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.
- Noted sociologist pays $87,500 for... (13)
- uomatters Thanks for your comment. I'm calling the AAU survey "intentionally crippled" because Hunter Rawlings promised participating universities that the AAU would strip the names of... – Friday
- Friend My feelings are a little more mixed. We have the Professor Freyd survey. It's a good survey. Putting even 40k into it would be worthwhile.... – Friday
- Keith Appleby I'm surprised people are still pursuing what I see as both an anti-intellectual and also anti-woman crusade by trying to block the research. In terms... – Friday
- uomatters Wicked. – Thursday
- awesome0 If they want to really follow the trends of rape in the AAU, then they can't kick us out. He's found a much cheaper way... – Thursday
- Faculty Union Bargaining Kick-Off: Tuesday,... (19)
- duckduckgo Thanks for the explanation, Clueless. To me, though, that is a pretty technical argument. I don't disagree that it was the right thing to do,... – Friday
- duckduckgo From a research PI perspective, it is a little odd that union member salaries are being determined by bargaining between the university and union. When... – Friday
- Clueless Regularize means to use our classifications correctly and to reduce our reliance on "Adjuncts". We had many "adjuncts" that had been here for many years... – Friday
- Clueless There is much good background information presented here on how all this works. That said, I am confused by some of the claims that the... – Friday
- Dog Most of this sub-discussion is on the right track with some variance. Let me add a bit to the chaos and variance. 1. On PAPER... – Friday
- GrantGetter You are apparently unaware that for the last three years federal grants have barred built-in cost of living increases (for the NIH at least http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-036.html).... – Friday
- uomatters How much money would it take for UO to pay the raises out of F&A or other research funds? These are wild guesses, but maybe... – Thursday
- Oryx Agreed, UOM and ddg, that budgets usually are planned with raises built-in, and that this problem is less awful than PIs *not* being able to... – Thursday
- UO tells librarians to shush... (115)
- just different In this particular context, the fact that the records are public has everything to do with it. UO has a long and dishonorable history of... – Friday
- uomatters Euler's number is a mathematical constant. There's simply nothing I can do except approve comments such as Cat's and Nope's that exceed the constraint, just... – Friday
- Sigh I'm coming late to this silliness, but feel someone should call it what it is. At stake are materials in an archive, and all archives... – Friday
- Cat Um...I know the standards on this blog are low, but there are some standards. I fail to see how the last "anonyous" post, responding to... – Friday
- Dog ah, JTM, "intense dismay", brings back fond memories ... – Thursday
- Thom Aquinas "With 22,000 pages floating around out there, the University of Oregon begins renegotiating the COB, ..." Who knows what strategic advantages we might glean from... – Tuesday
- Thom Aquinas Your friend is misinformed, they just blacked out the relevant parts on the images. – Tuesday
- Graphic videos show Vanderbilt football... (4)
- Funny you should make the Penn State connection. First thing I though of was it looked like your basic Mallard rape scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3WAYlCv02w of course... – Friday
- Release of UO Presidential Archives... (31)
- uomatters He didn't way there was a *legal* risk. I misinterpreted him. – Thursday
- Pentagon Papers I'm not sure Prof. Bonine was right that there was any real legal risk here. The Pentagon Papers case established the legality of publishing even... – Thursday
- Talisker No. It looks like they won't consider reinstatement until after the results of the investigation (which Coltrane is saying will be in a few weeks).... – Thursday
- Leporello Plus one Get Out Of Jail Free card. – Thursday
- uomatters The standard Johnson Hall offer is now $940K, in past they'd also cover your beemer payments. – Thursday
- Silenus What many of us are still wondering is what the admins either threatened or offered to get UO Matters to do such an about-face. In... – Thursday
- anonec What about the two librarians? Have they been reinstated? – Thursday
- gary crum Professor Harbaugh: You, sir, are a pain in the ass. That, by the way, is a compliment, not a criticism or an insult. I'm 72... – Thursday
- GottGate cover-up timeline, editorials and... (46)
- Chloe Thank you for posting this timeline. As a student, it feels awful witnessing these allegations being met with doubt instead of support. It creates an... – Thursday
- Where are the uncensored Presidential... (2)
- charlie Out of curiosity, how many other Faculty Senates have issued a statement, acknowledgment, anything, regarding what's taking place between UOM and the flagship? This is... – Wednesday
- Ben So when documents leak out from the incident... what happens then to the archives patron? What if said documents were leaked prior to the request? – Wednesday
- Chronicle publishes mini-profile on UO... (29)
- Old Grey Mare What poisoned the culture on this campus was the conflict over the Workers Rights Consortium, the massive increase in spending on athletics at the expense... – Wednesday
- that effing Dog again A lot of this analysis of the "State of the UO" lives in the sphere of perception. UOmatters certainly contributes to this perceptural sphere in... – Wednesday
- Alan Contreras Here is a reprint of what I posted to the CHE as a comment to the story. As a graduate of Oregon and two-time employee... – Wednesday
- Texas Guy Count me in as another supporter of UO Matters. I have never been so embarrassed or horrified as when, in response to the grad student... – Wednesday
- Ben I'll grant you that some of Bill's commentary should be taken with a grain of salt-- there is an agenda at times, especially in athletics... – Wednesday
- ashamed of this blog I'm not willfully ignorant and I don't value athletics over academics. If Bill would actually do some research before he spouts off his fantasies or... – Wednesday
- Steve McAllister Nice. "Everyone who disagrees with me is a big poopy head." You must be killer in debates. I can't speak to the Bill's ego, but... – Wednesday
- Ben Bill's emails with Doug Park, et al. speak for themselves. If anyone is ashamed of this blog, they are either willfully ignorant, or value athletics... – Wednesday
- Older »
- Noted sociologist pays $87,500 for... (13)
- Digital archivist goes rogue, and wins big in court: The Chronicle of Philanthropy has the news: A federal jud... http://t.co/m23r08nyPl, 7 hours ago
- RT @jebarlow: Survey shows public support for science; 71% say government funding of basic research works, http://t.co/Z4dMRdf18m, #innovationdeficit, 10 hours ago
- Tonight: free screening of The Internet’s Own Boy: Thanks to a student for forwarding the message – here’s hop... http://t.co/kGgPCmE4go, Jan 30
- Bargaining has commenced. Session I:: Today, Thursday 1/29/2015, in the Knight Library Collaboration Room, 10A... http://t.co/4mII25Uiht, Jan 29
- RT @ReadOregonian: UO prof Bill Harbaugh @uomatters returns docs, declares victory in exposing "obsessive secrecy." http://t.co/Z6pzLBbNaP, Jan 29
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) Frances Dyke: VP for Finance 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 Robert Berdahl Rob Mullens Senate Sharon Rudnick Students Uncategorized UO Administration UO Foundation UO restructuring plan UO Trustees
- Digital archivist goes rogue, and wins big in court 01/30/2015
- Noted sociologist pays $87,500 for intentionally crippled AAU rape survey 01/29/2015
- Tonight: free screening of The Internet’s Own Boy 01/29/2015
- Bargaining has commenced. Session I: 01/29/2015
- Release of UO Presidential Archives was not illegal, or immoral. So was it improper – or insufficient? 01/28/2015
- Meeting Today: Senate: Coltrane Q&A and more policy work 01/28/2015
- Where are the uncensored Presidential Archives? Ask Klinger 01/28/2015
- Graphic videos show Vanderbilt football players lied about gang rape of undergraduate 01/27/2015
- Chronicle publishes mini-profile on UO Matters blogger 01/27/2015
- Dana Altman and UO hire MillerNash for basketball rape allegation case 01/27/2015
- Faculty Union Bargaining Kick-Off: Tuesday, 6-7 PM, 220 HEDCO 01/26/2015
- Coltrane looking for new Senior Executive Assistant 01/26/2015
- “Crap-free UO homepage” 01/25/2015
- LibraryGate: NYT confirms crackdown on access to Presidential Archives 01/25/2015
- LibraryGate: RG editorial on Presidential Archives records release 01/24/2015
- UO’s lawyers illegally obtained confidential student records? 01/23/2015
- UO professor illegally posts protected documents on his UO website 01/23/2015
- Did Frohnmayer illegally delete records from UO’s Presidential Archives? 01/23/2015
- UO tells librarians to shush about Presidential Archives records release 01/21/2015
- Coltrane’s actions don’t match his words. They’re better. 01/21/2015