DEPARTMENT OF _______________
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF NON-SENATE FACULTY (NSF)
The Department of _______________ will occasionally hire non-senate faculty (NSF) to teach courses identified by the department chair. Possible appointments of NSF
Faculty include a) lecturers appointed on a full-time basis for a single academic year, b) lecturers appointed for a specific, one-quarter course on a quarter-by-quarter basis, and c) lecturers with continuing appointments, at various percentages. Procedures for the first two categories are set out under a separate heading from those for continuing appointments.
Lecturers with fewer than 18 quarters of service are referred to as Pre-Six appointees.
T IMING AND P ROCEDURE
Prior to each academic year, the department chair will identify departmental needs for lecturers, based on anticipated enrollment, course offerings, and workloads of Senate faculty and others (e.g. adjunct professors). The chair has sole responsibility for determining the courses and number of sections offered by the department. Review for reappointment of Pre-Six lecturers will occur after the need for additional instruction by lecturers is established. Once a need for instruction has been determined, the Chair will notify the Pre-Six NSF individual, in writing, of his or her reappointment eligibility. Such notification will include criteria for reappointment, a description of the assessment process, and a proposed timeline. Appointments will be made as far in advance of the relevant quarter as is feasible, but no minimum time before the appointment begins is guaranteed, since occasionally appointments must be made on very short notice.
The department chair may make reappointment decisions of Pre-Six Lecturers up to and including the 16th quarter of appointment, based on established evaluation criteria.
At the discretion of the chair the Senate faculty may be asked to vote on reappointment prior to the 16 th quarter.
NSF’s not chosen for reappointment will be notified in writing by the Department Chair.
E VALUATION C RITERIA
Evaluations of individual NSF are to be made on the basis of demonstrated competence in the field and in teaching.
As established by the MOU (Article 7B, Section D), instructional performance is measured by evaluation of evidence demonstrating such qualities as:

Command of the subject matter and continued growth in mastering new topics;

The ability to organize and present course materials;

The ability to awaken in students an awareness of the importance of the subject matter;

The ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate advanced students to do creative work.

Competence in teaching shall be demonstrated by one or more of the following:

Highly favorable classroom observations made by other members of the department, with particular attention to classroom management skills and leadership ability;

Student evaluations;

Assessments of teaching-related materials, student evaluations, and other information as appropriate and available, by the department chair and/or by other members of the department;

Development of new and effective techniques of instruction and instructional materials;

Professional conduct, including regular office hours, timeliness and attendance at classes, and adherence to department, campus and university policies.
I. INITIAL CONTINUING APPOINTMENT
Prior to the eighteen (18) quarters of service in a single department on a single campus,
NSF are eligible for consideration for a Continuing Appointment and merit review.
Unlike the previous three-year contracts, these appointments are ongoing and can only be terminated through layoff (due to lack of need for courses) or formal dismissal for cause. All continuing appointments shall be preceded by the determination that 1) there is an instructional need and 2) the individual under consideration meets the standard of excellence as a lecturer.
Instructional need, to determine whether a continuing appointment meets departmental needs, will be established in the 5 th year (between quarters 12 and 16 ) of the NSF’s appointment. Instructional need shall exist when 1) there is a departmental need for courses to be taught by the NSF in an area in which the NSF member has taught, and
2) the NSF member is qualified to teach in the course(s) identified, and 3) a continuing appointee is not already anticipated to teach the course. Instructional need will be determined by the Department Chair. When the Department Chair has determined, consistent with Article 7B, that an instructional need exists, the department shall notify the NSF in writing that an instructional need exists, and explain the procedures and timeline for conducting the excellence review. If an instructional need does not exist, the department will notify the NSF in writing that there is not an instructional need for initiating a continuing appointment.
When conducting an excellence review for initial continuing appointment, the department chair shall form an ad hoc committee of at least two Senate faculty and one
NSF continuing appointee, if feasible, to evaluate the candidate and report to the department as a whole. In addition, the committee may involve other faculty as needed to insure a thorough review. Whenever possible, the review shall include assessments of classroom performance based on classroom visitations by at least two committee members and/or other appropriate faculty members.
A copy of the committee’s written report, acknowledged with the NS F’s signature, shall be included in the academic review file. The NSF may include a written response to his/her evaluation which shall also be included in his/her academic review file.
2

The department emphasizes that the candidate’s performance is evaluated using the wide spectrum of criteria set out in the Contract and not solely by numerical student teaching evaluations. Again, in line with the Contract’s stipulations, student evaluations
(as well as other materials such as syllabi, examinations, quizzes, homework assignments, handouts, etc.) shall be examined for evidence of a clear and consistent record of excellence, indicating that the candidate has set high standards and has stimulated and challenged students. The candidate’s teaching materials should reflect evidence of intellectual development and professional competence in the areas of teaching responsibility. When applicable, the department will judge the quality of other assigned duties.
At quarter 16 following the excellence review, recommendations for Continuing appointments will be voted on by the Department’s Academic Senate members according to approved voting procedures, and the NSF will be notified of the outcome of the review.
I. REVIEW FOR MERIT
The NSF is eligible for a merit review at the initial continuing appointment, and at least once every three years thereafter.
A copy of this procedure will be provided to each NSF continuing appointee at the time they are eligible for merit review. The NSF will work with the academic personnel coordinator to prepare a dossier which may include a candidate’s statement, teaching observations by other faculty, and letters of support.
The recommendation will be voted on by Academic Senate members according to the evaluation criteria below and in accordance with approved voting procedures, and the
NSF will be notified of the outcome. Upon review, if the NSF’s performance since the last merit review is deemed excellent, the chair will make a recommendation for merit to the dean. If the recommendation is successful, the NSF shall receive a merit increase of at least 2 steps on the salary scale.
The department is not precluded from proposing merit increases of greater than two steps or scheduling merit reviews at less than 3 year increments.
3

D. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Evaluations of the academic qualifications or performance of NSF [Non-Senate Faculty] 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.
1. Instructional performance is measured by evaluation of evidence demonstrating such qualities as: a. command of the subject matter and continued growth in mastering new topics; b. ability to organize and present course materials; c. ability to awaken in students an awareness of the importance of the subject matter; d. ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate advanced students to do creative work; and e. achievements of students in their field.
2. 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.
E. EVALUATION OF TEACHING EXCELLENCE
1. The following exemplify excellence in teaching. All relevant materials shall be given due consideration: a. student evaluations, provided that the quantitative measure in the student evaluation is not the sole criterion for evaluating teaching excellence; b. assessment by former students who have achieved notable professional success; c. assessments by other members of the department, and other appropriate faculty members; d. development of new and effective techniques of instruction and instructional materials; and e. assessments resulting from classroom visitations by colleagues and evaluators.
4