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 donated to the UO Foundation, for student-athlete tutoring
Recent Comments. Deleted if nastiness/content ratio is >2.718
- Help UO Matters with a... (3)
- Keith Appleby Additionally, it looks like at least one of suits is seeking class action status. It may prove to be difficult for the Plaintiff class to... – Friday
- Keith Appleby Another issue would be the Tort Claims Notice Acts of various states. In Oregon, the act specifies that unless you file a notice of intent... – Friday
- Fishwrapper Bigger pockets, and it's the NCAA's rules... – Friday
- UO faculty work to address... (4)
- WTF We pay a lot of money to enrollment management to MANAGE ENROLLMENT! I'm done doing administrative work without the requisite administrative pay. This nonsense will... – Friday
- I have no clue how they expect us to do this, assuming we are inclined to go along with it at all. I'll write code... – Thursday
- Anonymous I read that memo as "this is too much work for us to do so we're going to make you do it instead." – Thursday
- daffy duck On a slightly related topic, did UOM get the bizarre memo from the VP for "enrollment management" about the new requirement to report the last... – Thursday
- Scott Coltrane won't share credit... (17)
- Chem DH Dog is correct (as is generally the case). CAS did have a plan, and Scott/Marianne did present it at more than one meeting in 2010/2011.... – Friday
- dog you were told many things during the bargaining process. A bit of history here, because, history is important. The recognition that CAS would have revenue... – Friday
- Annie Oakley We were told during bargaining that $ and the plan was never approved. It was also not kept as a "set aside". It was used... – Friday
- Leporello Go away Scott. – Friday
- dog To same song, Actually is partially true. Within CAS revenue projections (under the budget model at that time) clearly showed that sufficient revenue would exist... – Thursday
- Espy surveys faculty, hoping to... (5)
- Anon Believe me, Espy already has that list! – Friday
- anon-3 I do not trust these clowns. My guess is the survey is linked to your email address so they can identify additional muckraking PIs for... – Friday
- I didn't get that email Must have gone to spam. – Friday
- Old Man The best way for the University's research to benefit the local economy is to be GOOD and to let economic stimulus be the serendipitous consequence... – Thursday
- from the AAU to a regional trade school, in just 20 years. – Thursday
- Students can tweet SAT essays,... (3)
- Hold on, don't we suffer by retaining these types? Their swollen heads are increasingly encroaching on my view of the Cascades, for example. – Thursday
- Hen The football coach is just getting market rate. How else could the UO attract and retain the best? Similarly for administrators. But apparently that argument... – Thursday
- ScienceDuck That is an outrageous salary for a non-profit… oh wait, ETS has revenues over $1B, so Landgraf makes a salary around 0.1% of revenue. What... – Wednesday
- Buying Dave Frohnmayer pays off... (13)
- Curious competitor It would be really interesting to see how much BP and Altria paid for this, and whether or not the fee was contingent on killing... – Thursday
- Rob Mullens boots Kilkenny buddy... (5)
- Same Song Because the days of Kilkenny and Frohnmayer were all about cronyism and golden parachutes. – Thursday
- The Truth Gottfredson? ;) – Thursday
- Canard You know a professor making $675,000? – Wednesday
- The Truth Women's Basketball is a non-revenue sport that few care about. Why was the head coach being paid more than just about any professor at the... – Wednesday
- Older »
- Help UO Matters with a... (3)
TagsAAUP-AFT Union? 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 Higher Ed in general Jamie Moffitt Jim Bean: UO Provost Jim O'Fallon jock box Lariviere Firing live-blog Martinez's (Diversity VP) 2nd $150K job Melinda Grier Michael Gottfredson NCAA NCAA violations new partnership plan off topic OUS Board and Chancellor parking 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
- Espy surveys faculty, hoping to get OK for more admin bloat 03/06/2014
- Buying Dave Frohnmayer pays off big for Philip Morris and BP 03/06/2014
- Help UO Matters with a legal question 03/06/2014
- UO faculty work to address sexual assault problems 03/05/2014
- Scott Coltrane won’t share credit for UO raises with the faculty union? Wow. 03/05/2014
- Students can tweet SAT essays, says $1.3M a year Pres Kurt Landgraf 03/05/2014
- President fires professor over tweets, policy criticism 03/05/2014
- State Bar’s ethics panel flubs another one 03/05/2014
- OHSU faculty raise concerns about research priorities, transparency, Phil Knight gift 03/04/2014
- Rob Mullens boots Kilkenny buddy Westhead 03/04/2014
- Desperate Coach Altman trolls frats, trying to fill empty Matt Court seats 03/04/2014
- The public interest in honesty is best served by satirists 03/03/2014
- Administrative bloat continues 03/03/2014
- UO Foundation endowment earnings beat averages 03/02/2014
- Provost Coltrane credits faculty union for raises and UO hiring successes 03/02/2014
- UO Trustee Sam Dotters-Katz blames Professor Harbaugh for the Duck athletic department’s unhappiness with the fact it has a faculty oversight committee 03/01/2014
- UO faculty to vote that it has confidence in a central administrator 03/01/2014
- UO to pay new Urban Farm coordinator $400K, plus bonus for big pumpkins 02/28/2014
- Gottfredson glosses over the criticism of Espy in Blonigen’s report 02/28/2014
- UO Coalition to End Sexual Violence to meet Friday 2/28 02/27/2014