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 UO
Recent Comments. Deleted if (content + humor)/nastiness < euler’s number.
- Grad students declare impasse, will... (90)
- anonymous Then it sounds to me like we're in agreement: UO should be required to cover the difference so that RAs get the same insurance coverage,... – Friday
- grad student funnily enough, the school of music manages to do workload agreement forms and it isn't hugely burdensome and nothing has exploded or caught on fire.... – Thursday
- that effing Dog again No I am not even close to saying that I am saying that, on my grant line item, total costs of grad student support is... – Thursday
- anonymous The specifics of how GTFs are funded is an administrative matter that is entirely the responsibility of the university. It makes no sense to tar... – Wednesday
- that effing Dog again yes and one of the "problems" is that TAs and RAs, in real world have different kinds of labor, yet are treated the same by... – Tuesday
- anonymous The GTFF in fact *can't* advocate for or defend students academically. The university won't let them. – Monday
- anonymous I suspect thedude is coming from a blanket assumption that graduate programs have the best interests of the graduate students at heart. This should be... – Monday
- anon The union is a labor union. It does not advocate for graduate students as *students* but rather as workers. The GTFF has nothing to do... – Sunday
- John Krakauer gets Montana football... (2)
- anonymous It is Jon, not John, Krakauer. – Friday
- Administrative bloat reminder (5)
- uomatters These are all 2013-14 data, which I assume means they were reported sometime in the fall of 2013. I don't know if they include the... – Friday
- that effing Dog again UOmatters - I am not sure those are the correct figures after the July 1 raises - I think the average prof salary at 82%... – Friday
- Anonymous You should email this to Doug Park so he can ask for a raise. – Friday
- uomatters check the footnotes. – Friday
- honest Uncle Bernie The administrator comparisons are with UO's OUS "comparators"? With the AAU publics? With all Ph.D. institutions? Please clarify! – Friday
- Report on gut classes for... (2)
- How many at UO? At UNC, Chapel Hill: "The report estimates that more than 3,100 students received "irregular instruction" in the department’s "paper classes," which did not meet and... – Friday
- Stork Talk about grade inflation for athletes. Of course in the 70's jocks on the UO campus were also treated with kid gloves. Especially in speech... – Thursday
- Ducks replace "United We Ball"... (27)
- muse Good suggestions. FYI -- an interesting UO player follow-up as he uses his university skills to navigate the NFL. Oh .. and one of Chip's... – Thursday
- uomatters They get perks for cooperating - like money to bring their parents to games. – Wednesday
- Nosferatu What he said. – Wednesday
- charlie U&T, if schools such as U of Owe are seriously going to tackle on campus violence, then they're going to have to get admits with... – Wednesday
- one legit bystander U&T ... calm down! Though dramatically put, there's a huge stretch of space between going to university "for the greater good" and university as "job... – Wednesday
- Not a UO initiative The video produced by UO Athletics is not an initiative of our admittedly hopeful UO President. Nor is it an "initiative" of UO Athletics. They... – Wednesday
- U&T Charlie: Change has to start somewhere. I will give them the befit of the doubt. Change is achieved one small step at a time. In... – Wednesday
- I imagine what that translates to is that the University administration will no longer help cover up athletic scandals or tolerate lies. When even the... – Wednesday
- Live-blog of UO Senate meeting.... (9)
- uomatters It was a rather disconcerting response. But at least Ms Ballmer answered questions. Coltrane and Bronet spent so much time talking, there was no time... – Thursday
- Dats & Cogs "Q: Why 2 Moffitts but no students? A: I trust the Moffitts." gag! How can one have confidence in the board, in Ms. Ballmer or... – Thursday
- Old Grey Mare My eyes bulge at the cost of NOT doing anything. – Thursday
- anonymous Their eyes never bulge when the sport hounds across the river overspend themselves to our debt. Your priorities, Scott. Should we be questioning them? – Thursday
- Commentariat Coltrane about the Senate Faculty sex assault proposals: "The costs made my eyes bulge." Those are the words of an "interim" president, and again reaffirms... – Thursday
- anonymous Passed unanimously. – Wednesday
- nom It's understandable that Ballmer wants to defer to Lillis, however when asked twice, I found her lack of comment disingenuous. All she had to offer... – Wednesday
- Cynic Never waste a crisis as a chance to advance your own agenda and ideology. Let's hope common sense prevails and keeps the focus on the... – Wednesday
- Trouble down at the Eugene... (4)
- Anas Clypeata $5 a month for once a week blog posts? Wow. That's only $10 less than the New Yorker. – Wednesday
- anonymous Meh, so what? Not that much of a loss in any event. – Wednesday
- anonymous I've heard that John Evans simply wanted to move on -- not a case of being forced out. – Wednesday
- anon It's a head case post only for the culdesac elite. – Tuesday
- No Senate participation as armed... (3)
- Hen The Senate will have no say about who is on the committee, but United Academics can submit names for consideration. Not sure how I feel... – Wednesday
- The police department gets complaints "once or twice a year"? Either they are lying or they are purposely obstructing legitimate complaints. – Tuesday
- Trickortreat All those that make a complaint are instantly added to the bowl of dicks list at no charge. Isn't the same person in charge of... – Tuesday
- Feds outlaw methods Gottfredson and... (1)
- Trickortreat Too bad the police force is ran by Johnson Hall and will do exactly what it wants. Such laws are meaningless when you have those... – Monday
- Older »
- Grad students declare impasse, will... (90)
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
- Administrative bloat reminder 10/24/2014
- Report on gut classes for athletes leads UNC to fire nine employees 10/23/2014
- Live-blog of UO Senate meeting. Connie Ballmer on search. TF on Sex Assault 10/22/2014
- Background reading for today’s Senate TF report on sexual assault prevention policies 10/22/2014
- 3PM Today: UO Senate Task Force on sexual violence prevention recommendations 10/22/2014
- Ducks replace “United We Ball” message with “It’s on Us” video 10/21/2014
- Trouble down at the Eugene Bach Festival? 10/21/2014
- No Senate participation as armed UO Police finally adopt complaint policy 10/21/2014
- Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life in denial 10/20/2014
- Coltrane at AAU meetings 10/20/2014
- Feds outlaw methods Gottfredson and Altman used to hide rape allegations 10/20/2014
- UO Trustees require Coltrane to cut athletic costs. Mullens, coaches must obey Code of Ethics 10/19/2014
- Duck athletics has $350M so far, expects another $430M from $2B fund drive. Remainder for academics. 10/19/2014
- Grad students declare impasse, will hold vote on strike this week 10/18/2014
- Science’s sexual assault problem 10/17/2014
- Grad student union to meet tonight on strike vote 10/17/2014
- University of Oregon economist offers positive take on legal pot 10/16/2014
- Administration kicks off diversity plan by hiring new AVP without an affirmative action search 10/16/2014
- Coltrane, Bronet meet with Senate Exec on Strategic Planning, policy review 10/15/2014
- Huestis and history of science at UO 10/15/2014