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.
- Law school spent $4.6M on... (17)
- Publius The law school doesn't just have a lot of professors. If you look at the faculty roster you will see that a huge percentage of... – Tuesday
- just different Market forces or no, it would be a dismal shame if the only public law school in Oregon closed its doors. Lewis & Clark no... – Tuesday
- LameDuck Or another way to look at it is that law school is using the money to subsidize the salaries of law faculty and justify their... – Tuesday
- anonec The cost-benefit test for humanities is misleading because the market returns of degrees are distorted. Students pay the same tuition for their "low-cost degrees" and... – Tuesday
- Duckduckgo The law scholarships need to be evaluated in the context of all priorities across the university. Maybe all other units need to cut to the... – Monday
- Dave Smith Speaking as a former law student at UO the school used to be very stingy with scholarship money compared to other law schools. This used... – Monday
- SaveUofO The UofO is a business now. Not a well managed business by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a business. We were a... – Monday
- Marmot Agree that the second explanation is nuts. The first (well actually either of them) should be argued out in the open. We are a university,... – Monday
- Help UO Matters compile list... (28)
- A brief history of "civility"... (1)
- that effing Dog again A corollary to civility issue that I have personally observed to change significantly over the last N years is "the loss of the neutral expert... – Tuesday
- UO freedom (2)
- uomatters All who care about the cause of academic freedom owe a lot to Professor Demers. Particularly those of us within the borders of the Ninth... – Tuesday
- David Demers I was the plaintiff in a federal free-speech lawsuit against Washington State University in which the Ninth Circuit held that my service-related speech about improving... – Tuesday
- RG turns over more rocks,... (62)
- Dr. Funkenstein Yes, sadly I overheard one of those well meaning tour guides point to McKenzie Hall and say, "That's the History building, but I've never been... – Tuesday
- Old Grey Mare Shhhh. Pay no attention to the man with the backpack sprayer who is pacing out a giant swoosh. – Thursday
- Working GTF They're kind of already is a Nike ad on the quad. As I overheard one of our cheery campus ambassadors describe to their group: "On... – Thursday
- Dr. Funkenstein Yes, perhaps they can use some Roundup and make a giant Nike Ad on the quad! That'll make that sandblasted sidewalk logo thing look lame.... – Thursday
- uomatters I'd like to think there's some money in this for UO, but Nike is pretty stingy. Maybe something in it for the admins though: http://uomatters.com/2014/12/nike-pays-uo-600k-under-armour-pays-notre-dame-9m.html – Wednesday
- Yes, Um, the banner has a swoosh on it, as do all the athletes featured. I'm not trying to talk down to you, but it's an... – Wednesday
- Makes you wanna shout Wow, there are bald-faced lies and then there's this whopper. Every single athlete on that mural is a Nike athlete. Perhaps the brightly colored shoes... – Wednesday
- um all sorts – Wednesday
- Bargaining XII: Parking for jocks... (12)
- Dr. Funkenstein I hate to sound petty about this, but this parking thing is simply stupid. We pay for the possibility of a parking space as it... – Tuesday
- honest Uncle Bernie A forensic accountant would be able to figure it out, but it shouldn't take one to do it. The administration could come up with the... – Saturday
- Fishwrapper You'd need a forensic accountant to figure that out... – Friday
- hnoest Uncle Bernie The first graph doesn't say it all, but it says a lot! "Administration" pay (which is really pay for administrators + non-teaching professional staff) has... – Friday
- Anon We are maintaining a strike provision this time around, yes? (Follow up: Are there people organizing in preparation?) – Thursday
- UO faculty union brings back... (5)
- Max Powers Take this guy with a grain of salt. I heard he did a report for another Oregon University and told them they could use capital... – Tuesday
- SaveUofO I would be very interested in seeing what percentage of the overall budget goes to pay administrators. I am sure Mr. Bunsis will have much... – Friday
- just different Will there be video and/or webcast? – Friday
- uomatters Hell yes. – Friday
- UO HillBilly Is this presentation open to the public? – Friday
- RG reports on UO's proposed... (2)
- awesome0 The main motivation is so that the UO can make itself look affordable as fees will be lower but maybe make more money through insurance... – Tuesday
- popcorn muncher It's amazing, but unsurprising, that the UO will once again move into an area where they have little experience, huge future liabilities, and isn't central... – Monday
- Congratulations! (2)
- Ombudsman MacAllister delivers SOJC climate... (1)
- Old Man A good start might be to move "Advertising" to the Business School. – Friday
- The big dog Phil Knight... (17)
- Steve P. Don't be crude. Besides, Uncle Phil already has the cheerleaders: http://www.csnnw.com/ducks/uo-cheerleaders-surprise-phil-knight-personalized-birthday-cheer – Friday
- Sonny Vaccaro - from teaching... (3)
- Audit of athletic dept risks... (1)
- Steve P Nice work, keep on em. – Thursday
- Older »
- Law school spent $4.6M on... (17)
- The man who wouldn’t delete Kitzhaber’s emails, and a UO archives update: Michael Rodgers is the state technol... http://t.co/xeLmeVmrAx, 4 hours ago
- RT @wweek: Michael Rodgers has a secret: He’s the one who leaked Gov. Kitzhaber’s email. Here's why. http://t.co/7wwQdZJWwS http://t.co/Me9lbAnXOt, 5 hours ago
- More athletic corruption, big to small: The NYT has the big story, here: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption... http://t.co/p1Hte2YOD4, 6 hours ago
- Clusters of excellence hiring: Dear Colleagues, As we begin the final weeks of the academic year, I have excit... http://t.co/oOfpCd5Y2G, 8 hours ago
- RT @peteramescarlin: Memories, misty water-colored memories... http://t.co/XYZBoH0Iqq, 9 hours ago
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
- The man who wouldn’t delete Kitzhaber’s emails, and a UO archives update 05/27/2015
- More athletic corruption, big to small 05/26/2015
- Clusters of excellence hiring 05/26/2015
- A brief history of “civility” and its abuses, ancient and current 05/26/2015
- Senate meets Wed 5/27 on courses, awards, new grad programs, NCAA and UO history reforms 05/25/2015
- UO Senate and committee elections 2.0 05/25/2015
- Law school spent $4.6M on scholarships this year, up from $300K in 2011 05/25/2015
- RG reports on UO’s proposed health insurance plan 05/24/2015
- Does UO have a strategic plan for Portland yet? 05/24/2015
- John Nash and wife die in NJ car crash 05/24/2015
- UO faculty union brings back Bunsis, Thursday 6PM 05/22/2015
- Congratulations! 05/22/2015
- Ombudsman MacAllister delivers SOJC climate report 05/22/2015
- Bargaining XII: Parking for jocks not profs, harassment, still no raises 05/21/2015
- PAC-12 bosses make millions off unpaid athletes 05/21/2015
- Audit of athletic dept risks due this fall – and another cut to Duck subsidies? 05/20/2015
- Senate meets on fac-student engagement, policies, diversity 05/20/2015
- Sonny Vaccaro – from teaching to Nike to Adidas to O’Bannon 05/20/2015
- UO Foundation Board tells staff to drop EWEB redevelopment scheme 05/19/2015
- The big dog Phil Knight puts his mark 05/19/2015