This article contains the policies and procedures that govern the process by
which NSF become Continuing Appointees. Any continuing appointment shall
be preceded by a University determination that 1) there is instructional need
in accordance with Section B., and 2) the individual under consideration is
excellent following an academic review.
One (1) year of employment is defined as three (3) quarters or two (2)
semesters for academic year appointees, and four (4) quarters or equivalent
for fiscal year appointees, at any percentage in any unit title in the same
department, program or unit at the same campus. For the purposes of this
MOU, Summer Sessions are not considered part of the regular academic
year, and are neither an academic quarter nor semester, nor portion thereof.
Except as provided for in this MOU, the University has the sole discretion to
make determinations regarding: appointments and reappointments, who
teaches a course, the duration of an appointment, the assignments of an
individual, and the assessment of performance. Such decisions are not
subject to the grievance or arbitration provisions of this Agreement except to
the extent they reflect or result from University actions that are, themselves,
grievable and arbitrable.
Instructional need to establish a continuing appointment shall exist when the
University determines the following with respect to the initial year of the
Continuing Appointment:
there is a departmental need for courses to be taught by NSF in the
area in which the NSF member has taught; and
the NSF member is qualified to teach those courses; and
a Continuing Appointee is not already expected to teach the course(s).
Senate Faculty is designated to teach the course(s) during the next
academic year previously assigned to the NSF;
graduate Academic Student Employees (ASEs) whose training is in the
same department or related discipline, or where the assignment is
made pursuant to an academic plan for pedagogical training, are
designated to teach the course(s) during the next academic year
previously assigned to the NSF;
an unanticipated distinguished Visiting Professor, or Adjunct Professor,
is designated to teach the course(s) during the next academic year
previously assigned to the NSF;
the assignment of the NSF to teach the course(s) conflicts with
established departmental academic program requirements for
intellectual diversity; or
other courses in the area in which the NSF has taught and for which
the NSF is currently qualified are neither available nor taught during
the initial appointment year.
REVIEW FOR AND NOTICE OF CONTINUING APPOINTMENTS
When the University has determined, consistent with this MOU, that an
instructional need exists, UC will review an NSF who has completed six years
of service for the University, as defined in Section A.2., to determine if s/he
meets the excellence standard required for an appointment to a Continuing
Appointment. The University shall conduct the review in accordance with this
Article.
As soon as practicable, but prior to the initiation of a review, the University
shall notify the NSF in writing of the review, its timing, criteria, and the
procedure that will be followed.
If as a result of this review, the University determines that the NSF is qualified
to perform anticipated responsibilities at an excellent level in the area in which
the University has determined that instructional need exists, the NSF shall be
appointed to a Continuing Appointment in accordance with this Article.
Conversely, if, as a result of this review, the University determines that the
NSF is not qualified to perform anticipated responsibilities at an excellent
level in the area in which the University has determined that instructional
need exists, the NSF will be released at the end of her/his appointment.
As soon as practicable, the University shall complete the review for a
continuing appointment and provide notice to the NSF of the results following
the completion of the review.
The NSF may submit a written response to her/his evaluation, which shall be
included in her/his academic review file.
Evaluations of the academic qualifications or performance of NSF for purposes of
consideration for a continuing appointment shall be made on the basis of
demonstrated excellence in the field and in teaching, academic responsibility, and
other assigned duties which may include University co-curricular and community
service.
Instructional performance is measured by evaluation of evidence
demonstrating such qualities as:
command of the subject matter and continued growth in mastering new
topics;
ability to organize and present course materials;
ability to awaken in students an awareness of the importance of the
subject matter;
ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate
advanced students to do creative work; and
achievements of students in their field.
Due attention should be paid to the variety of demands placed on instructors
by the types of teaching called for at various levels, and the total performance
of the NSF should be judged with proper reference to assigned teaching
responsibilities.
The following exemplify excellence in teaching. All relevant materials shall be
given due consideration:
student evaluations, provided that the quantitative measure in the
student evaluation is not the sole criterion for evaluating teaching
excellence;
assessment by former students who have achieved notable
professional success;
assessments by other members of the department, program or unit,
and other appropriate faculty members;
development of new and effective techniques of instruction and
instructional materials; and
assessments resulting from classroom visitations by colleagues and
evaluators.
An NSF may provide a self-statement or self-evaluation of her or his teaching
objectives and performance.
An NSF being evaluated may provide letters of assessment from individuals
with expertise in her/his field, and/or other relevant materials to the evaluation
file prepared by the University, which shall be included as part of the
evaluation process. Those from whom letters may be provided include but
are not limited to:
departmental NSFs;
departmental Academic Senate Faculty;
other academic appointees;
students; and/or
others external to the University of California.
A committee shall review and make recommendations about NSF
performance pertaining to the Excellence Review for Continuing
Appointments. The committee shall be at the departmental level, except
where not practicable, in which case it will be as close to the departmental
level as is practicable (e.g., school, division or college). Such committees will
be comprised of academic appointees with sufficient knowledge of the NSF's
field of expertise.
The University shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that a qualified NSF
will participate on such review committees although no individual shall be
required to serve on the committee. Unless the NSF on the committee is a
standing appointment, the NSF being reviewed shall be consulted about the
NSF appointment on the committee. Care shall be taken to ensure that the
committee is composed of faculty who can offer a neutral assessment of the
NSF's performance. The NSF on the review committee shall be under the
same obligation as any other member of the personnel committee with
respect to the confidentiality of the review process.
The NSF being reviewed may provide a written list of suggested peers from
whom input may be solicited and/or identify qualified persons from whom
input may be solicited. The NSF being reviewed shall be afforded an
opportunity to raise concerns about possible bias on the part of individuals
involved in their review. Any such statement provided by the NSF shall be
included in the academic review file.
The reviewing entity (e.g. Department Chair or Committee on Academic
Personnel) shall determine the weight to be given the materials/information
provided, and may solicit input from persons not identified by the NSF being
reviewed.
The NSF may submit written comments that shall be included in her/his
personnel file.
An evaluation of an NSF shall be based on an academic review file. The
academic review file shall contain only material relevant to consideration of
personnel action. Performance-based decisions concerning appointment to a
Continuing Appointment and termination for non-excellence shall be based
upon the material contained in the academic review file.
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY
Allegations of procedural violations of this Article shall be subject to the full
grievance and arbitration provisions of this Article. An Arbitrator reviewing
procedural violations shall have the authority to order the University to redo
the procedure.
An Arbitrator shall not have the authority to substitute her/his judgment for the
University's judgment with respect to instructional need, academic
qualifications or determinations of excellence or non-excellence and thereby
compel the University to make or continue an appointment. Nevertheless, the
Arbitrator shall have the authority to resolve factual disputes related to
Section B.2.a.-e.
The Arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to review the performance review
process and the academic review file. If the Arbitrator finds that the
performance review process was flawed, or that the decision related to the
performance review was based on factors not included in the academic
review file, and that such flaw/decision had a material adverse impact on the
review results, the Arbitrator's remedy shall be limited to an order that the
University re-do the performance review process. Where the arbitrator
determines that an individual involved in the academic review has tainted the
review process, the Arbitrator may order the University to designate different
individuals to conduct the subsequent performance review.
Upon the request of either party, the Arbitrator may retain jurisdiction to
ensure that the parties have complied with her/his award. When the
Arbitrator retains jurisdiction, the Arbitrator's remedy shall be limited to an
order that the UC re-do the performance review process.
