrender academic freedom to charges of offense" Wrong. Universities, many saturated with left wing... – Saturday
- Tagore Smith It was certainly stupid- it is hard to believe that a law professor could fail to understand the implications of wearing blackface, and the repercussions... – Saturday
- José I just want to clarify something. I have been a fan and follower of UO Matters for years, and I think Students would be hard-pressed... – Saturday
- Law School Dean search: Candidate... (2)
- NY Times Editors: Resist UO... (6)
- Tagore Smith '...therefore are not open for Speech Activities unless properly reserved in advance.' has a nice Orwellian ring to it- the odd capitalization gives it some... – Saturday
- New Year Cat I think it's interesting that they want to limit speech to outdoor areas right as bargaining begins again with SEIU, the classified staff union, which... – Tuesday
- Anas clypeata And one more, for good measure: Section 26. Assemblages of people; instruction of representatives; application to legislature. No law shall be passed restraining any of... – Monday
- Anas clypeata Also un-Oregonian: Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to... – Monday
- Fishwrapper As a pedantic note, one of the middle paragraphs is a lofty idea, the other is actually the law of the land. – Monday
- Conservative Duck Apologies for the re-post, but this just bears repeating: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are... – Monday
- 'The Great Shame of Our... (1)
- Eric B Rasmusen As an economist, you'll appreciate that the contingent faculty are happy to get these jobs--- which means they are not underpaid. If the wages were... – Saturday
- Chronicle of Higher Ed asks... (38)
- Eric B Rasmusen An interesting legal question is which emails were sent as a universty employee and which as an Oregon citizen. That is crucial for a FOIA... – Saturday
- Widget#298 AND making student food service workers pony up $ for their shift meal, AND making staff food service workers pony up $ for their shift... – Wednesday
- Widget#298 Note HR hires JD's, too. – Wednesday
- Widget#298 They do the same to information request by SEIU leadership. – Wednesday
- Attorneys Bill Gary and Greg... (17)
- daffy Duck I have pointed out in prior posts that Oregons retirement costs as a percent of state budget are middling or lower compared to other states.... – Friday
- duckduckgo In 1992, the Oregon Supreme Court decided that taxing PERS benefits violated the PERS contract. They allowed taxation to equalize treatment of federal pensions, but... – Wednesday
- Environmental necessity Thought throwing out questions to your readers constituted such an effort. See now that that I was wrong. I cannot express how relieved I am... – Wednesday
- UO Matters I'm not your RA. How about you do the research and tell us why not. – Tuesday
- environmental necessity Relative to recent periods growth has been strong in Oregon, and yet here we are. This is an under-investment problem as we are all held... – Tuesday
- just different Thanks for the official. Page 6 seems to say that the top 6% of retirees are getting 18% of the benefits ("liability" was the wrong... – Tuesday
- honest Uncle Bernie OK, that's more like it. Re the "pay as you go plan" or "extended payment plan": I kind of like it, at least up to... – Tuesday
- reaction Don't quit you day job: http://www.oregon.gov/pers/docs/general_information/pers_by_the_numbers.pdf – Tuesday
- PERSscam (1)
- honest Uncle Bernie The judges' PERS a scam? Probably the public out to curb PERS would say no more than the scam for professors. The judge salaries in... – Thursday
- President Schill withdraws his proposal... (5)
- New Year Cat Ah, thank you for that clarification. I had not heard this term before. – Wednesday
- uomatters Content Neutrality just means that if the university restricts free speech - say by banning JH lobby sit-ins that prevent the use of the lobby... – Wednesday
- New Year Cat "content neutrality"??? Free speech is not about content neutrality, in fact it is often far, sometimes even offensively far, from it. You want union members... – Wednesday
- UO Matters We talked, Schill listened, and then he changed his mind. That's the way free speech is supposed to work. Give the man a little credit! – Tuesday
- Between the lines "While I still believe that these rules are advisable to protect content neutrality," This is where I'm going to lead us... "I am also convinced... – Tuesday
- Yippee! (1)
- Prof from another school UO's recent senior science hires [Banavar ,McCormick, and David Conover] reflect very positively on the school. All are really distinguished scholars; I know Conover's work... – Tuesday
- As universities try to restrict... (5)
- Jose Hazelwood was a High School, and none of the Court's rulings on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, were meant to apply to College or University... – Monday
- President Schill proposes $945 per... (19)
- Inquiring Minds Clarify/edit that by administration I meant the Trump Administration/GOP led congress. – Monday
- Older »
- Fans lose interest, Dana Altman... (2)
- RT @UOGiving: ❤️ @Tech_Data 's Steve Raymund, '78, for starting @uoregon 's first PhD fellowship program with a $5M gift!… https://t.co/tqME9aNMS8, Feb 18
- RT @pebonilla: I'm not exactly sure what it is going to take for this lesson to sink in. https://t.co/5ejpMu1Zh6 https://t.co/AcUydojZgd, Feb 17
- Today: Chicago Prof Geoffrey Stone lectures UO Law School about free speech - https://t.co/AvXf8H0kk3, Feb 17
- RT @Oregon_Law: Free speech is tenuous at colleges. Pres. Schill's colleague at @UChicagoLaw @stone_geoffrey talks about it tomorro… https://t.co/V9CqIE62jQ, Feb 17
- UO First Amendment Chair Kyu Ho Youm asks how free speech is at UO - https://t.co/AvXf8H0kk3, Feb 16
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
- Law School Dean search: Candidate B, Robert Ahdieh from Emory 02/18/2017
- Fans lose interest, Dana Altman can’t match Mac Court attendance from 1977 02/17/2017
- Today: Chicago Prof Geoffrey Stone lectures UO Law School on free speech 02/17/2017
- PERSscam 02/16/2017
- Econ grad gives UO $5M for PhD students 02/15/2017
- Chronicle of Higher Ed asks why UO’s General Counsel wants faculty emails 02/15/2017
- Stanford says they fired lawyer “because of her fatalistic attitude”. 02/14/2017
- President Schill withdraws his proposal to restrict free speech TPM 02/14/2017
- Attorneys Bill Gary and Greg Hartman explain PERS law to legislators 02/13/2017
- Yippee! 02/13/2017
- NY Times Editors: Resist UO administration’s plan to arrest peaceful protestors 02/13/2017
- ‘The Great Shame of Our Profession’ 02/12/2017
- Dana Altman’s Duck basketball players file more lawsuit docs 02/12/2017
- UO Foundation’s endowment strategies pay off – but where does money go? 02/12/2017
- President Schill proposes $945 per year tuition increase + $150 tech fee 02/10/2017
- As universities try to restrict free-speech, state legislators try to protect it 02/10/2017
- Athletic Dept to give the academic side $5.8M from new TV contract! 02/09/2017
- UO reconsidering draconian liability waiver for T&F officials 02/07/2017
- UO Administration Proposes Further Tightening of Internet Oversight 02/06/2017
- NCAA cartel settles in part, will pay student-athletes $208M 02/03/2017
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 ...