March 22, 2007
UO Senate Non Tenure Track Faculty (NTTF) Committee Meeting
Present: Alan Dickman, Michele Henney, Ali Emami, Amy Goeser-Kolb, Harinder Kaur Hennesy (Chair), Yelaina Kripkov, Joan Malmud (secretary), Phil McCullum, Daniel Pope, Gloria Zabala.
Absent: Laurie Neighbors
I. Today, the Senate NTTF Committee reviewed a draft Document on Policies, Procedures and Practices for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTTF) at the University of Oregon, dated February 21, 2007 (Policy Statement). The Policy Statement was drafted by the Academic Affairs Implementation Committee, which is responsible for putting into place guidelines relevant to the appointment and employment of NTT at the University of Oregon.
II. Following
review of the document, the Senate Committee asked Joan Malmud, as liaison to
the Academic Affairs Committee to communicate questions and concerns about the
document. Those questions and
concerns were as follows:
a. Tenured instructors. Oregon Administrative Regulations permit
instructors to be tenured. See OAR 580-021-0100 to -0140. How do these policies
affect the possibility for creating tenured positions for instructors, if at
all?
b. Standard
of "excellence." The Senate Committee noted the use of the word
"excellence'" in footnote 5 and on page 4 in the second section in
the paragraph with the heading "Transition." The Senate
Committee was concerned that the word "excellence" would be
understood to mean "excellence" as determined by student evaluations.
The Senate Committee recommends that when the document uses the word
"excellence," that the word be defined as "excellence as
determined by department standards."
c. Grievance procedures for evaluation,
retention, and promotion decisions. The Senate Committee was concerned that
the document seems to lack mechanisms by which NTTF can challenge decisions by
their program or department. For example, the document does not indicate
whether NTTF will have a procedure by which they can (1) object to the
conclusions reached in an annual review, (2) challenge the refusal to promote a
person to senior instructor, or (3) challenge a decision of
non-renewal.
i. Joan Malmud (liaison) shared with the
committee that the Academic Affairs Committee had discussed and seemed inclined
to recommend that the University create a committee analogous to the Faculty
Personnel Committee to review promotion decisions. To her knowledge,
though, the Academic Affairs Committee had not discussed procedures by which
NTTF can dispute or object to evaluations and retention decisions.
ii. The Senate Committee would suggest that
the draft document include such safeguards.
d. Timely notice. On page 3, bullet point 7, the
document says that Career NTTF are subject to "timely notice
provisions." The draft document seems to indicate (on page 5,
paragraph 3) that departments should aim to inform NTTF at least 2 months prior
to the end of an NTTF's contract whether the contract will be renewed.
However, the document is not clear if that is what is meant by timely
notice. The Senate Committee would recommend greater clarity about the
meaning of "timely notice." The Senate Committee would also ask
the Academic Affairs Committee to consider graduated timely notice, i.e., the
longer one has been here, the greater the notice that is required.
e. Terms prior to promotion. Typically, the Academic Affairs
Committee has assumed that promotions from one rank to another would occur
every six years (or after 18 terms). The Senate Committee was concerned
about whether those terms could be non-consecutive, i.e., if a department
choose not to renew a contract for budget reasons rather than for performance
reasons, and then re-hires the candidate when the budget permits, that
candidate will be credited for the prior time served. The Senate Committee
would request that the terms be non-consecutive nature of the 18 terms be made
explicit.
f. Transition period. The Senate Committee was concerned
about the transition periods (discussing rank and career v. adjunct path) and
that it did not allow for exceptions. The Senate
Committee expressed its interest that language be inserted that would permit
the University to consider exceptions to the transition guidelines.
g. Edits.
Other typographical edits were suggested.
i. P. 4, Transition paragraph, sentence 2. The phrase
"contingent upon" should replace "pending."
"There are many NTTF who hold enduring appointments as instructors or as
research scholars with the reasonable expectation that these appointments will
continue pending [replace
with: contingent upon]
excellent performance and continued funding. "Pending" has the sense of "while waiting
for."
ii. P. 5, paragraph 3. "For career
NTTF, departments are urged to provide notice that a contract will be continued
as early as possible, hopefully within two months of a contract's end date." "Within two months" may be read as
"two months or less." The Senate Committee would recommend that
the sentence be written: "For career NTTF, departments are urged to
provide notice that a contract will be continued as early as possible, preferably,
at least two months prior to a contract's end date."
III. One concern mentioned during the meeting
was not then communicated to the Academic Affairs Committee
a. During the senate meeting there was a
question about whether a person who has been here for 10 years and has not been
reviewed would automatically become a senior instructor.
i. The Senate Committee did not have time to
address the language in the document that covers that point. On page 8, the last paragraph in the
"Evaluation and Promotion" section, states "The academic deans
will be asked to review all career NTTF appointments, identify which have NTTF
who are due for consideration for promotion, and implement a plan for a timely
and appropriate review for promotion."
ii. Because the Senate Committee had not
discussed that language, no specific concern about that issue was forwarded to
the AA Committee.