May 13, 2003
TO: UO Senate
FROM: Committee on the Status of Nontenure-Track, Instructional Faculty: Robert Davis, Romance Languages; Susan Fagan, English (Retired); Peter Gilkey, Mathematics; Lynn Kahle, Sports Marketing, Co-Chair; Jim Long, Chemistry, Co-Chair; Greg McLauchlan, Sociology (Ex-Officio); Jeanne Wagenknecht, Finance.
SUBJECT: 2003 Committee Report
Equitable and collegial treatment of fixed term faculty greatly benefits the University of Oregon and its teaching mission.
Central to improving the employment status of NTTIF at the University is the need for institution-wide elaboration of written policies that specify the employment practices and rights of faculty in the NTTIF ranks. These policies should be elaborated at the University level, codified by the Office for Academic Affairs and the University Senate, and developed at the departmental or unit level, where more specific policies may be tailored to the needs of individual programs.
The May 2002 Report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of NTTIF noted that of 41 units canvassed during the 2001-2002 year, 7 reported having written policies relating to the employment conditions of NTTIF, while 31 units reported having no written policies. The Report went on to recommend “that each unit with NTTIF develop and observe a policy which both mandates the terms of employment of NTTIF and adequately describes the experience of NTTIF in that specific unit.” The committee further recommended that “AAUP guidelines be consulted and reflected in departmental policy statements regarding NTTIF” (Report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of Nontenure-Track, Instructional Faculty, May 8, 2002, hereafter referred to as the 2002 NTTIF Committee Report).
The committee’s research during the current year indicates a wide variation in the nature of NTTIF employment practices across departments and units; even those programs that have written policies show significant variance. Some of these policies are, in the view of the committee, potential models for adoption by a wider spectrum of the campus community. The committee begins in this report and will continue in subsequent reports to elaborate on those it views as candidates for “best practices” in their respective areas. In part, the committee sees its role as one of facilitating communication about NTTIF employment practices among the different units on campus.
The Committee also found during its work this year that several types of NTTIF appointments are used in the university, but no standard language or practice is used across schools and departments in identifying these types of appointments. This problem is compounded by the difference between rank and title: an instructor’s rank is established by the Office for Academic Affairs, but departments have great leeway in assigning a wide variety of titles to established ranks. Developing standard language about NTTIF and a taxonomy for the main types of appointments should be useful in developing university guidelines that help departments to develop practices and policies. The Office for Academic Affairs uses three informal categories, as follows:
Instructors: Regular, full time renewable instructors who view the UO as a career or key job. Many such instructors work at the UO for years or even decades. Most work full-time, and nearly all work more than .75 FTE.
Regular Adjunct Instructors: Instructors who teach a class in successive quarters or years and are therefore renewed by departments, but who do not teach full time and often have other full-time work. The University of Oregon Faculty Handbook defines adjunct faculty as whose who have “another position, usually outside the university, e.g., physician, architect, social worker, etc., and who is employed to teach on an occasional basis or to provide some other academic service within the university.”
Intermittent and Irregular Adjuncts/Instructors: Truly irregular instructors who are often hired on an “as needed” basis and who do not generally remain at the UO for long periods. They are usually not renewed and sometimes do not have the qualifications for more permanent employment at a university.
The committee felt that its concern lay most with the first group. However, instructors in all three groups would benefit from the development of general UO guidelines, currently in process in the office of the Provost for Academic Affairs and the College of Arts and Sciences, and more complete and consistent policies and practices at the departmental level. To this end, the Committee interviewed representatives from a number of departments who already had well-developed procedures in place, and began work on “best practice” benchmarks that can be used by departments as they develop their own policies. The end goal is improving the ability of NTTIF to successfully complete their part of the University’s teaching mission.
The need for codification of policies relating to NTTIF is pressing for additional reasons. Codification of NTTIF employment practices has been a national trend, and recent policy documents from the AAUP and AFT recommend steps to be taken by universities in this arena (see Guidelines for Good Practice, Part-time and Nontenure-track Faculty, AAUP, <http://www.aaup.org/Issues/part-time/Ptguide.htm>, and Standards of Good Practice in the Employment of Part-time/Adjunct Faculty, AFT, <http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/parttime/index.html>). A number of AAU universities have recently adopted detailed policies governing the employment of NTTIF (for example, Indiana University; see <http://www.indiana.edu/~deanfac/ntthbk/ntthbk.html>) or issued major reports calling for movement in this direction (see University of North Carolina, <http://www.northcarolina.edu/content.php/aa/reports/ntt_faculty/index.htm>).
These documents point to important reasons for moving to codify employment practices relating to NTTIF. First, for universities, is the growing recognition of the need to improve the employment status of a labor force that accounts for approximately 40% of undergraduate faculty teaching positions nationally (a need that includes improving the recruiting and retention abilities of universities relating to NTTIF). This need is broader in that universities face a decline in public respect and confidence if their faculty are underpaid, part-time, and lacking full professional status in their disciplines. Second, the NTTIF obviously need supportive employment conditions, fair compensation, and opportunities for professional advancement—needs that are often unmet in a labor force that is described as being exploited because of the imbalance in the supply and demand for academic labor. Finally, the AAUP in particular is concerned that tenure-track faculty may face an erosion of academic freedom and the principle of tenure with the swelling of a non-tenure-track workforce and the lack of commensurate employment security and professional employment standards.
II. NEED FOR INSTITUTIONAL-LEVEL RESPONSE AND
“GUIDELINES FOR GOOD PRACTICE”
At the University level, the focus of NTTIF employment policies and rights should have two complementary aims: to set goals for the improvement of the employment status and professional caliber of the NTTIF workforce and to set policies that help implement these goals. Policies should include both institution-wide employment practices and rights, and a set of guidelines and a timetable for department and unit-level efforts to develop policies for their NTTIF ranks.
One way the institutional-level effort can provide leadership is to establish “guidelines for good practice” relating to both institutional- and departmental-level NTTIF employment practices and rights. Such guidelines should address how the University’s use of NTTIF relates to the academic mission of the University, as well as the specific employment conditions of NTTIF. The committee notes, for example, that the AAUP recommends that institutions limit the use of part-time, nontenure-track faculty to “no more than 15 percent of the total instruction within the institution, and no more than 25% of the total instruction within any given department” (AAUP Guidelines). Data from the 2002 NTTIF Committee Report indicated that on the UO campus, NTTIF, while constituting 36.5% of the total faculty, actually comprise 44.5% of the instructional faculty. These percentages refer to the number of faculty; the percentage of courses taught by NTTIF could not be precisely determined, as teaching loads across campus “vary considerably in both NTTIF and TTIF appointments” (2002 NTTIF Committee Report). The AAUP also indicates that where “an institution has legitimate needs for a specialized class of faculty in part-time or fractional-time position, the institution should have policies that provide for their long-term contract stability and tenure” (AAUP Guidelines).
The benefits to the University and its faculty of engaging these issues are clear. The University will have demonstrated its commitment to maintaining the highest caliber of faculty and standards of academic freedom to those who conduct research and teach here, as well as to state and national publics who are concerned with the University’s maintenance of high professional standards.
III. DEPARTMENTAL-LEVEL NTTIF EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES AND RIGHTS
In this section the committee elaborates the categories and objectives of establishing clear NTTIF employment practices and rights at the department level. Suggestions for specific policies in some of these areas await further evaluation of the relevant literature and data regarding current practices at the UO, while others have already been looked at by the committee in more depth and are thus more developed in this report.
Each departmental level unit should develop written policies on the employment practices and rights of NTTIF in the following areas:
· Description of Duties
· Regular Evaluations
· Possibility for Advancement
· Opportunities for Professional Development
· Fair Compensation
· Timely Notice
· Provision of Resources
· Participation in Governance
· Grievances and Appeals
· Orientation and Rights
The teaching mission of the University can be carried out only with a qualified and stable instructional staff. As described elsewhere in this report, the UO has come to rely more and more on NTTIF to carry a significant portion of this mission. With the increase in NTTIF personnel, and in response to the urgency with which this corps is often hired, a number of inconsistencies and problem areas in hiring practices, timely notice, course assignment policies, and working conditions have appeared. This section of the report hints at possible recommendations for future action, not in terms of university-wide requirements, but rather cast as “best practices.” The recommendations that follow are not “pie-in-the-sky” impossibilities; many come from the committee’s interviews with units on campus to find current best practices or from the AAUP’s or AFT’s guidelines for best practices.
Description of Duties
All appointments, including part-time appointments, should have a description of the specific professional duties required. Complex institutions may require multiple models of faculty appointments consistent with the diverse contributions appropriate to the institution’s needs.
The performance of faculty members on renewable term appointments, full-time and part-time, should be regularly evaluated with established criteria appropriate to their positions. The University has established policies for carrying out reviews and observations of tenure-related faculty, and agreements with the GTFF stipulate evaluation procedures for graduate teaching fellows. NTTIF should have similar expectations for evaluation and the corresponding protections as the other groups of teachers on campus.
Possibility for Advancement
By title and definition, NTTIF are employed in non-tenure related positions. Current University policy provides opportunity in non-tenure related positions for advancement from instructor to senior instructor. In addition, the University has a small number of tenure-related instructor and senior instructor positions. Someone who is employed in a non-tenure related instructor or senior instructor position in theory is eligible to apply and compete for a tenure-related instructor, senior instructor, or assistant professor position when or if it is available. Historically, the number of instructors who have been able to move to a tenure-related position has been small, and instances have been documented where instructors have been discouraged from applying for such positions for reasons other than their qualifications. A progression from being in a non-tenure related position to a tenure-related one is currently not an option, despite earlier models where senior instructors were eligible to be promoted to the rank of assistant professor with tenure.
A number of policies keep non-tenured instructors or senior instructors from moving into the tenured ranks. First, the UO Faculty Handbook states that faculty may be tenured only if they are hired as a result of a national search, or, in some cases, a regional search. Many, if not most, instructors are hired from a pool of applicants, frequently just prior to the beginning of a term’s classes, a situation that precludes time for a national search. Second, these positions have been justified as being used to hire part-time, fixed-term faculty to meet enrollment fluctuations. Clearly, this rationale does not apply to an NTTIF instructor or senior instructor who has been reappointed for many years, often decades, the group identified as “Instructors,” as opposed to “Adjuncts,” in Section I above.
The AAUP Guidelines for Good Practice addresses these problems when it states that “Institutions exploit faculty members when they appoint numerous part-time faculty in a single department or renew temporary faculty year after year without offering them raises in pay, access to benefits, opportunities for promotion, or eligibility for tenure and the procedural protections essential to academic freedom.” These Guidelines further state: “In circumstances in which an institution has legitimate needs for a specialized class of faculty in part-time or fractional-time positions, the institution should have policies that provide for their long-term contract stability and for tenure” and that “institutions should avoid appointing, and should certainly not reappoint, faculty members whose qualifications or performance are so far below the prevailing institutional standard as to make tenure eligibility an impossibility.”
Part-time faculty should be given fair consideration when part-time positions are converted into full-time positions. The evidence suggests that part-time employment often works as a disadvantage on the job market when applicants are considered for full-time tenure-track positions. Departments should be as scrupulous to avoid this type of discrimination as they are required to be in avoiding other forms of discrimination.
Decisions on compensation, promotion, and tenure should be based on the specified duties of the position. The regular evaluation process should be clearly linked to the possibility of salary increase, contract extension, change in job title, and other possibilities for professional development and support.
Many departments use a progression to Senior Instructor after an Instructor has been in rank six years. Senior Instructors typically receive two-year contracts, receive timely notice, and are eligible for sabbatical. Since more is expected of the Instructor when promoted to Senior Instructor in terms of department and university service, as well as professional development, research, and sometimes publishing, a reduction in course load following promotion would be equitable.
Departments now working on a six-year “up or out” promotion policy for instructors should be aware that this policy is not used university wide, and that currently an instructor need not be promoted at the end of six-years to be retained. Policies should be clarified and standardized to maximize (1) encouragement of continued professional development of the teaching staff and (2) job security for capable teachers.
Although the underlying concern in this area is job security and fairness for NTTIF who have made a life-long investment in the University, another question that arises is the protection of academic freedom: does teaching deserve the same protections as research? If so, NTTIF should be given the same guarantees in this regard as TTF.
Opportunities for Professional Development
Policies should be developed that extend opportunities for professional development to NTTIF that include support for travel to conferences, time release for conferences, and access to university resources.
NTTIF are technically eligible for paid leaves, but many units cannot afford to cover the costs. Approval for sabbatical leave should be standardized so that senior instructors in those departments/schools that cannot fund sabbaticals for them from their budgets will not be denied this opportunity. Funding should be provided in the same manner as for tenure-track faculty as long as all other requirements are met.
Compensation for part-time employment should be a corresponding fraction of a full-time position having qualitatively similar responsibilities and qualifications. Compensation should include such essential fringe benefits as health insurance, life insurance, and retirement contributions. As fringe benefits typically accrue only for appointments at the .5 FTE level or higher, NTTIF appointments should not be manipulated to keep them artificially below this level as a method to avoid paying benefits.
A number of units on campus have NTTIF who have served in the same capacity for years. The University should recognize the contributions of these long-term faculty by providing them with similar retirement options to those offered to tenure-related faculty: 3-year retirement notice with 6% salary increases, in-line with TT guidelines; 600-hour appointments at the end of their career; and the benefits of emeritus status once retired.
A number of issues surrounding timely notification were noted during the committee’s investigation of NTTIF practices on campus. Best standards/practices regarding what is “timely” in each situation still must be defined, but ideally, timely notice should be the same for NTTIF as for tenure-related faculty.
Application and hiring. Committee interviews found a wide range of practices surrounding application and hiring procedures. In general, appointment of NTTIF rests with department chairs, with approval by administrators up the chain. With increased University oversight of affirmative action policies in recent years, many department chairs have been forced to make NTTIF appointments relatively late in the hiring cycle or as “emergency” appointments, thus skirting requirements for national searches. The use of a “pool” of applicants is an established university policy (see job listings on the Human Resources website, http://hr.uoregon.edu). The committee recognizes that this practice can be useful in meeting the range of staffing needs of each unit on campus, but the University should specify a standardized format for announcing and applying for NTTIF positions to avoid the most obvious abuses. The effective loopholes of emergency appointments and misuse of applicant pools only damages the University’s credibility and does not serve to guarantee a highly professionalized teaching staff.
Appointments and class assignments. A well prepared professorate is a crucial component of a high-quality teaching mission. All teachers, regardless of appointment type, should have sufficient time to put together coherent courses, with access to the necessary materials. Committee members have had reports of last-minute appointments that do not allow teachers to order books, solicit interlibrary loan materials, prepare syllabi, set up course web pages, and so forth, in effect diminishing the students’ learning experience and creating undue stress on the faculty member. Moreover, such appointments often exclude NTTIF from faculty orientation sessions, usually held once per year before fall term. NTTIF should receive timely notice in appointment and reappointment and, for those with longer fixed-term contracts, in course assignment changes, so that courses may be thoroughly prepared and quality maintained.
Termination or change in appointment. Although timely notice terms are explicitly stated on the employee’s contract when the job offer is made, many NTTIF have reasonable expectations that their contracts will be renewed for additional contract periods at a similar (or greater) FTE level. Alerting NTTIF of imminent termination or nonrenewal of their contracts or changes/reductions in FTE is a common professional courtesy so that they have the opportunity to make adjustments in their benefit coverage or maintain their livelihood with a timely search for other employment.
Provision of Resources
NTTIF must be provided the resources necessary to perform their assigned duties in a professional manner, including such things as appropriate office space, necessary supplies, support services, and equipment. The Committee suggests that faculty support and resources available to NTTIF be more accessible, timely, and detailed at both the campus wide and department or college levels when an instructor is first appointed. The committee’s research indicates that often NTTIF do not learn what resources are available to them when preparing their classes until they have been teaching on campus for many terms. Copies of course packets including a detailed syllabus, textual materials, test banks, and homework packets would be especially helpful to new NTTIF. Blackboard-based courses could be also be copied for new NTTIF instructors to enhance or build upon.
One immediate improvement that could be made is the development of a central depository, including a virtual one in website form, outlining available support and resources for instructional faculty campus wide, as well as links to the support and resources provided by individual schools and departments. An example from the Charles H. Lundquist College of Business Mission, Goals, and Policy Guidelines Appendices (dated September 2000) are good examples: “Instructional Support Services” discusses everything from submitting work orders, photocopying, faxing, office supplies, travel authorizations, and other support services; “Professional Support Policy” discusses several guidelines and details of professional support accounts, travel, association memberships, professional subscriptions, computer equipment, and outside employment; and “Faculty Travel Policy” details the amounts and methods of travel authorization and reimbursement. If these policies were kept in the virtual environment they could be a dynamic and up-to-date resource for all faculty: full time, part time, tenured and non-tenured. Such manuals should distinguish which services are available only to TTF and which are also available to NTTIF.
The UO Faculty Handbook should include a new special section for NTTIF faculty; if maintained on-line, university policies could be continually updated and given timely attention. Currently, methods of making NTTIF faculty aware of information about resources and policies are not readily available. The Faculty Handbook, for example, has not been updated since 1999.
If information about available resources were maintained in a virtual environment, it could be updated continuously, while being at the same time easy and convenient to access. At the University level, NTTIF faculty, especially those who are both part time and transient, could enhance the quality of their students' experiences with easier, earlier knowledge of and access to already established resources. Links from the NTTIF page begun this year by the committee to such resources as the following would be helpful (see <http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dircom/NTTIFlinks.html>):
The Teaching Effectiveness Program
Knight Library (and all other libraries on campus); reserve and e-reserve policies and procedures
Computer Labs (locations, times, and courses for faculty)
Academic Affairs and the Faculty Handbook (including a specific section relating to nontenure-track instructional faculty, yet to be created), with special attention given to Chapter V, “On-Campus Employee Benefits and Services in University Programs”; Chapter VI, “Special Conditions of Employment of Teaching Faculty”; and Chapter VII, “Academic Affairs, Teaching, Grading, and Dealing with Students”
Participation in Governance
Nontenure-track faculty should be included in the departmental and institutional structures of faculty governance; policies should indicate their rights and obligations here, including voting rights.
Grievances and Appeals
Although the University has a process in place for handling grievances and appeals that is available for all faculty members, NTTIF often feel, given the fixed-term nature of their employment, that using this process leaves them vulnerable to not having their contracts renewed. The process for informal and formal handling of grievances, including opportunities for appeal, should be made available to NTTIF and should include guarantees that using the grievance process will not be used as a factor in determining contract renewals.
Orientation and Rights
NTTIF should receive a thorough orientation to their department and its policies from the head or other officer, including a written copy of departmental policies.
While course loads and requirements for full-time employment will necessarily vary among units, the university should adhere to a few standardized practices that protect against exploitation of NTTIF. Committee interviews with campus units uncovered a wealth of positive models. In Romance Languages, for example, where instructors teach three four-credit courses per term (nine courses per year), assignments are made with the following criteria in mind:
· A teacher has no more than two different class preparations per term.
· Teachers have compact scheduling: three classes distributed in short time frames (e.g., 8am-9am-11am or 12pm-1pm-3pm daily, never 8am-11am-3pm, unless requested by teacher).
· Teachers are encouraged to teach the same classes(s) repeatedly over the course of one or two years in order to build expertise and to avoid the burden of many new course preparations.
IV. Salary Analyses from Winter 2003 data
The UO Office of Resource Management has supplied the NTTIF Committee with two reports titled “University of Oregon Faculty Salary Comparison” (See Appendices A and B). These documents, for internal use only, give averages for tenure-related faculty at the University of Oregon (Appendix A) and then give comparison averages for regular, fixed-term faculty and adjunct faculty (Appendix B). The two reports provide a way to compare fixed-term and tenure-related faculty salaries, both across the University and within various units contained within the reports. In both reports, salary information includes a column titled “% of UO Tenure Rank” that compares specific salary averages within a University unit to the corresponding University average for tenure-related faculty. The comparison is weakest for the instructor rank, since the University had only two tenure-related instructors in March 2003. Nevertheless, the comparisons provide a start. Appendix A shows significant differences in average salaries of tenure-related faculty at each rank among the various units. Appendix B shows the patterns of average salaries for regular, fixed-term faculty as well as for adjunct faculty
While these two reports are useful, the NTTIF Committee requested anonymous salary data from the UO Office of Resource Management for additional analyses (see Appendices C, D, E, and F). The intent of the additional analyses was to provide the salary averages within departments and make comparisons to University-wide averages and unit averages where those were available. In many cases, indicated by a dash, no comparisons were possible with tenure-related faculty at the same rank and within the same unit. The NTTIF Committee is reluctant to make any strong conclusions from any reports or analyses presented here. The data indicate wide variations in average salaries among the various departments within the University, but cannot factor in the individual reasons for the salaries used to generate the averages. The committee feels that the results are, for the moment, sufficient as information. Further analysis and research may provide additional insights.
Appendix C shows average salaries of adjunct faculty within departments at each rank. The data are presented in order of departments within units. Perhaps the most interesting columns are the last two, which show the percentage of UO tenure-related average salaries at the same rank and the percentage of unit-specific average salaries, again at the same rank. When both columns have entries, the data suggest that individuals may fare better or worse than the campus-wide percentage depending on the unit. Appendix D shows the same data, but arranged in order of decreasing salary. Salaries for the higher ranks especially should be viewed with caution, as these may reflect widely varying individual histories and negotiations. They are nevertheless included here for information. Ranks within the adjunct faculty tend to be higher than those among the regular fixed-term faculty.
Appendices E and F give average salaries of regular fixed-term faculty within departments at each rank, first by department, then by salary, respectively. Although a few regular, fixed-term faculty hold ranks higher than senior instructor, the committee felt that no purpose was served in presenting those data. Again, no conclusions are drawn from the results presented here, but the reader should note that salaries again vary widely among the various departments within the University.
The NTTIF Committee views these reports and analyses as a good start. This year’s committee trusts that the committee will make good use of these in subsequent years.
Finally, the committee notes the report of the Senate Budget Committee for this year, which included information relevant to NTTIF, quoted below:
Instructors. Accurate salary and compensation data for both tenure-related and non-tenure-track instructors for the academic year 2001-2002 are not currently available from our comparator institutions. See the report of the Senate Committee on Non-Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty for the most meaningful data on this subject in 2002-2003. Using the methodology of this report, we would conclude that instructors have climbed from 82.4% of comparator salaries to 84.3%, placing them behind assistant and associate professors on a percentage basis but only .3% behind full professors.
Nearly all academic institutions report salary and total compensation figures for instructors, but the definition of instructor used to compute these figures varies enormously between institutions. The University of Oregon at present has about 10 tenure-related and 260 non-tenure-track instructors (includes instructors and senior instructors). The average salary increase of full-time instructors in 2002-2003 was about 4%, from $50.9k to $52.8k. Accurate salary and compensation data to address salary comparisons for tenure-related and non-tenure-track instructors are currently being developed. Using the methodology employed here, instructors improved 1.9% relative to comparators in 2002-2003 to 84.3%. These comparator data place instructors well behind assistant and associate professors but only slightly behind full professors. During the 4-year period instructors have actually fallen from 86.8% parity to 84.3% parity. This issue should receive attention in the coming year.
V. 2003 SURVEY OF UO NTTIF
In Winter term, 2003, the NTTIF Committee, with expert and gratis help of Lee LaTour, Marketing Director, Erb Memorial Union, conducted two surveys, one of NTTIF on campus and one of tenure-related faculty here. The surveys themselves are posted at the NTTIF Committee web site (http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dircom/NTTIF.html). The surveys are still being analyzed. Results will be announced as soon as the analyses have been completed.
1. The University of Oregon should move to establish guidelines and policies that address the AAUP’s recommendation regarding the percent of instruction performed by NTTIF and for giving NTTIF stability and professional recognition when hired on a long-term basis (see II and III, above); in both cases, this process will require extensive participation by relevant University committees and the University Senate, and faculty input from both the tenured and NTTIF ranks. The results of this effort at the University level should be published in the Faculty Handbook, which should be updated regularly.
2. The committee should work in conjunction with the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs to provide “best practice” models that departments can reference. Departments should be given deadlines to develop written guidelines and policy statements; once developed, these guidelines and policies should be available on-line, in departmental offices, and in the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.
3. A process to monitor and track salaries for NTTIF as for TTF should be established to make sure the goal for UO NTTIF salaries and total compensation follows the same percentile as for TTF, that is, 95% of parity of comparator institutions. Salary compression for long-term NTTIF has also become a problem that should be addressed. The Status of the NTTIF Committee and the Senate Budget Committee should work together to prepare a “white paper” for the NTTIF similar to the 15 March 2000 White Paper for TTF.
4. An NTTIF advocate or ombudsman could help increase communication and community among members of the NTTIF, help point NTTIF towards campus resources, and act as a repository of knowledge regarding UO NTTIF policies and employment rights. Given the current budget situation, if an ombudsman cannot be appointed, this duty might be performed by selected faculty members across the campus. Future NTTIF Committee membership could be selected by drawing on faculty would who be willing to take on these responsibilities.
5. Following the analysis of data obtained from the Winter Term, 2003, survey of UO NTTIF, this committee should present recommendations regarding goals and policies to the Senate and hold public hearings on those recommendations.
Index of Appendices*
Appendix A: University of Oregon Faculty Salary Comparison—Fixed Term Faculty Salary Data by Faculty Type, School/College, and Rank
Appendix B: University of Oregon Faculty Salary Comparison—Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Salary Data by Faculty Type, School/College, and Rank
Appendix C: University of Oregon Adjunct Faculty Salary Comparison by Department
Appendix D: University of Oregon Adjunct Faculty Salary Comparison in Order of Descending Salary
Appendix E: University of Oregon Salary Comparison of Regular, Fixed-Term Faculty (Instructors and Senior Instructors) by Department
Appendix F: University of Oregon Salary Comparison of Regular, Fixed-Term Faculty (Instructors and Senior Instructors) in Order of Descending Salary
*As the data contained in these appendices are for internal use only, copies will not be appended to electronic or web versions of this report. Copies are appended to the printed copy of the report, available from the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.