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.
- Panicked UO communicators spew nonsense... (19)
- son of Chucky In fairness to Schill, he gets paid not to know anything happening at the University unless Chuck Lillis tells him first. – Thursday
- million dollar baby Gottbott is seemingly incapable of showing emotion, which always struck me as unusual for a man with the voice of a muppet. – Thursday
- Anonymous Mike Gottfredson is reading and loving every word of this. – Thursday
- Anas clypeata The quality of this writing just plain sucks. "Information detailing allegations was not shared with the coaching staff to protect [the] integrity of the inquiry."... – Thursday
- UO Matters Like. – Thursday
- Professor proud of UO student So far I see one, and only one, good thing for the UO in this mess. And that is what the communications office should be... – Thursday
- UO Matters I think I heard that somewhere. Maybe the problem is big-time college sports, and not the particular administrators who have to cope with whatever craziness... – Thursday
- honest Uncle Bernie Wasn't it Schill who liked to talk about "the gang who couldn't straight" in reference to his predecessors? – Thursday
- University's Barran Liebman lawyers lose... (1)
- Anas clypeata I hope Professor Freyd remembered to ask for a Pendleton blanket. Those things are really nice. – Thursday
- Cinema Studies seeks sole-source contract... (9)
- UO Matters Heinlein would have prefered a more competitive, libertarian solution. – Thursday
- checksum Why not? Pretty sure we could sole source Mars One. http://www.mars-one.com – Thursday
- UO Matters Sure, it's a great opportunity until those undergrads use up all the helium. What then? Mars? – Thursday
- checksum Awesome camera! What a great opportunity for undergrads to be exposed to technology like this in their studies. Doesn't seem "deeply suspicious" to purchase highly... – Thursday
- dog as for helium, well https://www.wired.com/2015/07/feds-created-helium-problem-thats-screwing-science/ – Thursday
- dog there is support for 8K playback but none of it is yet open source – Thursday
- UO Matters Back off Dog, it's got helium. The only relevant questions are if it's got supercooled superconducting helium, and if not, why not? – Wednesday
- dog Wow, I actually know something about this camera and have used one. a) its about 30K b) it produces 35 million pixes per video frame... – Wednesday
- Supreme Court reaffirms our First... (4)
- UO Matters The First Amendmendment is far from irrelevant - for employees of public universities. See http://www.chronicle.com/article/For-Faculty-Free-Speech-the/141951#sthash.yp1b5ITv.dpuf In the past two years, however, the tide appears to... – Tuesday
- just different I'm no lawyer either, but the Barran Liebman analysis said that Shurtz was acting as a public employee and not as a private citizen, which... – Tuesday
- Salty "Supreme Court reaffirms our First Amendment right to be offensive idiots" Fucking-A they did! – Tuesday
- Dog Good job UOmatters We at the UO are so insular and smug that we often don't act like an external world of accountability actually exists.... – Tuesday
- Gov. Brown to nominate passionate... (9)
- OAnonymous say more? – Tuesday
- no longer surprised It's amazing what you can get away with at the UO if you're linked to the School Psychology department. – Tuesday
- UO Matters Prof. McIntyre made public requests to the UO Senate and to the Governor's office for letters about her nomination from the Senate and the faculty... – Tuesday
- The thinker Unless the Senate supported her nomination, which only the members of the Senate and McIntyre know if that is the case (she asked for the... – Monday
- honest Uncle Bernie But many would say the whole field is dreck. Bottom of the barrel SAT and GRE, at least last I checked. I'll tell you this,... – Sunday
- UO Matters Actually UO's Ed School is very research active. – Sunday
- honest Uncle Bernie A trustee from Education? Let's the Gov pose as K-12 advocate. Representative of UO academics? You be the judge. The joys of an "independent board." – Sunday
- UO Matters Last year people got Chris Sinclair and Chris Phillips confused. Very different people. – Saturday
- Emoluments clause (5)
- Focused anger cuts Wait, wouldn't it it be more effective before grading? Meaning, the grading would go better with the bottle in hand? We all have an interest... – Monday
- UO Matters Sounds good - I'll drop by your office while there's still a little left. I mean my friend will. – Monday
- Kevin Reed We should meet in person to evaluate your options. I'll bring the ice. – Monday
- honest Uncle Bernie You must turn yourself in NOW! With that bottle in hand, of course. – Sunday
- Bob Keefer I believe you're required to allow a neighborhood journalist to sample the goods to make an accurate determination. – Sunday
- Duck athletic cartel & Roedl... (6)
- Payroll Guy They are just following the Business model that is sucking the life blood from the economy. For another great example of this model at work,... – Monday
- Sports Fan Rob Mullens and co. need a new playbook beyond "squeeze the most profit possible out of the most passionate constituents." It destroyed the football season... – Friday
- UO Senate re-elects "sellout" Harbaugh (8)
- Serge Protektor It should be a multi-year appointment anyway. Rotating the Senate presidency annually is absurd. Congratulations, Comrade Harbaugh! – Saturday
- UO lawyers blame pay gap... (21)
- Older »
- Panicked UO communicators spew nonsense... (19)
- RT @dlrognlie: This is unbelievable. https://t.co/al7OcZmNOe, 9 mins ago
- Kevin Reed is to smart to share anything with Dana Altman. https://t.co/kLLgUfnmW5, 16 hours ago
- Panicked UO communicators spew nonsense in basketball allegation response - https://t.co/8i6w50U9dX, 18 hours ago
- RT @Prof_Nick_Allen: Our paper on how positive parenting buffers the effect of neighborhood disadvantage on brain development is out. https://t.co/dmweLMZLKV, 21 hours ago
- Dana Altman and the Ducks bring UO more of that national publicity money just can't buy - https://t.co/8i6w50U9dX, 23 hours ago
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
- Panicked UO communicators spew nonsense in basketball allegation response 06/22/2017
- Cinema Studies seeks sole-source contract for red helium brain 06/21/2017
- University’s Barran Liebman lawyers lose discrimination case to Jennifer Middleton 06/20/2017
- Supreme Court reaffirms our First Amendment right to be offensive idiots 06/19/2017
- NCAA cartel doesn’t want this student-athlete 06/18/2017
- Course evaluations 06/18/2017
- Emoluments clause 06/18/2017
- Duck softball 10 times more popular than Duck baseball 06/16/2017
- Gov. Brown to nominate passionate Gottfredson defender as faculty trustee 06/16/2017
- Duck athletic cartel & Roedl shake down UO students for another 40 large 06/14/2017
- Nominee for UO Board of Trustees makes public records request for Senate letters to the Governor 06/12/2017
- UO lawyers blame pay gap on the faculty union, students support Freyd 06/12/2017
- Coach and athletic director hid star player’s sexual assault history 06/08/2017
- UO Senate re-elects “sellout” Harbaugh 06/08/2017
- Is the Duck athletic department still violating UO’s free speech policies? 06/06/2017
- Posting will be light this week 06/06/2017
- Fast acting staff save museum exhibits 06/02/2017
- Former Penn State President, VP, and Athletic Director get jail time 06/02/2017
- Trustees get Neurons to Minds talk at Day 2 of BOT meeting 06/02/2017
- Softball program sells more tickets than baseball, and loses money anyway 06/01/2017
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 ...