Unit 18 NSFs — Procedures for Merit Review

These procedures are based on the Non-Senate Instructional/Unit 18 Contract, Article 22 .

Open All | Close All

Determine Eligibility for Continuing Appointee Merits

The University retains sole discretion in the evaluation of a NSF’s performance. NSF will be subject to merit reviews, in accordance with Article 22, as follows:

All NSF will be considered for a merit review at the time of their initial continuing appointment, and once every three (3) years thereafter. Upon review, if the NSF is deemed excellent, the NSF shall receive continuing status and a merit increase of at least six-percent (6%). The University is not precluded from granting merit increases of greater than six-percent (6%), with such increases being in intervals of three-percent (3%) only, e.g., 9%, 12%, and so on.

NSF will be eligible for merit increases in accordance with this Article in those years when the University provides merit increases to non-represented academic employees.

Consistent with the MOU, decisions to grant or not grant a merit increase to individual NSF are at the sole discretion of the University.


Eligible NSF will be notified in writing during the year the merit review is to commence. In addition, they shall be provided with copies of the review procedures and deadlines by which any materials need to be submitted to their department.


Evaluation of the performance of NSF 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. (Article 22.C.2b)

An evaluation of NSF shall be based on an academic review file. The academic review file shall contain only material relevant to consideration of the personnel action. All relevant materials shall be given due consideration:

  1. student evaluations, provided that the quantitative measure in the student evaluation is not the sole criterion for evaluating teaching excellence;
  2. assessment by former students who have achieved notable professional success;
  3. assessments by other members of the department, and other appropriate faculty members;
  4. development of new and effective techniques of instruction and instructional materials; and
  5. assessments resulting from classroom visitations by colleagues and evaluators.
Procedures for Merit Review
  1. A NSF will be notified in writing prior to undergoing a merit review.
  2. A committee shall review and make recommendations on NSF performance pertaining to the merit 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 membership of the committee is not confidential.
  3. Based on the evidence available, the review committee will make a recommendation. Performance-based decisions concerning the merit review shall be based upon the material contained in the academic review file.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Instructional performance is measured by evaluation of evidence demonstrating such qualities as:
    1. command of the subject matter and continued growth in mastering new topics;
    2. ability to organize and present course materials;
    3. ability to awaken in students an awareness of the importance of the subject matter;
    4. ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate advanced students to do creative work; and,
    5. achievements of students in their field.
  7. 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.
  8. The NSF shall be provided with a copy of the review committee’s recommendation.
  9. The NSF may submit a written response to the recommendation from the department, program or unit, which shall be included in her/his merit review file.
  10. Depending upon the department practice, the file may be considered by the voting members of the department. If so, the department will add additional comments, which may include a faculty vote.
  11. The file is then forwarded to the Department Chair for his/her recommendation.
  12. On-cycle on time Merit involving standard increase of six percent (6%) for appointees with Continuing Appointments:
    1. Submit the file to the Dean for his/her final decision
  13. On-cycle Merits requesting salary increase above six percent (6%)
    1. Submit the file to the Dean for his/her recommendation
    2. Forward the file to the Office of Academic Personnel for submission to the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel who will make a final decision.
  14. For all other Merit actions (Excellence Merit Reviews, off-cycle or late review merits, deferral of Merit review):
    1. Submit the file to the Dean for his/her recommendation
    2. Forward the file to the Office of Academic Personnel for submission to the Unit 18 Review Committee for its recommendation to the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel who will make a final decision
NOTE: Merit files are deemed late if not completed within one month of the effective date. Files submitted to Academic Personnel more than 30 days after the effective date will need to be reviewed by the Unit 18 Review Committee and sent to the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel for final decision.

Open All | Close All


Comments are closed.