Around the O publishes informative article

about SAIL’s recently concluded crowdfunding campaign, and explains the process for starting your own UO Advancement approved “Duckfunder campaign”, By Greg Bolt, here.

SAIL raised $17,500, and after the match that’s $35,000. You can still give to SAIL (and still get it matched by a very generous alumni donor) by going to and entering “For SAIL” in the text box. You’ll get a nice letter of thanks, suitable for showing to the IRS.

The UO Development people were very, very helpful and enthusiastic. The only downside is that duckfunder does not tap into a large database of other donors to similar causes, as crowdfunder sites like kickstarter and gofundme do, and prompt those people to take a look at your cause. On the other hand it is included in emails that go out to UO alumni.

Legislature pushes back against Board secrecy, closed meetings, 40-40-20 goals

InsideHigherEd has the full report, here. Worth reading it all:

How transparent should a public university governing board be?

Politicians in a number of states, who often say they’re responding to concerns from constituents, have been calling for appointed or elected governing boards of their public colleges, universities and systems to be more open, particularly when it comes to public meetings.

“There seems to be little trust in the trustees today,” said Thomas Harnisch, director of state relations at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. “There are calls for governing board members to show their work and how they came up with the conclusion, instead of just showing up with their outcome.”

Suspicion of public officials is nothing new, but, in the case of board members, it’s ramping up as more and more people are concerned with hotly contested issues like college affordability and presidential compensation, says Michael Poliakoff, vice president of policy at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, an organization that is often critical of college leaders and supports board activism. “It’s a natural and somewhat tempered response to the failings of the institutions themselves,” he said. …

Most of the article is about UNC. Here at UO, our new Board has got off to a rocky start under Chair Chuck Lillis. The most serious part has been a failure, so far, to deliver on the tit-for-tat: the UO boosters got independence, in exchange for raising lots of money to substitute for declining state funding. Instead it’s been the state that has increased its funding, while too much of the donor money has gone to sports facilities such as a new $16M softball stadium complete with jumbotron.

Missteps have ranged from holding meetings when school was not in session, sudden power-grab over academic policies, last-minute distribution of dockets, decisions about presidential buyouts, hiring, and athletic raises that were apparently made before the public meetings, a big push for an irrelevant “sports product design program” in the midst of a crisis over our status as an AAU research university, and then most recently a clampdown on public dissent from other board members, and an unusual parliamentary move that extended Lillis’s own term by a year without an explicit vote. The student member of the board, Helena Schlegel, resigned on principle after that meeting. See video of her testifying at the legislature below.

Meanwhile the Faculty representative, Susan Gary (Law) who was apparently nominated by Kitzhaber on the basis of her friendship with Dave Frohnmayer, took off to Hong Kong for a year’s sabbatical last year in the middle of her term. The UO Senate voted unanimously to have an open process for recommending replacement faculty candidates to the governor, but in the chaos over the Kitzhaber resignation she slipped through with another 2 year term. Interim President Coltrane and BOT Chair Chuck Lillis recommended her reappointment without even telling the faculty.

Now the HECC and Ben Cannon have stepped up their pressure on the independent boards over transparency, and the Legislature held a hearing a few weeks ago. Docket here.

It’s clear that the boards, and the UO Board in particular, have gotten the message that there are many concerns about their performance. This is the context for the “chats” Trustee Susan Gary has tried to arrange with faculty (last I heard attendance was zero – maybe she did better the second time) and the more useful meetings between faculty and the other trustees that Angela Wilhelms has been organizing. It’s still to be seen if this is just window-dressing, or if some board members are beginning to realize that they are not going to make UO better without cooperating with the faculty, or if they’ve got the message from the HECC and Kate Brown that the State is not going to put up with a board that picks pointless fights with its faculty and students. Here’s UO Senate President Randy Sullivan’s message to the Trustees, full text on page 39-40 here:

 Lastly, many of our colleagues were deeply disappointed to hear of the resignation of student Trustee Helena Schlegel in protest from the Board of Trustees.   Many of us worked long and hard to ensure that students, faculty, and staff would have an effective voice in the governance of this public university and we are chagrined to learn that that system does not appear to be being honored.

Video of the legislative hearing here, with UO Poli Sci Prof Joe Lowndes explaining how the board has isolated itself from students and faculty:

and here’s former UO student trustee Helena Schlegel, giving a very balanced perspective explaining what’s good about independent boards in general, and areas that need to be improved, such as add a graduate/professional school student seat. She’s very professional, and only after being asked about the news reports does she explain why she resigned: a struggle to get heard, not treated equitably and listened to by some trustees, frustrated to see the board not follow its own procedures.


The RG’s Diane Dietz has a preview of the Dec 2-3 Board meetings, here:

A proposal to offer students guaranteed tuition for four years, a plan for upgrading residence halls and a roundtable discussion on race relations are on the agenda when the University of Oregon Board of Trustees meets Wednesday and Thursday in Eugene. …

Senate meets 3-4:30PM Wed in Browsing Room, then BOT reception

Topics include approval of new courses and more debate on FAC confidentiality. The meeting ends at 4:25 for a reception hosted by President Schill from 4:30 – 6:00 pm in the Susie Papé Room of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. Remember, if you can’t make this meeting you can send a substitute – details here

DRAFT: Senate Meeting Agenda – December 2, 2015 – 

Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:10 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:10 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes. 2.1      November 11, 2015

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1       IFS Election (third UO Senator and member of statutory faculty)
Candidates so far: Robert Kyr (Music), Nathan Tublitz (Biology), Dejing Dou (Computer and
Information Science

4.2       US15/16-09: Approval of Curriculum Report, Fall Term 2015; Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of UO Committee on Courses

4.3      Motion: Extension of US14/15-92: Regarding Negotiations on Recent Senate Legislation; Bill
Harbaugh (Economics), Senator

4.4       US15/16-06 (Legislation – Returning): Revision of Faculty Advisory’s charge and exemption from Senate Open Meetings rule; Committee on Committees

4.5       US15/16/-04 (Resolution – Returning): Improving Effectiveness of the UO Police Department;
Frank Stahl (Biology) and John Nicols (History), Emeritus

4:30 pm    5.   Open Discussion

5.1        Topics: President Schill’s proposal for ensuring access and success:

1. Expand number of Tenure-Track faculty on campus
2. Access & Affordability
3. Great Student Experience

4:45 pm    6.   Reports

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:45 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

Not enough Black PhD students

11/30/2015: The data is from a discussion on InsideHigherEd, here:

… How realistic are these goals? Penn proves informative. Even with its prestige and an arsenal of cash, progress has been steady but relatively slow — at least compared to the Mizzou timeline. Between 2011 and 2013, the percentage of new hires who were underrepresented minorities grew from 9 to 14 percent. But the total percentage of underrepresented minorities on the faculty jumped just 1 percent, to 7 percent, from 2010-13. Minority professors over all increased from 13 percent in 2013 to 16 percent in 2014.

Part of the problem is that black students are underrepresented in a majority of Ph.D. programs and among Ph.D. holders. While black people make up 14 percent of the U.S. population, they’ve earned roughly 6 percent of the research doctorates awarded to U.S. citizens and permanent residents each year since 2003, according to the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies’ Survey of Earned Doctorates. While blacks hold a relatively high proportion of education doctorates, earning about 13 percent of such degrees awarded in 2013, they’re underrepresented in other fields. According to 2013 data, the most recent available, they earned 6 percent of life sciences doctorates, 3 percent of physical sciences doctorates and 5 percent of engineering doctorates. In the social sciences, blacks earned 7 percent of doctorates. It was 5 percent in history and about 4 percent in the humanities. In business, it was 9 percent.

According to the survey, 2,167 black citizens or residents earned research doctorates in 2013. Compare that number to 130 — that’s how many full-time black faculty members Kevin Eagan, interim managing director at the Higher Education Research Center at the University of California at Los Angeles, says Mizzou alone would need to hire in the next two years to meet the 10 percent demand.

Screen Shot 2015-11-30 at 2.06.41 PM

11/29/2015: Pushback begins against Black student demands & tactics

The NYT, here, on Amherst, Claremont-McKenna, Yale, etc:

… In the heat of the moment, the students drafted a list of demands for the administration. … They wanted students who had posted “Free Speech” and “All Lives Matter” posters to go through “extensive training for racial and cultural competency” and possibly discipline. They wanted the administration to apologize for “our institutional legacy of white supremacy,” among many other forms of discrimination, like “heterosexism, cis-sexism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, mental health stigma and classism.”

… But just as there has been pushback at other colleges, the demands at Amherst were met not only with sympathy but also with skepticism and criticism that the students were asking for too much and trying to stifle free speech and intellectual dissent. Alumni took to the college’s website by the hundreds to complain that this generation was trying to sanitize history and impose a repressive orthodoxy on a place that should be a free market of ideas.

“Why is Amherst, an institution supportive of political freedoms, ultimately becoming a college full of restrictions?” Matthew R. Pewarski, a member of the class of 2008, asked on a password-protected alumni forum.

… At Yale, more than 800 students, faculty, alumni and others signed a letter to the president, criticizing student demands like firing a house master who questioned the policing of Halloween costumes and creating a censure process for hate speech. The letter said these would reinforce “intellectual conformity.”

“The point of the letter was to show administrators that there is organized support for open expression at Yale,” said Zach Young, a junior and the president of the William F. Buckley Jr. Program at Yale.

11/21/2015: UO Black Student Task Force releases list of demands for administration

Diane Dietz reports on Pres Schill’s campus conversation here, and Miles Trinidad has the story on the demands in the Daily Emerald, here:

… “Some of these requests will be easier to achieve than others, but I believe we can make good progress in the coming weeks and months on most, if not all, of those requests,” Schill said. …

Here is the complete list of demands:

  1. Change the names of all of the KKK-related buildings on campus.
  2. Create an African-American Opportunities program that is comparable, in scope and impact, to the Opportunities program for the Latino student population and community.
  3. Commit to creating a Funding Resource and Scholarship initiative that is designed exclusively to support and meet the unique needs of students that identify as Black/African American.
  4. Commit to having Ethnic Studies 101 as a graduation requirement.
  5. Commit to creating an Academic Residential Community (ARC) that will feature African-American history/Oregon Black Diaspora.
  6. Commit to hiring an African-American advisor/retention specialist as well as Black faculty across all academic disciplines, especially major UO departments such as Architecture, Business, Education, Math, and Science departments.
  7. Create a substantial endowment fund and support system to fund and open a Black Cultural Center.
  8. Commit to creating a Black Student Leadership Task Force.
  9. Commit to conducting seminars and workshops by bringing in a black faculty from a peer institution who specializes in Black history and contemporary black issues.
  10. Commit to creating a Student Advisory Board for The Office of Equity & Inclusion and Center for Multicultural Academic Excellence (CMAE).
  11. A commitment to immediate change of Fraternity & Sorority Life Baseline Standards for University recognition.
  12. Commit to immediately keeping and publishing data on efforts to increase Black student acceptance, retention, and safety.

UO puts bike violators on $1 an hour Bicycle Safety Patrol chain gang

And you thought the Code of Ethics was silly. How does this sort of thing get through Chuck Triplett’s office? I’m beginning to think that his policy realignment efforts may not be entirely reliable:

Technical revisions enacted by the University Secretary on September 3, 2015:

E. Bicycle Penalties, Citations, and Fines

(1) Any impounded bicycle shall be stored in a secure facility designated for such purpose by the Director of Public Safety.

(2) A fine (see section E(4) of this policy) shall be charged to the owner prior to the release of any impounded bicycle. Any bicycle being released must be properly registered prior to its release unless the owner or the owner’s designee can show reasonable proof that the bicycle will not be operated on the University campus or, if the owner is neither a student nor University employee, that the bicycle will not be on campus more often than five times a term.

(3) Citations for violations by bicycle riders shall carry a fine:

(a) A schedule of fines shall be published annually as a part of UO Policy 570.060, under the subheading Parking-Bicycle Fines, of UO Policy 570.060(A), Special Fees, Fines, Penalties, Service Charges;

(b) As an alternative to a fine, cited bicycle riders/owners may be required to serve as a member of the Bicycle Safety Patrol at a rate of one hour of service for every dollar of the fine levied. …

If anyone can find “UO Policy 570.060(A), Special Fees, Fines, Penalties, Service Charges”, please let me know.

Four tough things universities should do to rein in costs

Op-Ed from Steven Pearlstein in the WaPo:

… While faculty critics have made sport of pointing out the proliferation of assistant provosts or the soaring salaries of college presidents, these don’t represent most new spending. What does is the growth in the number and pay of non-teaching professionals in areas such as academic and psychological counseling, security, information technology, fundraising, accreditation and government compliance.

… Friday has become the new Saturday on college campuses as many students shun classes, and professors have been all too willing to accommodate them. At Mason, utilization of classroom space during prime daytime hours on Thursdays is 68 percent; on Fridays, it is 38 percent. That’s a bit above the national average, according to estimates from Sightlines, a facilities consulting firm.

A few universities have taken a shot at running on a 12-month calendar or returning Friday to the workweek, but nationally such ideas have gained little traction. Trachtenberg isn’t surprised: “Presidents who spend time fighting with faculty over things like this don’t last long.”

… Teaching loads at research universities have declined almost 50 percent in the past 30 years, according to data compiled for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. This doesn’t necessarily mean professors aren’t working as hard — surveys show they’re working harder and under more pressure than ever. Rather, says former Mason provost Peter Stearns, it reflects a deliberate shift in focus as universities compete for big-name professors by promising lighter teaching loads and more time for research. … Unfortunately, much of that work has little intellectual or social impact. … “For someone just to write a paper that nobody is going to read — we can’t afford that anymore,” says Brit Kirwan, a former chancellor of the University of Maryland.

… Cheaper, better general education: Roughly a third of the courses undergraduates take fulfill general-education requirements meant to ensure that all students receive a well-rounded education. Universities have gotten more serious about requiring a minimum proficiency in writing and quantitative reasoning, but the rest of general education tends to be an intellectual cop-out. Students are presented with dozens of courses in four or five broad categories and are told to choose two or three from each. Many are large introductory lecture courses (Everything 101) that were designed primarily to provide foundational knowledge for students majoring in that subject, rather than an intellectually stimulating exploration of a discipline. Most of the rest reflect the specific research interests of professors. …

Ombud Bruce McAllister’s open letter on departure dispels rumors

11/29/2015: Ombudsperson Bruce MacAllister has sent an open letter reviewing the history of the Ombuds program, giving some information on his (considerable) accomplishments at UO over the past 2 years, and giving suggestions for what should be done next to maintain and strengthen the Ombuds program.

This letter should dispel the rumors (see the comments on this post) that his resignation was tied to lack of general support from JH or a disagreement over a specific case. The pdf is here, I’m cutting and pasting the entire text below.

Now if only Chief Internal Auditor Brenda Muirhead would provide an explanation for her resignation!

From UO Ombudsperson Bruce MacAllister,  

To the members of the University Community:

I’d like to express my gratitude to the University community for allowing me the
incredible opportunity to serve as the University of Oregon’s inaugural
ombudsperson. The last two years have been a wonderful experience and it has
been exciting to design and implement the University’s new Ombuds program.

As most of you now know, I am leaving the University of Oregon to pursue some
exciting new career opportunities. This new career direction allows great
flexibility and challenge and allows me to share my experience and expertise with
a number of world-class organizations. I want to emphasize that my decision to
leave the University was completely my own and was driven by complex personal
and professional life and career considerations. While serving as the UO
Ombudsperson, I have received great support from the University community. I
have had the opportunity to work with the University’s administration and with
three University presidents, each of whom have been extremely accessible and
with whom I have felt a cordial and supportive relationship.

Most important, I have had the pleasure of working with nearly 300 individual
visitors who sought my help as the University Ombudsperson. In addition, I
worked with nearly 200 other members of the campus community in various
group situations, including group conflict resolution sessions; organizational
assessment efforts, in which the root causes of chronic conflict were identified
and collectively addressed; and in other organizational development initiatives,
designed to optimize departments and reduce conflict potential. As a part of
Ombuds Program implementation, I worked with an additional 50 key program
leaders such as program directors for sexual assault advocacy, domestic violence
intervention, student conduct, counseling, medical support, emergency response,
and others. Finally, it was a great pleasure to serve on the University Senate’s
Task Force To Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support, as an ex officio
member. The contributions of this group have already shown lasting value and
positive impact within the campus community.

Recently, the University made a commitment to permanent space for the Ombuds
Office, and we completed plans for an outstanding new location for the program. I
worked personally with the University’s designers to ensure that the new space
will meet the needs for a highly accessible, yet highly confidential facility. I have
been assured by the President’s Office, that the plan is still in place for the
Ombuds Office move, which should hopefully be complete by sometime in Spring

In addition to assuring that the physical space requirements meet the highest
standards, we worked to ensure that all of the infrastructure and systems related
to operating the ombuds program are based on the highest standards of practice.
Elements of this effort include the recently implemented custom case tracking
system, which now enables us to seamlessly track our commitments to visitors
and to archive non-sensitive information. The Ombuds Program web site,
emergency response procedures, confidentiality agreements (for staff), and all
other program documentation, systems, and processes are now in place.

As a result of intensive work during the implementation phase for the program,
the University of Oregon is now among the leading universities in the country
with respect to its ombuds program’s clear status as a confidential resource for
students and employees who encounter a sexual harassment or assault situation.
Thanks to the contribution of our late former President, David Frohnmayer, in
conducting an independent legal review, the support of Interim President Scott
Coltrane, and the staff support of the University General Counsel’s Office, the
University of Oregon Board of Trustees passed a very expressly worded policy
statement that identifies the University Ombuds as a confidential resource for
employees and students. While some have speculated that I was not in support of
an approach that required the additional steps of an independent legal review,
the idea was actually mine and I fully supported this approach as a way to ensure
that the decision to identify the Ombuds Program as a highly confidential
resource was a durable one and not dependent on the fiat of a single University

The University Ombuds Program is now nearly fully implemented with one
notable exception. Since January of 2015, I have endeavored to work with the
administration to finalize the Ombuds Program Charter. The charter documents
and memorializes the University’s commitment to the independence,
confidentiality, and neutrality of its ombuds program. Virtually all university
ombuds programs include such a document and benchmarks are readily available
for comparison to the draft that I have developed for the University of Oregon. I
would urge the University Senate and larger campus community to be zealous in
its insistence that the Ombuds Program function to a fully endorsed charter, as
the charter is critical to formalizing the ground rules and working commitments
to your ombuds program. The existence of a charter will help your Ombuds
Program weather transitions in administrations and boards and protects your
Ombudsperson from retaliation for bringing uncomfortable truths to the
attention of your administration.

I would also urge the university community to be actively engaged in the
screening and selection process for your new lead ombudsperson. Having served
in both the position of a large agency general counsel and a large organizations
ombuds, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the role of the
ombudsperson in a large complex campus is no less critical than that of your
General Counsel. The ability to identify potential issues and to effectively place
them on the screen of campus administration is a major element of the program’s
value. Thus, I urge you to place great energy into identifying a successor to the
position with the skills-set appropriate to the challenges and of the gravitas to be
effective and influential.

I leave the University with some sense of sadness in that I had originally
envisioned remaining at the helm of your program for some time yet. However, a
combination of professional and personal circumstances required more
immediate action. I want to acknowledge the outstanding support of the
University Senate and the campus community in general for helping me to gain
familiarity with the campus and to launch your program. I also greatly appreciate
the support of the University Board of Trustees, the current and former
University Presidents, Provosts, and many excellent key staff, such as the deans
and staff within the various colleges, members of HR, Student Life, and in the staff
attorneys in University Counsel’s Office. With the help of these many people and
others, we have launched a nationally recognized and sustainable ombuds
program, which already serves as a benchmark to other higher education
institutions. I am very proud of what we have accomplished together in a
relatively short time.

While I am leaving the University, I am not leaving the ombuds or higher
education communities and I will remain an active and engaged resource. I am
committed to the success of the University and its Ombuds Program and will
remain completely accessible for advice or for background information. I invite
any member of the campus community to reach out to me in the future should
the need arise. The staff of the Ombuds Office will have my contact information.

Bruce MacAllister

University of Oregon Ombudsperson

Update: It’s so: Ombud Bruce MacAllister to leave UO

Continue reading

Washington Post calls for controls on big-time athletic pork

Columnist Sally Jenkins, here:

… For years, athletic directors have styled themselves as CEO-types and moaned about the difficulties of managing costs. But a Washington Post project published earlier this week shows that these so-called executives are about as fiscally responsible as Gabor sisters serving sevruga in chinchilla capes. The truth is, their deficits aren’t a necessity. They’re a choice.

Throughout The Post’s findings is the distinctly acrid smell of books cooking. The ledgers show that there is never enough money to fully comply with Title IX or cover the true cost of a scholarship but always enough to pay themselves more or to buy a new toy.

… The chair of an engineering department is not permitted to spend indiscriminately, so why should athletic directors be able to — especially when they siphon university money away from other departments to cover their overdrafts?

As matters stand, athletic departments aren’t answerable to anyone, budgeted separately from the university and almost completely unregulated. Their only real oversight comes from high-dollar donors. The reason for this is that years ago college presidents tried to wash their hands by allowing them to become stand-alone entities that raise and spend funds however they wish. Author Gilbert Gaul, in his new book “Billion Dollar Ball,” likens them to hedge funds or entertainment divisions rather than academic entities. As one Texas administrator put it to Gaul, “We eat what we kill.”

But that’s not enough, so they take from the academic side too.

UO Law Dean Michael Moffitt gives 5 year review talk

I couldn’t listen to it all, but it seems Knight Law School Dean Michael Moffitt managed to avoid any mention of the $10M subsidy from CAS tuition money that he was given – by the office of his wife, VPFA Jamie Moffitt – to pay for scholarships for law students, to keep UO law LSAT’s score and US News ranking out of the basement.

Also no honest discussion of Moffitt’s various failed attempts to exploit Brad Shelton’s budget model and siphon off enough undergrad credit hours from CAS to be able to repay the $10M debt he now owes CAS. Yes, I know that makes no sense, but here’s Moffitt trying to get some good press for himself in the NY Times:

“The problem is that we have been selling only one product,” Mr. Moffitt said. “But if you are getting a business degree, you need to know about contract law. City planners need to know about land-use law. So we at Oregon are educating not just J.D. students.

“Demand is through the roof,” he added. “I feel like I am living a business school case study.”

However, like so many business school case studies, Moffitt’s turned out to be a scam. He’d hid that from his faculty, but the Senate Curriculum Committee got to the truth and cancelled the classes.

Moffitt’s idea of a bright spot? Rob Illig’s summer sports law institute:

UO Code of Ethics requires employees to “dedicate ourselves before God to our chosen profession”, plus civility

11/28/2015: From what I can tell $130K VP for Collaboration Chuck Triplett is actually going to bring his UO ethics policy to the Senate for debate and vote.

You must “make decisions based upon the greater good” and act in “wise, ethical, and prudent manner”, while not “shifting blame or taking improper credit”. And the administration thinks the *Senate* is wasting faculty time with pointless discussions?

I’ve already seen some pretty good suggestions for amendments, including the admirably brief

“University of Oregon Code of Ethics: All employees must follow the University of Oregon Policy on Freedom of Speech and Inquiry“.

If that fails, I’ll bring up my proposal for a Senate Unethical Activities Committee, with the power to investigate and blacklist offenders:

Meanwhile, rumor down at the Faculty Club Chapel (Episcopalian) is that there will also be questions from the faculty on how we can behave ethically without dedicating ourselves before God to our chosen profession, as VPFA Jamie Moffitt has been requiring the UO Police to do, ever since that unfortunate Bowl of Dicks incident:

Screen Shot 2015-11-28 at 8.01.40 PM

Good thing our Johnson Hall bowl game junketeers aren’t sworn officers. That part about “never accepting gratuities” would be a problem.

As for the God business, sorry, but a higher authority disagrees: “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

11/13/2015: UO ethics policy requires “civil, respectful, and nurturing environment”

And if you fail to “make decisions based upon the greater good” or don’t act in “a wise, ethical, and prudent manner” or if you engage in “shifting blame or taking improper credit”, you have violated UO policy, and you are subject to university discipline.

That’s according to UO’s newly revised “Code of Ethics” policy, posted on VP for Collaboration Chuck Triplett’s website, and open for comment here.

Continue reading

Moffitt still stalling on Police oversight, UO wants $1600 for docs

11/28/2015: It’s been several years since UO promised to establish some sort of police oversight committee. John Ahlen and Juan Carlos Valle had an excellent Op-Ed in the RG in June, here:

Mistake No. 1: A healthy police oversight system contains two components missing from the UOPD model — a civilian review that has some teeth to it, and a professional independent auditing body. We’ve seen that a body of community members is being recommended to review certain allegations at the UO, but this is inadequate. They are advisory only and have no authority.

Our understanding is that only one person outside the UOPD, an administrative vice president, a position not expected to have experience administering a police department, has the authority to make changes or require additional investigation.

Mistake No. 2: Certainly it is not a good sign that there have already been UOPD misconduct cases under their watch that have already been overturned. Seeing the UOPD’s response to the “bowl of expletives” controversy — in which officers maintained a supposedly humorous list of enemies — didn’t give us much faith that they would be able to police themselves, as the underlying message seemed to be that boys will be boys. A professional, independent auditor is the way to make sure that allegations of misconduct are properly investigated.

Having an effective oversight system is not difficult at all for the city of Eugene, so why is it so challenging for UOPD?

Mistake No. 3: Of greatest concern is the question of why this wasn’t all sorted out before the department bought guns and was granted the authority to use them. The rush to become a police department before analyzing the new use of force policies in place (which were literally cut and pasted from a California policy company handbook) creates liability for the UO.

VPFA Jamie Moffitt has been promising to set up a review committee for years. Noah Mcgraw has the scoop on the latest delays in the Emerald, here. Some people think this committee’s workings should be transparent:

Helena Schlegel, ASUO President, disapproves of the CRC’s format. Schlegel is asking the university to “make their review panel representative of the community and its meetings and decisions transparent to the public.”

“The ASUO currently has no say in either UOPD policy or its internal reviews. We welcome the opportunity to participate meaningfully in police oversight and transparency issues on and off campus,” Schlegel said.

But UO’s Public Records Office thinks it’s not in the public’s interest to know, unless you’ve got $1600:

On WednesdayAug 5, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Thornton, Lisa <> wrote:


Dear Mr. Harbaugh: 

The University of Oregon has received your public records request for “copies of any ‘minutes, agendas, reports, and correspondence’ involving ‘boards and councils that function in an advisory capacity, standing and ad hoc committees and councils’ that primarily involve the UOPD. This request covers the period from 1/1/2011 to the present” on 06/24/2015, attached. The office has at least some documents responsive to your request.  By this email, the office is providing you with an estimate to respond to your requests.

The office estimates the actual cost of responding to your request to be $1,660.68. Upon receipt of a check made payable to the University of Oregon for that amount, the office will proceed to locate, copy, and provide the records you have requested that are not exempt from disclosure.  Your check may be sent to the attention of Office of Public Records, 6207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-6207.

10/22/2015: UO Campus Cops Lack Oversight

Continue reading

Lord Coe quits Nike, French cops investigating Track Town bid


The BBC has the latest from the IAAF headquarters – in Monaco, of course. Apparently the IAAF will replace his Nike money by paying Coe a salary, in an effort to reduce the IAAF’s longstanding system of bribes, kickbacks, and side deals:

Screen Shot 2015-11-26 at 11.46.34 AM

The British press is now asking why public money was spent on lobbying the IAAF members to elect Coe. And British MP Damian Colin’s parliamentary hearings will be on Dec 2. Report here:

Continue reading

UO Board posts materials for Dec 2, 3 meetings

On the Board of Trustees website, here:

Academic and Student Affairs Committee — December 2, 2015 [Materials]

December 2, 2015 9:00 am: Public Meeting Ford Alumni Center, Room 403

1. Student Conduct Code – repeal of outdated policies (Action), University Secretary Angela Wilhelms

2. Sexual Assault Prevention, Education and Awareness Updates, Vice President for Student
Life Robin Holmes

3. Department of International Affairs – overview and discussion, Vice Provost for
International Affairs Dennis Galvan

4. College & Careers Building – programmatic components, Interim Dean of the College of
Arts and Sciences Andrew Marcus

5. Access and Opportunity Initiative, President Michael Schill and Provost Scott Coltrane

Executive and Audit Committee — December 2, 2015 [Materials]

12:30 pm: Public Meeting, Ford Alumni Center, Room 403

1. Roles and responsibilities relating to financial integrity, Board Chair Chuck Lillis

2. Quarterly audit report, Interim Chief Auditor Trisha Burnett

3. IT risk assessment report, Mike Cullen, Baker Tilly LLP

Finance and Facilities Committee — December 2, 2015 [Materials]

1:30 pm: Public Meeting Ford Alumni Center, Room 403

1. Q1 and FY15 Annual Treasury Report, Director of Treasury Operations Karen Levear

2. FY2015 Audited Financial Statements

2.1 Management report, Vice President for Finance and Administration/CFO Jamie Moffitt,
Controller Kelly Wolf

2.2 Independent auditors’ report, Scott Simpson – Moss Adams LLP

3. Q1 FY16 Financial Report, VPFA/CFO Jamie Moffitt

4. OUS Policy Repeal (SBHE Policy #9 – Budgeted Operations Fund Balances) (Action),
VPFA/CFO Jamie Moffitt

5. Naming of Facilities – Jane Sanders Stadium and Willie and Donald Tykeson Hall (Action),
President Michael Schill

6. Campus Housing, Vice President for Student Life Robin Holmes and Director of Housing
Michael Griffel

6.1 Housing renovation plan overview
6.2 Bean Hall renovation project (Action)

Meeting of the Board — December 3, 2015 [Materials]

8:00 am (other times approximate) – Convene Public Meeting

1. Roundtable Discussions with Students on Race‐Related Issues (Bean, East Conference Room)
President Schill has invited a group of students, in coordination from staff in CMAE, to participate in small group conversations about their experiences at the UO and current issues and events.

Public Meeting Recesses and Reconvenes in Giustina Ballroom (approximately 9:00 am)

2. Approval of Minutes from September 2015 Meeting (Action)

3. Public Comment: Those wishing to provide comment must sign up advance and review the public comment guidelines either online ( or at the check‐in table at the meeting.

4.   President’s Report

5.   Resolutions from Committee

  ‐‐Seconded Motion from ASAC:  Student conduct code – repeal of outdated IMD and consolidation of policies (pending December 2 committee action)

  ‐‐Seconded Motion from FFC: Repeal of SBHE policy #9 (pending December 2 committee action)

‐‐Seconded Motion from FFC: Approval of Bean Hall renovation project (pending December 2 committee action)

‐‐Seconded Motion from FFC: Naming of certain university facilities (pending December 2 committee action)


6. Government Affairs Updates

6.1 State Affairs: AVP for State and Community Affairs Hans Bernard will provide trustees
with an update on state affairs, including an overview of the University of Oregon’s priorities
for the 2016 legislative session.

6.2 Federal Affairs: AVP for Federal Affairs Betsy Boyd will provide an update on federal
government legislation and agency activities relating to higher education and the University
of Oregon.  Public Meeting Recessed

12:30 pm Small Group Lunches with Faculty

Public Meeting Reconvenes

7.   Tuition guarantee concept – update, Vice President for Finance and Administration Jamie Moffitt and Vice President for Enrollment Management Roger Thompson

Duck softball stadium gets 32 foot long jumbotron

You can’t make this shit up:

Screen Shot 2015-11-24 at 8.04.38 PM

The cost of this bloated project has gone from $8M to $16M. While the donor has apparently paid for all the construction, this is UO land that will now be off limits for academic use for a long, long time. At a very rough guess, it’s worth $10M. How much did AD Rob Mullens pay for it? His lapel pin says it all: $0 for academics.

And with a jumbotron like that, coach Mike White starts thinking he deserves big money too. $1.425M, to be exact. The RG story on this is here:

Softball ticket revenue is about $10K a year. Before the new raises for the coaches, costs were about $1.4M. The losses are covered from football profits. Why does the Duck Athletics Department get to spend those profits however they like? I don’t know. Back in 2004 the university took a serious look at athletics spending, and concluded that football profits should soon allow athletics to start contributing to the academic side. With deals like this, that will never happen.

Speaking of money losing sports, basketball fans are not exactly flocking to see Dana Altman’s team play in the country’s most expensive college basketball arena:

Screen Shot 2015-11-22 at 3.00.16 PM