UO Libraries Dean Adriene Lim will leave for Maryland

Dean Adriene Lim of the UO Libraries will step down in July

This message about the departure of Adriene Lim, dean of Libraries and Philip H. Knight Chair, was sent by Provost Banavar to faculty and staff in the UO Libraries.

May 28, 2019

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to let you know that Adriene Lim, dean of Libraries and Philip H. Knight Chair, has accepted a position as dean of the University of Maryland Libraries on the flagship College Park campus. Her last day at University of Oregon will be July 8.

Among the deans, Adriene has provided great vision for UO Libraries, and she has been a vocal advocate around issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Please join me in congratulating her on her new position. She will do great things at the University of Maryland and I am proud of her accomplishments.

In five years at UO, Adriene has completed a number of strategic initiatives and collaborated with her colleagues to enhance our teaching, learning, and research across campus. She has been the backbone behind UO Libraries strategic planning, implementing many initiatives that greatly improved infrastructure, programs, services, and systems for us all. She spearheaded improvements in operations in the Special Collections and University Archives department, conducted a redesign of Digital Scholarship Services in order to improve collaboration amongst humanities and social sciences faculty, and reinvigorated the libraries by recruiting and hiring talented staff and faculty.

Adriene took the lead in developing and improving the Libraries’ collection of resources in order to enhance research, creative inquiry, and student education. Under her leadership, UO Libraries joined the Digital Public Library of America and the HathiTrust digital repository, which allows users to have access to millions of digital resources and improved access for persons with print-related disabilities.

She worked closely with Advancement and helped the Libraries surpass an ambitious campaign goal of $36 million by reaching the $44 million mark. Her work has resulted in the completion of the renovation of the science library.

I will begin work immediately with my team to ensure a smooth transition. First, I will name an interim dean of UO Libraries by the end of June. I encourage you to send me any recommendations you might have for interim dean right away to provost@uoregon.edu. I will consult with department heads and others within UO Libraries to get feedback and ideas on how best to move forward. I also plan to hold an open office hour session at the Knight Library for staff and faculty to drop in to share your thoughts with me in person for a few minutes. This session will be held from 10:00 a.m. to noon on June 5 at a room location to be determined.

To be sure, there will be questions about the process of how we replace Adriene, and I will provide more information soon once my office establishes a plan. Like other academic leadership searches at this level, we will follow all standard practices, including putting together a diverse hiring committee and hosting public presentations for finalists.

We have had several changes in leadership at the deans’ level this academic year. These changes represent both challenges and opportunities to continue to build on recent successes. Adriene’s departure after her successful five years as dean of libraries creates a temporary void, but we will diligently work to appoint an interim before determining our next steps moving forward.

Please join me in congratulating Adriene. Our UO community appreciates all she did for the university; we will miss her, and we wish her the best.


Jayanth Banavar
Provost and Senior Vice President

Daily Emerald on UO financial strife

Reporter Zach Demars, here. The story mostly goes along with VPFA Jamie Moffitt’s view of the causes of the budget crisis and like our easily manipulated Board of Trustees, avoids discussing solutions such as cutting athletic subsidies, central administrative costs, or consulting projects such as the new faculty tracking software. Eliminating baseball and the athletic subsidies alone would save about $7M – almost the entire revenue gain from the likely 8% tuition increase.

Nevertheless she persisted – Freyd to appeal gender discrimination case

Gina Scaplone had the story last week in the Emerald.  Colleen Flaherty at InsideHigherEd has more here. Some snippets:

Jennifer Freyd, professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, has spent years studying the concept of institutional betrayal, including when institutions don’t help right the wrongs committed within them.

Now Freyd is battling her own institution in court. She alleges that Oregon failed to properly respond to what her own department chair called a “glaring” pay gap between Freyd and the men she works with — $18,000 less than that of her male peer closest in rank.

The case was just dismissed by a federal judge who said that the pay difference was more about the kind of work the men in her department do and the retention raises they’d secured over the years. But research suggests that even these explanations are rooted in issues of gender. Freyd has already filed a notice of intent to appeal.

… Both reviews traced the disparity back to retention raises given to professors who pursued outside offers. The self-study noted that this was concerning, as “it is not obvious that the frequency of retention negotiations is a strong indicator of overall productivity.” Rather, it said, “there is strong evidence of a gender bias in both the availability of outside offers and the ability to respond aggressively to such offers.” The outside review said it’s “widely recognized that there is a difference between the genders in terms of seeking outside offers, and if this holds at Oregon, then the bias does have a gender basis.”

Cahill attributed the trend to retention raises. And the earlier departmental studies noted that this factor is in itself gendered. Gomez said so, too. Is it?

… More recently, last year, the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education, based at Harvard University, published some findings of its first national Faculty Retention and Exit Survey.

Insights into the negotiation process suggest “some troubling gender bias,” the collaborative’s staff wrote at the time. “For example, among those who didn’t ask for a counteroffer, men are more likely than women to receive one, anyway; among those who do ask for a counteroffer, women are more likely to be denied.”

…  Despite that evidence, Michael McShane, the federal judge in Oregon who decided Freyd’s case, found her claims uncompelling and sided with the university against her. McShane said that unlike elementary school teachers, all professors do not in fact perform the same work, and that their pay rightfully reflects that. Put another way, equal pay for equal work only means someone when the work is mostly the same for everyone.

… All that aside, however, McShane said that offering retention raises to faculty who are being recruited by other universities is “justified by business necessity.” …

The docket is here. Among the more funny/sad parts of Judge McShane’s decision was his adoption of UO’s hired lawyer Paula Barran’s argument that Freyd should be paid less because she merely did survey research, while the men in her department used sophisticated brain-imaging equipment, and studied “bodily fluids”:

In his research, Professor Allen uses brain imaging and scanning technology, which requires specialized expertise and the supervision of technological staff. Allen Decl. ¶ 9. By contrast, Professor Freyd conducts her research through administering surveys, Freyd Decl. ¶ 16, which does not require advanced technology.

Barran also got a few laughs in court when she described one of Freyd’s notably milquetoast comparator colleagues as a “diversity warrior” – a phrase that suits him not at all, and her perfectly.

UO and President Schill are now going after Freyd for court costs – but nevertheless she is persisting.

Did Dana Altman stiff Duck’s Bol Bol on the customary emoluments?

Say it ain’t so!

The Daily Emerald’s Michael Tobin reports that UO General Counsel Reed is not investigating, but he is interested in going to LA to meet Michael Avenatti and receive more information from him. But not to investigate. UNLV is investigating, but Reed is just probing the situation.

I hope Mr. Avenatti and Mr. Reed will resolve their semantic differences and provide the public with documentation showing that the Duck’s $3.5M Dana Altman did indeed provide Mr. Bol Bol with the customary emoluments that a Duck basketball player should reasonably expect as compensation for their service:

“Now the question is, did Bol Bol receive this money or not, what has the university done to look into it and what’s the university’s explanation for these payments?” Avenatti told the Emerald. “This really isn’t complicated. The only reason that it becomes complicated is if the university is trying to cover it up.” …

“I’m going to be frank – this smacks of a coverup,” Avenatti wrote in a May 18 email to Reed. “If you haven’t opened an investigation, why not? What have you opened – a probe, an inquiry? Why the word-smithing?”

Reed responded the same day, writing: “I have taken care not to characterize your conduct. I would appreciate it if you would similarly refrain. I am, however, interested in facts. If you have facts to share, I would appreciate the chance to receive them. Let me know if you have further evidence.”

Reed also told Avenatti that he could be in Los Angeles on May 30 or 31, saying that, at the time of writing the email, he was still interested in meeting Avenatti and receiving more information that what Avenatti had previously shared on social media.

Avenatti declined to share information with Reed.

“Let me know when and if the University gets serious about getting to the truth by hiring an unbiased third-party to lead a real investigation,” Avenatti wrote.

In an interview with the Emerald, Avenatti said that the UO is “playing games” and that the question of whether UO opened an investigation comes down to semantics.

“So is there an inquiry? Is there a probe? Is there an investigation? I mean this is ludicrous; they’re acting like they don’t want to know the truth,” Avenatti said. …

New law lets DA fine Kevin Reed’s office $200 for public records fails

HB 2353 has now passed the Oregon House and Senate unanimously, and Governor Brown is expected to sign it soon:

I like how the fine goes to the requester of the records. This emergency legislation is indeed necessary for the sake of the public peace. In the past year the Lane County District Attorney has had to order Kevin Reed’s office twice to comply with Oregon law, and provide records that UO was trying to hide from the public:

And, in November 2018:

Brad Schmidt has petitioned the District Attorney to review a denial of a public records request made to the University of Oregon (University).

Mr. Schmidt asks that the University be ordered to disclose,

All Nike Elite allotment orders, including product descriptions, sizes, costs and delivery/shipping information, from the 2017-18 allotment made by the following individuals: Mike Mennenga, Josh Jamieson, Kevin McKenna, Tony Stubblefield.

In a letter explaining it’s opposition to the petition, the University characterizes the issue as follows.  The University has contracted with Nike, which requires, among other things, that Nike provide product to the University in a certain dollar amount.  In return, the University agrees that certain University personnel, and athletes, wear Nike apparel at what is described in the contract as “program activities.”  The University asserts that the contract requires it to provide Nike products to the affected employees and athletes to wear at such “program activities,” and that it does so through products provided to the University, and passed on to employees.  The University has also chosen to take a certain amount of the allotted Nike product amount, and dedicate it to a system referred as the “Nike Elite” website.  Currently this amount is set at $185,000.

The selected employee is given an allowance in a determined amount.   The University then notifies Nike of the employee who is authorized to receive product from the University’s allotment, and the amount of the employee’s allowance.  The employee then receives access to the Nike Elite website, where the employee can order Nike product.  The University places no restrictions on what is purchased, or for whom.[1]

The District Attorney’s review of the petition must be conducted under the umbrella of ORS 192.314(1), that,

Every person has a right to inspect any public record of a public body in this state, except as otherwise expressly provided…

That statute, and the exemptions thereto, reflect a broad public policy that disclosure of public records is the rule, and that any exemptions must be explicitly stated by statute and not simply implied therefrom.  Guard Publishing Co. v. Lane County School District, 310 OR 32(1990).

The University has proffered 3 reasons why the petition should be denied.

First, the University argues that the requested documents are not “public records,” as defined in ORS 192.311(5)(a).  The University asserts that the records are private records of the expenditure of compensation by an employee, and that the University does not possess the records, rather the involved employees possess the records.

The possession of the records is irrelevant. It is instructive to note that ORS 192.311(5)(b) provides that records of the public’s business are considered “public records,” even though they may be located on a personal computer.  Therefore, the threshold question is do the records “contain(s) information relating to the conduct of the public’s business.”  ORS 192.311(5)(a).  Further, the University refers to the conduct as “purchases” and “spending” or “expenditure” of compensation.  However, no money changes hands.  Simply put, the University grants the employee access to an account to obtain Nike product, that otherwise belongs to the University.  Although the University does not control the website, the University controls whether the employee is authorized to use the website to obtains portions of Nike product allocated to the University.  This is not private conduct, it is public business.

The University claims a number of “exemptions” protecting the records from disclosure.

First, the University asserts, pursuant to ORS 352.22(12), the records are “personnel records,” and are exempt from disclosure.  ORS 352.226(13) sets forth the definition of “personnel records.” The University does not specifically assert that the individuals named in the original public records request are “academic staff member(s).”  However, even if one or more of these individuals are covered by the statute, the records requested to not meet the definition of “personal records” as defined in the Faculty Records Policy.

Second, the University asserts that the petition should be denied pursuant to ORS 192.355(2)(a).  That section exempts from disclosure,

…information of a personal nature…if public disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy, unless the public interest by clear and convincing evidence requires disclosure in the particular instance.  The party seeking disclosure ears the burden of showing that the public disclosure would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

The District Attorney, in general, agrees with the assertion of the University that how a public employee spends their compensation, is a matter of personal privacy.  For instance, once an employee’s monthly pay is deposited in his/her bank account, it is not “public business” how that employee spend the money. However, as stated above, in this instance, the public employee is using a system to which they only have access by virtue of their public employment.  If that system is used to conduct public business, as opposed to private business, such use no longer qualifies as “information of a personal nature.”

In the blanket denial of the request, the University has failed to meet the burden of setting forth an individualized showing that specific instances of disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.  (See Mail Tribune Inc. v. Michael S. Winter, 236 Or App 91 (2010), requiring a sheriff to make an individualized showing that disclosure of a particular concealed weapons permit would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy).

At this point in time, the District Attorney has not asked the University for the records described in the petition, so that they may be reviewed to make the determination described above.  In fact, the University asserts they do not possess or control the records. ORS 192.411(1) provides the District Attorney with authority to  take one of three actions with regard to a petition, (1) grant the petition;(2)deny the petition; or (3) grant the petition in part and deny the petition in part.  The District Attorney has no other authority to order the public body to take any action, other than the disclosure of the records.

Given the amount of money involved, it can be assumed the records would be voluminous.  Further, simply reviewing the records themselves would not answer the question whether they are exempt from disclosure.  Rather, persons familiar with the records would be the ones to assert that particular records are exempt from disclosure and specific reasons why.

In Mail Tribune,   the court was faced with a similar circumstance.  Rather than try to parse out what hypothetical circumstances might render a record exempt from disclosure, the court instead noted that the burden of proof is on the public body, in a specific instance, to show that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.  The court went on to hold that the sheriff had not made a showing in any specific instance, and therefore ordered the disclosure of the entire request.  Further, since no showing had been made by the sheriff, the burden of proof did not shift to the party seeking disclosure to show that the public interest nevertheless demands disclosure.

Therefore, it is the order of the District Attorney that the petition is granted.  The University is ordered to disclose the records. The University has seven days to comply with this order, unless it issues a notice of declaratory or injunctive relief.

[1] The University advises that the employee can also use their allowance at the “Nike Store.”  These records are not part of the original public records request.

Trustee McIntyre to propose tuition freeze & cuts to Duck subsidies

Just kidding, there’s no sign that Faculty Trustee Laura Lee McIntyre will make any such motion, or raise any questions about why the board continues to rubber-stamp raises for Rob Mullens and his coaches while increasing undergraduate tuition and cutting museums.


Full Board meeting.

Original meeting materials here. Latest release here. For some reason the webcast link isn’t working.

– Call to order, roll call, verification of quorum – Approval of March 2019 summary (Action) [There is no mention of what this summary is in the posted materials.]

Public comment: 

The room is full, the public comments are blunt, calling out the Board for incompetence etc., e.g.:

Immediate Past Senate President / Current Faculty Union President Chris Sinclair:

The board of Trustees at the University of Oregon is in an untenable situation. The people ‘below you’ on the .org chart—represented by the people in this room—are supremely unhappy with the financial management and strategic vision of the university. Simultaneously the people above you, legislators and political appointees, are supremely unhappy with the financial management and strategic vision of the university.

It seems the only people happy with university leadership on budget issues are donors (and trustees themselves).

The mission of the university, approved by this body, is:

The University of Oregon is a comprehensive public research university committed to exceptional teaching, discovery, and service. We work at a human scale to generate big ideas. As a community of scholars, we help individuals question critically, think logically, reason effectively, communicate clearly, act creatively, and live ethically.

And aside from the vapid “human scale to generate big ideas” phrase, it is a good mission. The mission is the touch stone for decision making. It should be the North Star of the board—the words to revisit when making your decisions.

You are about to be asked to approve an extremely high tuition increase. You are being asked to finance the university on the backs of Oregon students. By doing this you are implicitly agreeing that it is more important to preserve athletics and other donor driven initiatives in exchange for millions in additional debt for Oregon students and families.

The University of Oregon has already telegraphed the message that, instead of plugging the looming budget shortfall. it is more important to install state-of-the-art sound systems in athletics facilities. The new speakers will undoubtedly come from donor money, but this is irrelevant. Legislators have already heard the message that speakers are more important than students. Faculty have heard the message that world-class athletics facilities are more important than students. Students themselves have heard that we’re broke, and that they should take on debt (and years of financial risk) to accommodate the fickle whims of an octogenarian billionaire.

How do these decisions, and the resulting negative change in public perception, benefit students? How do they benefit the relationship between the university and the state? How do they support the mission—the North Star—of the university?

This is but one example, and it is emblematic of a larger problem.

Cultivating donors is like trophy hunting for University Presidents. However, as a skill, it is only valued by other university presidents and those who measure their success in dollar signs. Our president is particularly good at this aspect of his job, and it will undoubtedly lead to a promotion to a better university one day.

On that day, will we be looking at a university with a handful of expensive white elephants littering campus, and serving a handful of elite researchers/coaches, while the core academic facilities rot from neglect, classrooms overflow, and Oregon students are saddled with debt?

Or will we see a “community of scholars, who help individuals question critically, think logically, reason effectively, communicate clearly, act creatively, and live ethically.”?

The choice is yours, and it’s time for you as trustee to shift the financial decision making back to the mission of the university. You must be brave. You must do this. The University of Oregon is counting on you.

Thank you.

Chris Sinclair
Associate Professor of Mathematics, University of Oregon

A student: “You ask us to go to Salem and lobby for more state money, but the legislators tell us they don’t trust you to spend the money wisely”

Prof Ellen Scott (Sociology) walks the board through some of the work that LERC and UO faculty and grad students have done and how it has led to changes in Oregon laws that have improved the lives of working Oregonians.

Prof Maram Epstein (East Asian Languages) asks the board to exercise their independent fiduciary responsibility to redo the proposed budget in a way that is consistent with UO’s mission as a public university.

Many, many students make comments as well.

Former staff Trustee Kurt Willcox: The university is turning away from its outreach mission to the state by defunding LERC and the museums.

1. ASUO and University Senate Reports

-ASUO President Maria Gallegos and Incoming ASUO Vice President Montse Mendez and Chief of Staff Hibo Abtidon

“Hayward Field does nothing for me. I’m a student.”

– Incoming Senate President Elizabeth Skowron

written comments in board materials

2. Provost’s and President’s Reports

these seem to be postponed

3. Undergraduate Resident Tuition (Action): Michael Schill, President; Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and Administration and CFO; Kevin Marbury, Vice President for Student Life

VP Marbury is upset because the ASUO President criticized him.

President Schill blames outgoing Provost Banavar for the budget cuts to LERC and the museums. This is chickenshit bizarre.

12:47, and none of the trustees have yet mentioned any of the issues that came up in the public comments, such as cuts to athletic subsidies.

Ginevra Ralph asks why students don’t understand about gift restrictions. VP Moffitt explains that they do, they just think the university should shift its fundraising priorities. (Or just tax athletic donations. The UO Foundation already taxes donations, but won’t explain where the money goes.)

Wilhelms reports that Pathways costs about $6M.

Lillis calls the question on President Schill’s tuition increase.

Ralph and Paustian talk about how difficult this is and what a great job VP’s Moffitt and Marbury have done. Paustian says he will vote no – but doesn’t present an alternative motion. Colas gives a shout out to the students and GTFFs – but doesn’t present an alternative motion.

Vote: All in favor except Paustian.

Recess: Estimated to Reconvene at 1:00 p.m.

4. Resolutions from Committee (pending May 22 committee action)
–Seconded Motion from FFC: Capital Construction Project (Housing Project Preliminary Costs) –Seconded Motion from FFC: FY20 Expenditure Temporary Authorization

5. Student Conduct Code Changes (Action): Kris Winter, Dean of Students

6. A Look at PERS: Tim Nesbitt, Interim Deputy Director of PERS Solutions for Public Services and former Higher Education Coordinating Commission Chair; John Tapogna, President and Partner, ECONorthwest economic research and consulting firm

7. Academic Area in Focus – ShakeAlert, ALERTWidlfire, and the Emerging Internet of (Wild) Things: Professor Doug Toomey, Earth Sciences

Meeting Adjourned

Native American Students Association protests Pioneer statue

11-2 today. Thanks to a reader for the tip:

As you know, “The Pioneer” is a statue that glorifies white supremacy
and settler-colonial violence against people of color, especially Native

NASU is holding a protest to take the statue down THIS WEDNESDAY
from 11am to 2pm. Please pass this on to your membership to attend!
We’ll have signs but feel free to BYOS (bring your own signs) as well.
See you there!

More in the Emerald here. In unrelated news, Harbor Freight has a good deal on an appropriate winch for a midnight removal to the Pioneer Cemetery. Just $399, until the Trump Tarriffs kick in:

Board of Trustees to meet Wed, Th on tuition, etc

See below for some light live-blogging. So far my takeaway is that most of the trustees haven’t done their homework and are asking softball questions, when they have any questions at all.

Note that Wednesday’s public committee meetings and the executive (closed) meeting of the board are in the Art Museum, starting at 8:30, while Thursday’s full Board meeting is in the Alumni Center, starting at 9:30.

Board Secretary Angela Wilhelms buries the agenda information in pdf files deep within the Board’s website, so as usual I have put it in more accessible form below. I’ll add some clips later and do some live-blogging.

Wed 8:3o AM Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art | Ford Lecture Hall

Finance and Facilities Committee

Meeting materials here. Note that, as usual, the Trustees have only been given the information about budget planning today, presumably so that they won’t have had time to digest it and ask tough questions. The new packet is here.

I assume that Board Chair Chuck Lillis learned this trick when he was on the board of Washington Mutual as it collapsed in one of the largest bankruptcies in history, leaving stockholders with 2 cents on the dollar.

For some reason Lillis has left his WaMu service and the lawsuits about the board’s failure to conduct due diligence off his UO Trustees biosketch:

1. Housing Transformation Capital Project – Authorization for Preliminary Expenditures (Action): Roger Thompson, Vice President for Student Services and Enrollment Management; Michael Griffel, Assistant Vice President and Director of University Housing

Sorry missed most of this. No coffee for the plebes.

2. Critical Business Functions Audit Project – Report and Update: Trisha Burnett, Chief Auditor

The usual.

3. Quarterly Financial Reports: Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and Administration and CFO

As usual Jamie focuses the discussion narrowly on the E&G budget, and doesn’t talk about what the administration talk about – e.g. the subsidies for athletics and the law school – which were supposed to be phased out by now but which instead continue to grow:

4. Financial Reports and Discussion: Savings Initiatives, Expenditure Reduction Efforts, and LongTerm Financial Projections: Michael Schill, President; Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and Administration and CFO

Jamie explains that UO is making significant administrative cuts from what is already a low level. Allyn Ford says that if this continues maybe the university should consider substantial program cuts. I assume he means the baseball program.

Ross Kari asks if Jamie can calculate what % tuition increases of this period would be needed.

Chuck Lillis points out that the problem is not costs, it’s revenue. Too little tuition, too little state support, too little donations. These, of course, are the problems that the UO Board was supposed to address, and which it has consistently failed at. Except for increasing tuition – they’re great at that.

Schill points out that, because we are unionized, the administration can’t arbitrarily freeze or cut faculty salaries during a recession, while continuing to subsidize themselves and the coaches. Yea union!

Short break.

5. FY20 Budget and Expenditure Authority Authorization (Action): Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and Administration and CFO

Approved, sent to full board.

6. Department of Intercollegiate Athletics Overview: Rob Mullens, Athletic Director; Eric Roedl, Deputy Athletic Director

As usual, they Ducks have prepared a flashy presentation. Will the trustees ask them any tough questions? Some obvious ones:

The university is in a budget crisis. Why aren’t you helping out by reducing your costs?

Why hasn’t the millions we spend on the Ducks lead to increased out of state enrollment?

Do you think your bragging and profligate spending on coaches’s salaries and shiny new facilities are part of the reason the Legislature doesn’t want to give UO more money? Because that’s what the legislators say.

Why do you keep pushing the costs of the Duck’s legal problems onto the rest of the university?

Yours is a risky business. Now, it makes no difference to me how a man makes his living, but don’t you think you should have more than a week of expenses in reserves? Or do you just plan on hitting up the academic side for more subsidies when you get another lawsuit?

When do you think the news about the most recent sexual assaults by your players will become public?

What do you think about the fact that the UO Foundation has withdrawn its guarantee for the 2021 IAAF championships?

Trustee Ginevra Ralph doesn’t ask anything above, but she does ask how one-and-done’s reflect on UO’s academic mission. Mullens says everyone else does it.

Meeting Adjourns


Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art | Ford Lecture Hall

Meeting materials here.

Executive Session re Labor Negotiations

The Board of Trustees will meet in executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(d) for purposes of conducting deliberations regarding labor negotiations with the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation. This session is closed to members of the public and the media. The meeting will be called to order and adjourned. No other topics or matters will occur on May 22. Notwithstanding the location listed above, this May 22 executive session will occur in the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art.

Wed 1:30 PM Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art | Ford Lecture Hall

Public meeting of Executive and Audit Committee

Meeting materials here.

1. Quarterly Audit Report and FY20 Audit Plan (Action): Trisha Burnett, Chief Auditor

Burnett reports that the number of reports to UO’s ethics hotline are unusually low for a university or size. Presumably this is because of the lack of trust that many UO staff and faculty have in her office – which has had a mixed past. The link to the hotline is here. As you can see you can report all sorts of things, anonymously:

Ginevra Ralph asks about the independent audit of the internal auditors. It turns out it’s not really that independent – it’s done by the internal auditors professional association.

Pres Schill asks about the audit of university committees. Burnett reports it’s a bit of a look at internal Governance. Schill asks if the audit will include Senate committees. Good question. Burnett says the intention is to start at the top, which I assume means the President and Provost’s committees.

Committee approves report.

2. Semi-Annual Enterprise Risk Update: Andre LeDuc, Associate Vice President and Chief Resilience Officer

I’d sort of thought this would include some actual information about the cost of UO’s various insurance policies, athletics riders, deductibles, payouts, etc. Nope. It’s all buzzwords and silly diagrams:

3. Semi-Annual Transform IT and Information Services Report: Jessie Minton, Chief Information Officer

Sorry, end of today’s live-blogging. I’ve got to get ready for the Senate meeting. See you tomorrow at 9:30AM and the Alumni Center.

4. New Program Proposal – PhD in Planning and Public Affairs (Action): Rich Margerum, Professor and School Head for Planning, Public Policy and Management

Meeting Adjourns


Full Board meeting.

Meeting materials here.

– Call to order, roll call, verification of quorum

– Approval of March 2019 summary (Action)
– Public comment

1. ASUO and University Senate Reports
-ASUO President Maria Gallegos and Incoming ASUO Vice President Montse Mendez and Chief of Staff Hibo Abtidon -Incoming Senate President Elizabeth Skowron

2. Provost’s and President’s Reports

3. Undergraduate Resident Tuition (Action): Michael Schill, President; Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and Administration and CFO; Kevin Marbury, Vice President for Student Life

Recess: Estimated to Reconvene at 1:00 p.m.

4. Resolutions from Committee (pending May 22 committee action)
–Seconded Motion from FFC: Capital Construction Project (Housing Project Preliminary Costs) –Seconded Motion from FFC: FY20 Expenditure Temporary Authorization

5. Student Conduct Code Changes (Action): Kris Winter, Dean of Students

6. A Look at PERS: Tim Nesbitt, Interim Deputy Director of PERS Solutions for Public Services and former Higher Education Coordinating Commission Chair; John Tapogna, President and Partner, ECONorthwest economic research and consulting firm

7. Academic Area in Focus – ShakeAlert, ALERTWidlfire, and the Emerging Internet of (Wild) Things: Professor Doug Toomey, Earth Sciences

Meeting Adjourned

UO Senate to meet Wed May 22nd: Elections, Online ed, CAS, FPC, governance, Core Ed

Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:15 PM   Approval of Minutes

3:16 PM     Business / Reports:

  • Report: Faculty Personnel Committee; Jack Boss (Music)
  • Legislative Update; Melanie Muenzer (Assoc VP Vice Provost of Academic Initiatives)

4:42 PM   Open Discussion
4:43 PM   Other Reports
4:44 PM   Notice(s) of Motion
4:45 PM   Other Business

  • Executive Session: Awards

5:00 PM   Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!

“Oregon Promise” shifted students from 4-year to community colleges

From InsideHigherEd, here. Read it all. The intro:

Boost for Community Colleges Means 1-Year Bust for Universities

New analysis of Oregon Promise tuition-free scholarship program found that it increased community college enrollment but decreased enrollment at four-year institutions in the first year, and that fewer first-generation and low-income students benefited financially than expected.

CONFIDENTIAL: search committee sideswipes 1/2 Price Provost run

Update: The Chronicle’s Zipporah Osei has an interview with me here (gated off campus).

Q. Do you think you would’ve been able to work with the administration, given the reputation you have with your blog?

A. Ironically, I have a very good working relationship with the university’s current president, Michael H. Schill. I think I’m actually one of his strongest faculty supporters. I’ve been serving as Senate president this year, and I was Senate president two years ago. I’ve been able to work with people in the administration to do some really good things for the University of Oregon. The most recent example would be the teaching-evaluations reform.

5/20/2019: I’m not really sure why this would be CONFIDENTIAL. I applied for the job of provost at a public university, and I didn’t get an interview. Surely that’s all public record – isn’t it?

From: University of Oregon Search <search@uoregon.edu>
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL – Thank you for your application
Date: May 20, 2019 at 11:18:48 AM PDT
To: William Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>

Dear Bill,

Thank you very much for your application for the position of Provost and Senior Vice President. The search committee gave very careful consideration to your application. We are sorry to inform you that you have not been selected for an interview.

We appreciate your interest in this important position and that you took the time to send us your application. Decisions of this sort are never easy, and we appreciate your desire to serve the University of Oregon.


[signed, search committee co-chairs]

I can only speculate as to why they refused to interview me. I did agree to a criminal background check, but my lawyer said that thing in Pocatello was expunged and not to worry.

Perhaps the committee has decided to take up Raghu’s 45% Provost offer?  Or maybe this student senator’s 25% offer – they clearly have a bright administrative career ahead of them:

“I will offer my bid to be “Quarter Priced Provost” and will do whatever President Schill tells me to do. I think I have a shot!”

In any case, I did get this great letter of recommendation from union president Chris Sinclair, which I’ll keep on file until the job opens up again:

VP for Communication Kyle Henley limits communication and trust

The email sent on his behalf below would seem to go against the advice in President Schill’s Open Mike from last week, which said:

  • Transparency is the best policy. Whenever possible administrators should be as forthcoming as possible, subject to the privacy rights of members of our community.

as well as UO’s Academic Freedom Policy, which states:

The University of Oregon encourages and supports open, vigorous, and challenging debate across the full spectrum of human issues as they present themselves to the university community. The University of Oregon protects free speech through Policy No. 01.00.16. This policy on Academic Freedom builds on these existing commitments by recognizing the special contexts of scholarship, teaching, governance, and public service.  …

c. POLICY AND SHARED GOVERNANCE. Members of the university community have freedom to address, question, or criticize any matter of institutional policy or practice, whether acting as individuals or as members of an agency of institutional governance.

Thanks to an anonymous reader for the email: